Thank you bluangel. I do not look for a new system. As I said, I was amused by the challenge to find a better solution than the one proposed by Reyth. I figure out a progression that last equivalent of 249 spins with a need for a single hit to be victorious, and the bankroll required of 355 units.
As each and every system I like, gains merely one unit a game, but the majority of games last few spins, so I asked For some math. If the system takes a loss every 900 games, grossly, means that I have a positive balance of 555 units.
If this is the true, it will be the second system in my personal portfolio (not really, because I didn't test this for more than a couple thousands spins, so so far it is just theoretical for me).
Any system that requires more than 1000 units as bankroll, will be discharged by me immediatly. Sorry for that.
I do understand that any system of play which requires more than 1000 units is a bit not practical, the same goes for any method which requires a lot of time in regards with its possible profit.
In other words there must be a balance between risk, reward and time.
By saying non practical doesn't necessarily means a losing method but an unbalanced way.
Balance comes from: wins - losses = balance, then compare this balance with the total amount of money and time you invest in the game and you finally realize how much balanced is a method.
Profitable and practical is two different things, some overvalue the simplicity and perhaps is a good element but it isn't equivalent to positive results.
I truly believe that not everything is for everyone...some people may be good in some certain aspects of life, while others on different things, so the same exists in roulette game, some overvalue the simplicity perhaps because they cannot use more complicated strategies and they are doing very well because this way "they don't bite more than they can chew".
If you ask me, I value results over simplicity, if a strategy is complex but rewarding then I'd train myself in order to make it my second nature.
No need for apologies mr Talos, point well taken!:-)