Roulette Vaddis Holy Grail

There is absolutely no time to analyze all this right now, much less write something. Only on Wednesday there will be some time.
This is for you, thank you for the answers and positive energy!
Hopefully you are not completely leaving us. I would like a little more of your inspiration, so that this does not become another mystery even more, in order to at least understand in which direction to move further.
But anyway, thanks for the communication!

 

My pleasure Platton. I truly do hope that you find your way sooner than expected. Remember, even with the things I've said, go confirm or disprove them with your own tests and always aim to understand. I gave you questions you could ask yourself concerning Vaddi's hints, just always aim to understand. I couldn't fall asleep or think of anything else, honestly. I just had to get to the bottom of it, maybe that's why I obsessed over analyzing every bet selection possible (not in the whole roulette game, but just in that realm). If you have programming skills or even simply excel skills, I'd advice you to do the same.

Lol I cannot promise to stay away a short while though as I have to finish testing then compile a prototype software, then test that, then polish it. I am pretty sure you're already aware that as a roulette student, work is cut out for you. There are no books, no mentors of the real thing.

Good luck, enjoy the euphoria, more especially the hilarious disbelief on how simple it is. Mathematically and logically, it is just too amusingly simple. I've written down on paper, the steps on how to best play it, based on my initial tests, of course. You won't believe it man, two instructions, maybe a third just to solve drawdowns. If I tell anyone who can program, it will literally take less than 30 mins to program the whole logic. Bye.

 

Jesus wept. An illusionary roulette master turd that flies past the gambling orbit streaking bright rays of utter leprosy trying to attract those who have an IQ of less than a banana. We salute you, not.

 

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about in this message, but I can assure you that everything you have done has nothing to do with what Vaddis explains.
Just like your answer that you only need one number to know what to play and when, is incorrect, unless you are doing it in a very advanced way.
What is needed are at least 4 spins, to know whether to play or not to play, then to know what to play, how many spins to play, etc.
I think you are talking about something that you suppose you have discovered, focused on what you are studying, but it has nothing to do with what vaddis says, it is all much easier, it does not require making those analyses, unless you understand something as simple as what he explains or even other people in the forum of how randomness works.

 

I am no master, nor an illusionary.

I am a roulette student, I think I've said this more than once. Or you can call me Rol.

[REPLY TO SERGIO]

Sergio, maybe yes, I am too advanced. And I have discovered this on my own, I didn't know Vaddi when I discovered this. I later read his hints and could relate to a lot. Like I said I am happy I saw Vaddi's reply too late or else I would've done what many of you are doing, trying to crack his clues. I simply researched & studied everything about the game. I have thousands upon thousands of spreadsheets, I formed my own understanding.

Okay, Sergio I will give you another free piece of information. There's a fixed range we talk about analyzing right?; 37 spin cycle. You do not need to fix it, restudy with a wider range for example, you will notice 'Sleepers' sweet spot of profit move downwards. You can move it all the way to 1 number covered. Even your four don't work that great on a 37 spin cycle range, around 7/8 is the perfect sweet spot, so you always have to wait and cover 6,7 or 8 numbers.

If you don't understand what I think is a simple table, then I guess I am too advanced. The 'Cumulative Consecutive Bets Table for Repeaters'. The title says it all, those are bets for covering the previous 'x number' of numbers and aiming to hit repeats and the table shows how far they go winning in a row and which bet selections are profitable and which are not. So its like for covering say 10 numbers alone I have a column to show me how far that would win a row. And then I have more columns for 9 covered, 8 covered, so on and so on.

I am now aware that you're comfortable being 'Vaddi's Treasure Hunters'. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I always wanted to intimately know and understand roulette, with a logic I formed through study and research ON MY OWN. I thought many roulette students were like me, but I was wrong. See, Vaddi didn't even give you a system to play, he gave you hints on where to look. But if Einstein would come here and say "the only way to win is to steal from the table." Most of the Vaddi believers will shoot him. My findings are similar to that of Vaddi, i know it. I would never have presented the way he did though. Simple. I go strictly scientific and statistical and mathematical. I am doing this to create the most powerful software ever so i don't have time to form simplified betting schemes in order to help someone play it with pen and paper. So far, when i hit a drawdown elsewhere, I can simply look in less/more numbers covered or even change ranges. B/c I have explored almost every weakness of this interesting phenomenon=37 spins, 24 shown, 12 repeats.

Remember guys, I am not here to sell or entice anyone. I may actually regret having done this. I made my intentions very clear at the beginning. I was interested in knowing who got it. I got Platton, chap is so wonderful he didn't want me to keep spoon feeding him what is ultimately my understanding, he wants to form his own and grasp it fully. I was hoping I meet more people like myself, that's all.

 

The basis of Vaddi's hints is plain. In 37 spins you get around 12 repeaters, 12 hit once, 13 sleepers. That's the basis. If you study everything there is concerning this then you will know what Vaddi knows and more.

Oh btw I am not an english native speaker, I am sure many of you have noticed. Maybe that's what's creating the misunderstanding.
But if you reduced everything I have said to just that phrase then you got me.

"At the beginning of every 37 spin cycle, the sleepers are hitting rapidly right? b/c there are always more of them.
And that is always the case."

- Do you believe me? Are you going to do the research to find this out?

or if I say to you...

"Sleepers can never dominate the closing stages of a 37 spin cycle because there will be too few of them by then."

- It may make some sense but do you believe it, in a random game, do you believe it could always turn out true?

And once you've answered these questions, having found the sweet spot .i.e "how many numbers to cover".

Then you can explore other ranges like: 60 Spin Cycles where you 'ALWAYS' get on average:
8 sleepers; 10 appeared once; 19 more than once.

 

It would be easy for many people to derive a lot from Vaddi if he offered a system. But sadly, he did not. It sounded like a system at some point but many of you hardly understood him. You have to somehow do the research, unfortunately. Perhaps people who profited from it were people who could hop onto a computer and do quick tests and they stayed offline forever since. He was offering guidance and support to roulette students. When I started I used to hop onto forex, roulette, lotto, options pages just to be there in case someone ever leaked some loophole. I am afraid most people online are looking for that, thus, it will be EXTREMELY difficult to even understand Vaddi's hints having not been a roulette student yourself, and by the sound of it from Sergio, he was a student himself.

Goodbye now.
gosh it was lovely being here, I cannot stay away now.

 

When I calculate out a 37 spins cycle, I get these averages:
13/37 numbers sleep
24/37 numbers show
Of the 24 that show:
14/24 show one time
10/24 show more than once

Repeater and sleepers don't match, singles and sleepers are very close to the same. These are the long term averages, am I doing something wrong?

 

With all due respect, I say again that what you are talking about is not the same as what Vaddis is talking about.
I understand and respect all your work, but you are not the only one who has worked on this and I can assure you that I have been studying roulette for 2 decades.
I have been studying Vaddis for years, I have given it a thousand turns and I discovered perfectly what he told us.
You only need to look at the last 8-9 numbers, find the right moment and place the right bets to win, you can even do it looking only at the last 4-5 numbers.
I can even tell you that this is not the only way you can use his concept of the game, there are other people who apply it in other game formats.
I know another person who uses it in a totally different way playing sectors of the cylinder, I found a way to apply it with two groups of numbers on the table, which are very frequent and I apply the same technique, although I also apply another technique simultaneously.
There was also another person a long time ago, who also managed to discover how to do it in his own way with groups of 4 numbers.
I can also apply it to repeated numbers, to sequential groups, etc etc.
So, I have to tell you, that what you do, must be some way that you yourself have discovered and that may coincide with what vaddis is referring to, but logically, it is the knowledge base to beat the game.

 

Yes, we keep agreeing on our posts yet I sense some form of misunderstanding. Hence I always only mention the logic. All these things including playing 4, I agree, i just said on a 37 spin cycle for repeaters in isn't that great. You and I keep saying there are many variations, having seen more options myself, i can never disagree but trust that the notion of balance Vaddi is hinting at, I am hinting at. I never said my way is the only way but I also say Vaddi's isn't the only way. That's why I keep saying if you want to learn, don't even read the things I say for fact, go study and form your own understanding. I can never doubt anyone who says they have it, I have seen it myself and seen many ways to exploit it. I just went to Vaddi's hints again and compared with my statistical findings, still a super correlation there. I cannot give away all. I could even tell why he formed particular hints the way he did. To me it feels like i understood him clearly, you haven't seen my work to know that it's nothing similar, perhaps the way I explain you don't understand but i got what I got through the same basis. Even the 'perfect' # of numbers to cover, they match. But that's not the only thing I've seen with this approach, perhaps maybe the misunderstanding.

 

Did you just use one cycle?

Please take as many cycles as you can and then calculate the averages and then post.

 

Oh sorry I didn't see that you said long term averages. Let me get mine and see. What kind of wheel?

 

Oh sorry, you're correct Timothy, those are correct and I hope people you've seen my previous posts see this correction, yes your averages are correct. Damn and I have mentioned it so many times. But those averages will give you the same results as Vaddi too, however there is a range or spin cycle where you can have them equal on average and perhaps I was continually referring to that cycle but yes:

24 Shown; 14 repeats and 10 singles. 13 sleepers.

I hope everyone see this correction but it's just my silly mistake, still doesn't change the outcome. You will see more or less the same as I have mentioned still.

Once you study that then you can find that spin cycle/range where they are equal and you will still find a weaknesses there too.

 

And doesn't that blow your mind Timothy? Even the numbers themself on their own don't show such incredible balance. To constantly do 'one' thing more or less throughout its entirety. Look for weaknesses yourself, don't try forming a strategy based on what I or anyone else say. But use it as a form of research and find your own perspective and then create a balanced system.

 

I remind you, more especially Sergio. I am in no way disrespecting or belittling Vaddi. I think he is genius. And I think that I am below him. Seriously, thats why I have to test everything, he could just make sense in his head and then put it together and then establish that it was profitable. That came to me only after I analyzed results. If you feel dumb like me, I STRONGLY advice you, don't box yourself trying to be genius, just test the heck out of this logic and see where and how it likes to produce profit. I promise you will see a lot of Vaddi's hints in it and more.

 

There was no need in running any test or thousands of cycles to determine those averages. Just a simple calculation using the binomial distribution of the numbers. Thank you for your inspiration, Vaddi is what initially brought to trying to solve roulette. Still haven't found it yet, I hope I'm getting closer. There are a lot of very knowledgeable people here, we are fortunate.

 

Nobody seems to understand me perfectly. I am not trying to be clever, merely simple. Yes hence I replied quick, those calculations can't take long. But these will:

For 37 spin cycle:

Find profits in only 1 number available to cover in repeats
Find profits in covering 2 numbers only playing repeats
Find profits in covering 3 numbers only playing repeats
And so on....then:

Find profits in covering 1 number only playing sleepers
Find profits in covering 2 numbers only playing sleepers
Find profits in covering 3 numbers only playing sleepers
And so on...then you can explore changing cycles to see what it does.

Those will take a bit of time...

 

You certainly can arrive there Tim.

One of the wheels I have recently been testing loves repeats, sleepers work too but check how long repeats tend to trend? They are mixed in this next graphic meaning I have mixed covering 2 numbers, 3 numbers, 4 numbers and so forth:



The graph shows playing with a progression which I believe wouldn't even be possible in a casino because of bet limits, but look at how long the repeats go on winning in a row/consecutively. Of course you first have to wait and see a number of wins in a row before playing. Sergio I am not saying this is Vaddi's grail but I arrived there having explored the same logic. I tested 200 (500 spin) sessions. so that's about 100 000 spins.

 

42 spins on a 37 number wheel, sleepers and repeats should be equal to 11-12 numbers each. Again that's the binomial distribution of the numbers, I haven't ran any tests to verify it.

Your chart obviously makes no sense to me or anyone who doesn't understand what the data in each cell represents. That might be too much information or useless to us without our own testing.

 

That is why i keep saying go ahead and conduct test on your own buddy. I am not selling u anything, am I.

And brilliant u have already uncovered which range produces the equality. Congrats. Now u can go ahead and test in that cycle, for covering 1 repeater, for covering 2 repeaters and so on. Not all will show profitability but some will.

I just explain the graph, it plays repeaters only in 500 spin sessions and playing it with a positive progression that follows wins in a row.

Anyway for anyone starting...I know its obvious to begin by just creating a system covering the last 8 numbers and then test for profit, that is not the correct way.

I will make an example with sleepers:

37 ,36 ,35 ,34 ,33 ,32 ,31 ,30 ,30 ,29 ,28 ,28 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,24 ,23 ,23 ,22 ,21 ,20 ,20 ,19 ,19 ,18 ,18 ,18 ,17 ,17 ,17 ,16 ,15 ,14 ,13 ,13 ,13 ,12

This is one cycle showing number of sleepers we can cover for each spin, first spin is on the left. Of course, at the very beginning there is always 37 sleepers to play, but lets say we want to cover for 10 only, 10 doesn't ever appear in that cycle, so we never played any sleepers in that cycle. So it depends on how the cycle is going, don't just go into the past and take the most recent 10 numbers and test for weaknesses. Make sure you understand this logic.

37 ,36 ,35 ,34 ,33 ,32 ,31 ,30 ,29 ,28 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,24 ,23 ,22 ,21 ,20 ,19 ,18 ,17 ,16 ,16 ,16 ,15 ,14 ,14 ,14 ,13 ,12 ,11 ,10 ,9 ,9 ,9 ,9 ,9

Here's a cycle where sleepers do reach 10 to cover, even 9. That's the only time you will ever play 10 numbers for sleepers. If the cycle don't reach that point, you cannot play 10 to cover.

Lol I am glad you said this:

"That might be too much information or useless to us without our own testing"

See, that's what I think Vaddi's info has done to most. You won't get it without your own testing. Those who were familiar with testing, I bet you they laughing hard somewhere.