Roulette "Farthest Back 4 number system"

OK, I have one. Suppose you have this:

Dozen 1 and column 1
Dozen 2 and column 2

Would dozen 3 and column 3 be far enough back? I'm asking because in your first post, there are ten spins listed before you bet.

Thanks in advance.

Samster

 

Yes - I know that seems odd though.
I tested it different ways, as in waiting to have a "farthest back" dozen and column that hadn't appeared for 5 spins, or 6 spins, 7 - etc. But in the end it didn't matter much.
You could play it that way with a min. amount of spins without either appearing - but it would mean charting on paper and less and less opportunity to play, so to keep it simple I just use the two that are farthest back - even if it's the 3rd spin as you say.

 

lol - I need to remember that one.

 

True. But I may be fat, but you are ugly.

And I can lose weight. I also have stupid moments. Like everyone.
But I still don't see the correlation of those numbers to any point.

So teach me how to not be stupid. Take the higher ground and explain.

 

Remember the ugly one too. At least being ugly isn't
the persons fault. Drunkenness is a character flaw.

 

TG you are a very respectfull person in roulette , ive read some of your systems and find em pretty smart like this one , so do you use virtual losses in your play , what do u think about that ,does it helps; thank u for posting anyway, cheers pete

 

I ran through a few spins in the Zuma and found that I had a loss of many spins, perhaps 30, and then several wins very quickly. Way too soon to say anything except I'll study it more over the coming months. I can play for real at Riverwind for a measly 12.5 cents per number.

 

From very limited tests in zumma it was kind of like that. Not 30 losses. Maybe
13-15. But as you say, once you hit one it seems like there are more to follow.
Maybe looking for the shorter hit is a trigger. I know that kind of thing has seemed
reasonable for other methods as a trigger.

 

Mr Genius.

I wonder if you can tell us what your worst session was in terms of how many losses?
I also wonder if you recollect if we are right about the wins seeming to come quick
after that losing streak?

 

I haven't had a 'bad' losing streak yet - but on the same note, sometimes it seems that many wins come one right after the other. I tend to think that they happen because of bet selection and how the math works. I'm sure a bad session can happen but at least in my overall experience when I use this, it hasn't happened to me yet. If it does, it won't be a terrible loss and I'll still be ahead enough that a bad session won't take away too much from my profit.

 

Mr. Genius. Thanks for the quick reply. "Turbo" made me think that would happen.
Perhaps as I get to know you I can call you by your first name.

All kidding aside, I have randomly taken my 15000 result book and set up plays using this and,
for all the random reasons you give about it, have always gotten good results. The "wallpaper"
test is what I call it. Throw it against the wall and see what sticks before you escalate and use your
harder mental energy.

Don't know what to say, but it has a good feel to it in terms of play and risk.

As always happens one begins to think in terms of ideas of "improvement". The first one
that occurred to me is this. It had been mentioned about waiting for losses as "triggers".
The downfall of that is the fact that the wins do seem to tend to clump. So that keeps you out
of the action and the winning. But if you were looking for a trigger you could begin play after you
see a win, expecting low hanging fruit.

But to take this one step further you could keep a revolving, ongoing, calculation for bets as you go
along, then watching for the losing streaks (followed by the wins).

Neither of these are great ideas. I think the way the method performs right now is quite good. I want
to do more testing (and will) on this, and do more discussion of any aspects that might help.

I think that it is a good method and somehow I think there is a law of diminishing returns on trying to
make things better. This may just be as good as you could want right out of the box.

Also, on another note, I have been wanting to change my profile in the forum to a nickname and
can't figure out how. Can some one tell me that?

Thanks

 

@TG >> Anyway you can email me? I have a question of sorts but its more about "completing" a method of mine.

I'm stuck in the mud with this >> [email protected]

Ken

 

WOW - nice to see you here Ken, sending a email now.

 

Have had a bit of success with this

 

I have continued and done some more paper testing with this and it seems
to work. I have an excel sheet I just made up where I can check off results
as they come in and see how it works. I am going on vac next week and will
take stuff with me and test some more.

 

Great ! I hope it continues for you, sometimes the roulette Gods smile at us - sometimes they don't.
I haven't lost with it yet but I don't use it every time either.

 

Of course it works ! lol. I'm kidding. Glad you're having good results so far.

 

It takes a little work to track. Not sure if I missed something that makes that easier. Right now I generated
a simple practice sheet with 38 numbers where it is obvious (from where you started) what ones came in
twice, or 3 times. You would have to slide the scale to push up the grouping to look for another setup.
Also, for me, I am older and lazy. I'm not sure I'd be looking to play on a real wheel, but the RNG (kind
of an airball, but it's electronic.

Not for this thread, but a good method that has seemed to surface lately is playing two dozens with
a labby. It's a compelling and simple method.

 

got one better than this T,G.....LOL

 

Is T,G TurboGenius? (Don't understand the comma.) Anyway, with all respect and humility, I seriously doubt it.

TwoCat