Since the creation of the roulette wheel and the foundation of roulette game,knowledge around gambling has been evolved.This is a fact which is hard to deny.
However the rules of the game remain the same as used to be approximately 1 and a half centuries ago.
This leads to the conclusion that if something remains static,while the opposite side progressing,that eventually will overcome the static side.
If my conclusion is true,then why the majority of roulette gamblers cannot overcome the HE in order to become overall/long term winners?
This is an accurate objection,however,there is an answer.
For all the long term losers there must be a common element which they share in order to be,all of them,in the negative side.
You might wonder what could it be? So many different people are using a lot of different approaches to the game,so how could be even 1 mutual element among them?
The answer is quite simple,perhaps they are using different strategies,methods,systems,money managements,but there is however 1 single mistake which is the same for all of them!
What is it,can you think of something?
There are systems/methods which are more conservative,persistent than others and another category which includes the more aggressive and less stable systems/methods.
I'm not advocating either side,the first would gain less profit more times and it's going to lose more money less times,while the second will gain more profit less times and it's going to lose less money more times.
In this generalization both of the approaches seems equal in the end,but there is something else which,both of them,have in common.
All of them are winning from time to time (and losing),what it changes is the frequency of the winning and losing sessions,as well the amounts being won or lost,but none of them could always win or lose.
Let's face it,you can not avoid defeat,but you could minimize it if you include it in your plans.
How could someone minimize the loses? Here comes the important part so pay attention!
No matter what method of play and/or system you are using,it cannot be an overall winner. Why?
Let me remind you the opening of this post; "...if something remains static,while the opposite side progressing,that eventually will overcome the static side."
Now let's place your system in the static side and the roulette results in the progressing,evolving,changing,dynamic side...which side do you think has the upper hand?
Why you think so?
There is no system/method which could satisfy all the conditions one might encounter on the ever changing roulette outcomes,every system could win just once or more,but none always because no matter the approach,it's static,passive,while the outcomes are not.
Therefore it cannot adapt to the new conditions which are not always the same,for every "left" there is a "right",for every "up" there is a "down"...and so on
Thus if you apply a strategy which supports only one side of the "coin",sooner or later you are going to lose.
This leads to the conclusion that there is the need for a flexible strategy which could been adjusted to any kind of outcomes. Is it possible? Of course!
Let's begin with the definition of such strategy,shall we?
The very first thing we have to discard is to use the same approach all the time!
So there must be,at least, two quite different methods.The alternatives provide us flexibility,flexibility means an ability to adjust to the ever changing outcomes.
How one could know before hand which of the two (or more) methods would work on any given session?
One word: pre-qualification!
You have to pre-qualify the game before you sit down at the chair of the table.
Let's say you have some certain conditions to meet regarding your two (or more) alternatives,see if you were betting both of them simultaneously,which one would gain the most? Option A or option B??
The pre-qualification period doesn't have to be too long,you have to act before it's too late.
Yet you might oppose my reasoning by stating: "By the time I finish pre-qualification and begin betting,what I saw has changed because it didn't last long"
This might not be the case always,but yet again could happen,that's why you should have an alternative for applying both of your methods/systems simultaneously.
You might think: "By applying two quite different systems simultaneously,how I could gain a profit? Because when one is winning the other is losing"
The answer is to increase very conservatively the winning side,while the losing one to remain on the same levels until it starts winning.
Whether you decide to select 2 or more approaches,it's up to you!
Whether you decide to apply 1 approach at a time or not,it's up to you!
What it matters most of all is the main principle, flexibility provides endurance and endurance provides the gain!
"Conquers the one who endures"