Roulette CS System

My latest method / system
"Common Sense"
Let's see how this goes...
Math says it can't fail.

 

Good luck. Will be interesting to see.

 

I'm using no negative progression as well - so the odds of losing what I'm ahead is slim. "But" it is roulette and anything can happen.

 

True that! Anyway, as I say, I'd be interested to see the outcome.

 

Interesting, It's hanging on fine. The big spikes weren't really supposed to happen so that corrected itself.
RX ended up crashing on me ( a memory problem on my pc - not RX's problem ) so I couldn't save the data.
I took a screenshot though of course.
I can easily adjust this to make it work better - will retest and do the improvements and post somewhere below.



The "math" says that I should be at -$6,939.00 according to that 'house edge' monster.
I'm at +$3,175 units after 7,300 spins (nice) and no negative progression.
Some tweaks will help this. More to come.

 

Thanks for posting TG, interesting.

 

TurboG
Hi Turbo
Do we get a clue as to what you are testing here? (method wise I mean!)
cheers

 

yes the method would be nice

 

Flat bet and the expectation will be realized sooner.

Right now the draw downs look pretty severe considering such small gains.

 

Yes it could fail but this logic always kills me..... a person could have a decent method. A nice chart going up, up etc., no progression etc.

And in the end, the kill joys stick with the same old script...."yeah but this, yeah but that". In the mean time, all they are waiting on is for the method to be posted so they can discreetly test/play it without saying a word to the board, the author and his/her peers.

Ken

 

Mr. J.,

Yes, the truth sucks for the system junkies. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Over time you simply can't win in this game unless you can get the edge over the wheel.

 

Well, no - you can use math against this 'math' game.
The real truth is that even random itself follows a predictable pattern, sadly.
And you can assume and predict with very good accuracy - enough to overcome the
small house edge. But it's not going to happen by not betting and waiting for virtual wins,
or triggers, etc.
What we would agree on - is that the 'common sense' way to play is also the same way
that most advantage players would play - meaning - we will both end up playing the same
numbers - for different reasons but to the same end of success.
That makes the common sense method special.

 

History, all of the experts, and mathematicians say that you're wrong.

So...where's your proof?

 

8 or 9 years ago you were whistling a different
tune and then Spike came along and you all
called him names for years. And now random
is 'predictable'. Amazing..

 

I think me and Spike got along pretty well.
And I've always said that math beats a math game and that random is predictable.
(not speaking for others though)

 

The biggest problem with posting a "decent" method is, the VERY SAME people that rip the author a new a**, are the SAME goofs that will at MINIMUM, test it and possibly play it. They have to keep up their APPEARANCE regarding "you'll never win with methods".

They devote maybe 9 hours to the study, quit and sit back and WAIT for someone else to HAND IT to them. I blame no person for NOT posting B+ methods.

Ken

 

Mr. J.,

Can you provide any examples?

 

How do I provide examples of what OTHERS are doing? I'm sure you had dinner a couple times this week but if I cant tell you what you ate, that means you didn't eat?

The "you cant win" crowd SITS AROUND *WAITING* for us SUCKERS (method guys) to post B+ methods so that at MINIMUM, you can at least test it. If you said you have not AT LEAST tested any methods over the last five years, you would be lying through your teeth. With or without PROOF, I stick to that statement.

Ken

 

Of course it is possible to win with maths but only if we have a very high table limits, a vast pile of chips and lots of patience but these things either are rare or nonexistent. If someone claims to win flat bet, he is considered as a fool or crooked and sadly none can prove any method that can win flat with 30k placed bets on any random data. No maths has proved otherwise ever.

 

First off, Ed's thread is all messed up again. Sorry buddy, who do I make the check out to?

@Al >> So are you saying, you have never tested or played any methods?

Ken