If we could build a bridge between ....

Started by winkel, Dec 09, 2022, 04:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 05:49 PMCould you explain what "finals" are?

maybe this old pdf will help....its years old but when I was younger in this game I managed to get hold of the original author of it...


Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 14, 2023, 08:36 PMmaybe this old pdf will help....its years old but when I was younger in this game I managed to get hold of the original author of it...

A very great present! Thank you very much!


Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 14, 2023, 09:04 AM
Quote from: HardMan on Jan 10, 2023, 04:30 PMit gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;
there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.
The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result

would you care to provide a visual example of this statement ..a very simple one..I think it could really be of help to winkel..

First some context:

•  as we all know unless relying on some advanced mechanisms potentially some form of advantage play as comps prediction or precognition, there's no ev+ bs
•  thereof my system(s) are not bs-centric, meaning relying on other mechanisms to win; although there are bs types that produce better results than others in terms of average spins till hit & similar, although it may not affect the maximums too much
•  basically, any type of bs may be inserted into the system as a cartridge .. constituting the 1st order system adaptability
•  as my base-systems (intra-session module) are parachute-based = advanced extended parachute to be precise, the play moves forward/back through & utilizing various payouts (EC→ST, very occasionally SP .. however not as a single position, more as a lego-type tool appropriately grouping & covering the actives = recent numbers out)

Now, to the more case-specific.

Let's say that the game is in the exposition range requiring ≈Q,ST payout range.

We should strive to transcend in our design & execution of it, what @BlueBuzzard (exemplary-only) commented as & similar; limit ourselves/system to be designed & executed statistic-centric for the ease of generating stats, by focusing (at a specific time .. relevant to the parachute, or the whole system consisting of one payout only) ..

we may observe that the positioning of a per-spin, or block of spins, placement results in being inadequate to how the actives are coming out.

To be precise & comprehended let's use an example of utilizing the spin placement consisting of ST positions only:
•  from the point of view of columns, we may run into an interval where only two are hitting & on a prolonged streak;  practically speaking, you'll see either &or both, the resulting actives only hitting two rows of felt, & secondly, other including neighbouring streets will be hitting = all around our effectuated placement
•  first off, the quiescent (su within street) areas are being inefficiently covered, where those units or fractions of them may be better utilized & invested somewhere else, according to what is currently! happening .. covering some other numbers as well or instead
•  second off, mitigating the above & transforming a potential ST placement, in rigid design-originated, using the so-to-say 'raw credits' by replacing it with a Q position instead;  this will, first of all, cover the targeted su numbers within a street anyway, & in addition (ad-hoc) adjust the form to the intent more appropriately or suitably, .. with Q position instead, covering in addition to those eg. two targeted numbers (being the actives within that street), redistribute the raw credits we would also use anyway, as fractions, into two neighboring street numbers .. giving us a better probability of hit based on what is currently happening as the 2nd order of adjustability.

Thus we may combine both Q & ST payout types as positions in our per-spin placement, adjusting to the dynamic of the state the outcomes are currently in, & until it fizzles out .. giving an additional edge; rather than the positioning remaining static, resulting in such intervals as an effect/consequence if the bs/system interacting with them .. by the use of adjustment on those points of transitions of & maintained through the states instead.

To further support the above & give quantifying tools for the execution of those.

Let's say we, while maintaining the full/big picture, focus on dozens & columns .. we may say that the unfolding of outcomes happens within two states -- all three out (in three spins or more), & only two out .. maintaining the dynamic of the state, whichever permutation is getting realized in, until fizzling out = the appearance of the 3rd, as the unequivocal indication of its termination -- & alternating between them.

As implied above, we don't have to use DZ & CL position types only as bets to take advantage of the fact, per-spin placement may take multiple varieties of forms .. based on the exposition amount, exposition amount after a hit & which hit (having a set of specialized warriors purposed on the task to be executed strategically), & the number of hits required .. in the ad-hoc forming of  & adapting the trajectory (=opt between best, most cost-effective predetermined set of them) to ≈ +1 (or insert whatever) & finish the game -- as the 3rd order of adjustability.

Such 'focused views' can be many & also combined, meanwhile maintaining the awareness of the total picture is imperative, paramount -- let's take into account double streets .. this is the most balanced (middle payout = ease of standardization) & visually easy to track areas (visual dexterity, low cognitive load, transcending the use of per/paper doing all the required for the execution simply in the head) -- further, Qs & ST smoothly fit within those.

The smartest of you already see what I am pointing at ..


After months of testing I found the solution:

Flat betting and StopWin no matter what the amount is.


Quote from: winkel on Dec 16, 2022, 12:18 PMfor example:

If you bet on streets flat bet then you can bet 11 times and end up with +1 if you have a single win.
You will end up -11 with no wins.

But there are spins, where you win twice or 3 times.

If you do several runs you will have results like this


but if you would stop at first win (hit) you could have results
+11 (win in first spin)
+6 win in 5th spin
+10 (win in spin 2)
-11 no wins no change in results possible
+5 first win in spin 6

with the multiple wins it could be that the results are higher if you had stopped at the maximum

if you collect
- all end-results
- all stopp-win results
- all maximum results

you will find
- all ends - in the long run you will lose
- all stop wins - in the long run you will lose mor, because you collect all maximum losses but only minimum wins
- all maximum - you will only collect the very best result.

the problem is, that you don´t know when you jhave reached the "maximum"

Nobody knows that, regardless of betting selection.
Hit and run or "playing like a rat" as I call it, doesn't provide any long term profit.
Yes, it might be easier to win just a handful of units, or even just 1, but this cannot go on forever and when that moment comes how many units are you willing to give back or to risk in order to keep on winning that single unit?!

Such tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.
Do you want truth?
You cannot handle the truth!


Quote from: BlueAngel on Aug 15, 2023, 12:06 AMSuch tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.

Thks for the compliment.


Why? Are you playing like this?
I thought you were not one of them!
Besides I don't see a valid reason for categorizing numbers as "finals", why do we have to select the specific groups of numbers?
Variance doesn't distinct between black, red, odd, even, high, low, or any kind of artificial groupings among any number.
The objective truth is that every given spin only one number comes up and that number occupies a single slot in the wheel.
That slot might had a letter instead of a number for reference purposes, in that case when you had a sequence forming a, s, h, e then would you complain why the 5th result is not an "s"?!
What I'm trying to say is that roulette doesn't conform to any particular logic/reasoning, it merely coincides sometimes and this is why every kind of betting is always sometimes and not always.
Do you want truth?
You cannot handle the truth!


If you just have a conviction but can´t argue it empirical nor theoretical you have to say something like:

QuoteSuch tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.


Day 1, you made profit. How far in the hole did you get? I would try and handle it like the stock market.

Set a profit of 2x your stop loss. Just pure system over time. Lose 2 days, win 1, you break even.