Roulette Ideas

This is just for explanation of the basics of my thoughts.

If we start a game we have 37 numbers all non hit yet. (short F0)
After the first spin we have left 36 numbers unhit and have 1 number hit. (number hit once or more short F>0)

If we continue the count of unhit number will decrease and the count of numbers hit will increase.

In very rough example and picture:

This is what I call the crossing.
This will always happen
This must happen
This is natural
This is a fact

Some came and said I test this crossing 19 unhit vs. 18 hit - It lost.

What the hell did they expect?
It is the equivalent to an EC-Bet.

What it means:
It is not the bet-advice.
It is not the strategy.
It is just theoretically explanation what happens.

For the future:
Don´t bet more than 17 numbers
Don´t bet only one selected crossing

If we go to the elaborated theories we will find the binomial distribution.
We have numbers non hit : F0
We have numbers hit exact once: F1
We have numbers hit exact twice: F2
We have numbers hit exact 3 times: F3

additional we can group numbers like this:
numbers that have hit at all: F>0
numbers that have hit more than once: F>1
numbers that have hit more than twice: F>2
and so on.

We can draw a graph from each numbers-group.
There will be crossings with all lines
So GUT is not only betting sleepers.
At start of the game it is neccessarily so, but later there will be no more sleepers and will bet on one of the other groups.




So lets have a look what a picture is created of that distribution:
(for more to see and understand I took a streak of about 100 theoretical spins)

This is the Theory of GUT.
If we handle it with intelligence we can create wins.
If we bet on a Spin-Sequence there will be different crossings.
Some will win
some will lose
It is the mix that gives us a gain
If you are in any plus - Stop betting - go home.

QuoteQuote from: BlueBuzzard on Today at 08:56 AM
many years ago member Kon-fu-Sed coded his GUT system and posted the results on the VLS forum. It failed (results were perfectly in line with the house edge). Winkel acknowledged this but said no system works all by itself, you have to use "gambler's intelligence". But what exactly is that? Winkel never gave an answer.

It is funny how faulty claims survive despite of me correcting them.

Do always bet red after black. What do you expect to happen?
That is the way of the Kon-fu-sed testing.

In a spin-sequence there are several different crossings, some win and some lose. The combination of betting different crossing is the way to bet.

If you bet with closed eyes, putting money on the table without looking "what is going on". You will lose with any strategy.

If you can´t see e.g. this streak is favouring repeaters and you keep on betting sleepers, you surely don´t have "gambler´s intelligence".

This is also the problem with every coding: The code puts every bet. It doesn´t mind it being crazy.

another example:
you get a sequence
18 10
17 11
16 12
15 13
14 14
Do you know the statistics which tell how many sleepers can appear in a row? surely not more than 37?
So just ask yourself: Do I bet this crossing? give yourself an answer. Decide to bet or not to bet.
That is what I mean with gamblers intelligence.

Last example
14 18
14 17
14 16
14 15
14 14

Would you bet this crossing? There have hit only F1 or higher for 6 spins. When will a sleeper hit again?

As you can see a crossing 14 14 is never always the same, there are different ways to create it.

Betting crossings that are not neighbours

normally we bet like this:
F0 vs F1 or
F4 vs F5

but we have also crossings like F0 vs F3 if the count shows
F0 F1 F2 F3
 7 14 10  6

The crossing would be perfect if
- F0 decreases
- F3 increases

Betting F0 only wouldn´t make F3 increase
Betting F2 only would decrease F0
so we have to bet both groups
T

Quote from: winkel on Feb 12, 2023, 12:34 PMBetting F0 only wouldn´t make F3 increase
Betting F2 only would decrease F0
so we have to bet both groups

sorry this is correct:
Betting F2 only wouldn´t decrease F0

If we only concentrate on the lines of the graphs to cross we have to consider:

a)There are lines which are constantly decreasing: F0
b)There are lines which are constantly increasing: all lines defined by F>x
c)There are lines which increase very fast and then turn to decreasing: all lines definded by Fx (exactly hit)

lines of c) can also sometime "wave"

If we bet a crossing we have to see that we can´t bet on "decreasing F>x" or increasing F0
sounds funny, but learn about

Another main rule.

If you got several crossings to bet ...

If in doubt don´t bet
You can be right with your decision or wrong. If you don´t bet you definitely don´t lose.

and

Don´t hesitate. Make a decision

Winkel...you don,t have to justify yourself because of the other thread..even after bluebuzzards comment...

GUT is an awesome visual tool the way you have just presented it...it will always be an outstanding piece of work..

visual in a way that roulette works...I really did like my simple explanation of the mechanics of roulette...two up described the formula on the other forum...formulas are great...but for the simple person a basic explanation with visuals is a lot better...GUT is such a visual..and simple explanation...not everyone is maths orientated ..

no disrespect to TwoUp...I do like his maths side to explain things...

Quote from: 6th-sense on Feb 12, 2023, 05:57 PMWinkel...you don,t have to justify yourself because of the other thread..even after bluebuzzards comment...

I don´t justify myself.

Vic asked me to present GUT in this Forum. And a long time I didn´t like the idea, because it is a lot of work to explain it in correct way.

So I just decided to give answers to questions and explain wrong quotes. So that everyone can read the right explanation here in this forum.

Hi @winkel

Thank you for once again trying to explain the "Great Universal Theory"  which in fact is based on the "Universal Bounce Theory" which can be applied things like Roulette and Dice Outcomes.

I agree with others in this post you do not have to justify yourself, this way of playing Roulette works for you and that is all that matters.

It's not your fault or problem that people can't get their heads around what you are trying to get across to them.

Your method is based on intelligent interpretation on what is actually going on at the table right now, or what I like to call "Skilful Play" and that is something a lot of people can not get there head around or do.

Why? That's easy because they are of the opinion that you can put a method through thousands of spins and that will show if a system/method is a winner or not.

And those that have coded GUT and said it has failed have clearly not understood what you was trying to get across in your original post in rouletteforum.cc I think that was the correct site, if not I am sure someone will be more than happy to correct me :)

This kind of method can not be played like a robot, it has to have some sort of intelligent input in the bet selection process, and this is one of those methods that the more you understand and the more you play it the better the results you will get, and that is because the decisions you make will be based on the hundreds of hours you have put in to thy and master this method. 

Methods like this are not a quick fix, you have to keep playing and practicing it, and have the aptitude to play it.  Look at this another way you could learn and study all the rules to Poker and understand them inside out, but that will not necessarily make you a grate Poker player, a good one maybe but a great one probably not.

Look I understand that proper testing is needed with methods posted on these forums but some things can not be tested by putting it through thousands of spins, because the rules are guidelines that are not fixed in stone, because each session/game is different.  But that does not mean they are a failure it just means you have not got the skill or patience or aptitude to play that method correctly based on the authors instructions.

I'm sure I will get some hate for this post but to be honest I don't really care, this is just my humble opinion and I am entitled to it just the say way you are entitled to yours.

Thanks

@malcop