Roulette A case for betting fewer numbers (from RF)

Not sure where to start with this but ya'll pretty much know where I'm headed. Stay tuned.

Talk about complimenting complimenting complimenting *KEN* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like to use as few numbers as possible. Ideally betting just 4 numbers.

Occasionally I bet just one number. It's when the layout is covered in
stacks of chips and just one number has nothing. I have seen that
number come in a few times over the years. It always makes me smile.
The strange thing is whenever I bet on it, it won't come in.
It seems that Mr Random doesn't want me to spoil his fun.

 

As someone who has criticized Ken in the past, I think that he and Turbo are building something highly-valuable with this idea.

Two vets that tested a ton of methods, and ended up in a similar place using 4 (or less) numbers/repeaters.

Now the question is will they follow it through to success/failure, or will this just become another rabbit hole that ends up in the junkyard of roulette theories.

 

YAWN ..

 

That guy Gizmo who thinks I'm somebody else, needs to be in this posting to liven it up a little bit!

he's a pretty smart cookie in regards to roulette at least my opinion!!!!!

 

I read the original post and there's some flaws there - not on purpose I'm sure.
One of course is not factoring in the 0 (or 0/00 etc) into the calculation.
The author puts up 18 numbers vs 12 numbers for example, but the 0 plays
a part in this and that is why the "math" presented in the post is wrong.

To make this easier...

A) Place bets on 18 numbers for 37 spins. Force each number to show once
(not that they will, but this is where the math comes from in the game)
So I'll play 1-18 and then spin 37 times with each number appearing once.
There are 18 winning bets and 19 losing ones (single 0 wheel)
B) Place bets on 12 numbers for 37 spins. Force each number to show once
So I'll play 1-12 and then spin 37 times with each number appearing once.

A) = the net comes out to -2.70 in favor of the house.
we are at -18 units (because 18 numbers were played).

B) = the net comes out to -2.70 in favor of the house.
we are at -12 units (because 12 numbers were played).

Now, in theory you could say there is a benefit in 12 over 18 - but that isn't true.
(isn't accurate). The edge stays exact if you play 23 numbers, 13 numbers, 2 numbers or 1.
Playing less numbers (in itself) doesn't change the math of the game at all, playing
"less" numbers means losing less in total over the same amount of time (but that's not
a "plus" in the player's favor because it's still -2.70% exact at the house edge.

So the author might want to consider that playing less numbers means losing less
over the same time as someone playing more numbers... true.
They also have less of a chance of winning (12:37 instead of 18:37)
but that alone isn't a benefit to the player.

 

The Law , Attention



The boys from Syracuse have just reported that a new roulette forum is being planned to counter the activities of RF.cc

Three partners are involved . No further details available .

 

It is long and I'm not saying I agree with 100% of it. Its just the fact of...well...you know.

 

So a forum not used for the sole purpose of selling computers? Cool

We tried that. This forum being one

Roulette forum dot com being another and that failed horribly

Hey, if the Syracuse boys work out can we make greenguy/skakus/taotie/bombus a moderator. So that he can put mr j on moderate?

I’d PAY to see that meltdown

 

I dont get it? Besides, as I have said MANY TIMES OVER, myself dancing around on different boards is over with. You do know I can post at RF if I wanted to, under 35% moderation. I choose not to.

Why? I have nothing left to learn (rofl), ok that was uncalled for Ken. Seriously, I play an EXACT way and begging others for help is beneath me NOW. I simply.....dont need you guys, sorry. Thats my HONESTY coming out again. Just like I did NOT delete what you think I did.

 

and unfortunately, its guys like this that benefit AND post hate at the same time. Kinda nice I guess?

Ken

 

i dont think i hae ever seen him post anything regarding gambling

but hes funny

 

There's another guy like that.....Bombus. How many posts of his involve roulette? Not many but lots of baiting to argue.

Ken

 

i wish i was around for the gamblers glen days

 

What a ride. MOSTLY good times with MOSTLY good, honest, fun posters. The VIP board was also decent. The difference (imo) between them days and now....Ken/Turbo posts something today.....attack attack attack.

Back then, we all put our heads together and enjoyed each others company.

Ken

 

as i see it, there is only steves forums left....along with bet selection which is a ghost town...this place which is wild....and roulette forum dot com which failed

 

Not with language too much anymore.

Ken

 

RG, you missed billionloudspeaker, and Marshall Bing Bell, LOL. Years ago I posted many original systems, methods, ideas and theories. Some removed and some not. Also over the years I actively contributed to countless threads on roulette. I actively participated in and also oversaw several long running tournaments too. Even joined a few invitation only forums where we discussed advanced roulette play, both systems and VB..never saw Ken asked to join any of those.

Like Ken (cough), I don't see much on the forums that could advance my game beyond current level, although I read all with open mind, and I don't really have the time or inclination to share any of my new understandings. Maybe that will change, but for now let's just say I've earned my stripes so will keep them firmly stitched to my shoulders.

 

LOL, forgot about him!!

Was asked more than once, even recently as a matter of fact. Turned them all down. Why? I am a non-believer in, this group is "not good enough" for our group bulls**t.

Well, we at least agree on that Bombus.

Ken

 

Have to add something. Thats why, when I get close to a banning (lol), I really dont care. I no longer NEED others help. Yeah, that sounds s**tty but whatever.

Ken