Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

Go anti trend AS 3 ( anti streak 3) and you only need a 4 step martingale . No sweat .

 

You are doing it right!!!
I follow your posts.
I've already lost a lot testing methods with real money. haha

 

Never test with an RNG if you have any intention of playing it in a real casino one day. In the long term the results are the same but in the extreme short-term where you make your bets it's not the same. On a real wheel anything can happen and usually does. With an RNG not so much. You will see things happen on a real wheel that you almost never see on an RNG. Bad things, always bad things.

 

If a mathhead cannot test it to him it's not real. There's no way he can test something that takes a unique decision every time you see it. When I bet for a certain pattern to continue that does not mean the last time I saw this pattern that I bet the same way. There are way too many things to take into consideration every time and this drives math people crazy. Roulette outcomes are very fluid and how do you test fluidity. The cliche of nailing Jell-O to a wall comes to mind.

 

wanted to get results from casino wheels.
But I've searched and haven't found it.

 

Quite a number of baccarat cats are using either the AS 3 or AS 4 .

I personally prefer going against AS 3 roulette EC with a short 1 x x .

 

Sorry, the trendings/patterns-capturing stuff is nonsenses, hey hey.

 

But not like positive progressions being clipped at the end .


There are many options to skin a skunk and also games of luck .

 

Think of it logical, there are BILLIONS of potential different combination/configuration for a baccarats show, so how the hell are ya gonna out-gues that, hey hey????

 

All what is needed is a pattern of either 3 P or 3 R. .Depending upon the game selected .

 

You may have a point but I do not know what P stands for or R.

 

Actually there are only 3 possible combinations in Baccarat the Tie not considered. 1. Streaks BBB or PPP, 3 or more of the same. 2. Doubles BBPP or PPBB 3.Alternating BPBP or PBPB. Example Pattern: BB PP BPB BB PB BBBPPP. If you look real close at the example, you will notice one Double, two Alternating and three Streaks. Learn to work with that and you'll do really good. There are no other possible combinations, just longer in length. BBBBBPPPPBPBPBBPPBBPP. This example contains 2 Streaks, two Doubles and one Long Alternating. Look at any real long pattern say 100 outcomes. you will not find any combination than the 3 I stated. Just saying.

 

What you stated here I totally agree with. If a strategy can be programed that means it follows a specific pattern over and over. Eventually that same pattern will be reversed for a loss no matter how intricate the pattern is. If a person has a strategy that he consistently wins with and it cannot be coded, I would easily believe he's on to something.

 

I disagree. The truth is it doesn't matter how many different scenarios account for a bet choice, they can all be coded. Even if 1000 or more conditions influence the next decision it can be coded. It might appear to the player they are choosing unique bets, but that's because they don't necessarily recall the last time the exact same conditions arose to produce the current 'unique' bet. Correct coding recalls everything.

Not an easy job by any measure, but every process/selection/decision/choice/guess/action can be coded to exact mimic behaviour.

 

soxfan are you angry with Frank Barstow who put it point blank on the table ?

 

Impossible, you cannot code random guessing. And some people are very lucky at that.

 

The Barstow was right about the diminishing probabilities, so anti-streaks is a solid style, but very volatile, hey hey.

 

No two baccarats shoe are a-like, so trying to read shoe is foolishness. The whole trendings/pattern-capturings/road-drivings is all premise on certain event continuing, and that ain't logical. Bottom-line is that any subjective "guessings" style gonna be inferior to simply betting bankers, only, hey hey.

 

The guessing is not really random but you can't code it anyway. I have been saying this for years but the math people always argue with you that anything can be coded.. I think Gizmo believes that it can be coded but he doesn't want to do it because it would be way too much work and take too long.

 

@ soxfan , Barestow is as solid as it can be but then Luck reigns in .


Thanks .


ND