Thanks Jono for sharing. Although personally, this does not give me anything yet. Because the examples that you cited I tested many times, and even other different options, but this also did not give positive results. Maybe I haven't figured something out yet. At one time, I threw the "races" and tested this system, even probably more than the races. But then I was forced to quit due to circumstances, and when I returned to the tests, I returned to the races. But there, too, was never successful. Recently, I reread many of Turbo's threads again, I often do this, only already deepening more and more, I found something new for myself. And I decided to test this thread again. But! I would say, I'm no longer interested in testing the streets, I think I need to test by numbers! Like I said, I came to this by rereading many of Turbo's threads. I wanted to share what I discovered recently, but decided that I had to do the tests first, and that I might be wrong. So far I have done few tests, mostly only in manual check, but nevertheless, I want to say what I would like to say. I think I found, at least for myself, the perfect pattern based on LoTT . The point is that Turbo wrote in the thread about LOTT I seemed to read, but I only recently realized. when I reread again. In general, there is nothing new. The same law. But I somehow missed or did not immediately understand, as far as I remember, when he explained this law using the example of three numbers in one street. And after all, it turns out the same as just with dozens. If in numbers, then 66% of the win. And he wrote that yes, 66% is because we put 2 out of 3, but at the same time he said that of these 66%, 24% go to the fact that the first number should be repeated before the second falls. Then I was helped by the idea of Gigi, where he wrote that he did not succeed with that, but in correspondence with Lacyfella he wrote that something there could somehow look at it from the back, I never understood (my bad English), but the essence is, that if you look from the anither side, then in his tests it was that 80% of the probability that of the two numbers that fell out, the first number should be repeated, and not the second, in Turbo's example 76% (24% remember he had to repeat the first number). So here. And I thought so. I didn't know what Gigi meant, but it sounded interesting. I.e. we all know this law, and I think each of us tried on the basis of this to put out of two fallen dozen put on these two dozen that one of them should fall out by law. And Turbo, by the way, proved it. But this system is not a winning one, everyone I think has test this. And Turbo wrote that it is not so simple that it will fall out, for example, two numbers and put on these two numbers, although he added in parentheses - or is it so simple? Nevertheless, I think not. It's not that simple, it's much simpler! Or not?) I don't know for sure yet. But we continue. I thought, how is it that out of two numbers (take the average value) 75% probability that the first number that falls out? And I looked at it from the point of view when we enter the game: let's say out of 3 numbers, 1 number fell. OK, the chance of it repeating itself before the 2nd number is 25%. If it falls out then good. But what if the second number falls? What's going on then? So the first number, when it's one 25% to repeat. When the second number falls, now this number has 25% of what it will happen again, as if we had just entered the game. So here. And accordingly of two numbers, if the second has a chance of 25%, then the first then has a 75% chance of repetition!!! Because, as Turbo proved, the third number, which you probably immediately thought about, will fall much later than these two numbers. Accordingly, after two numbers drop out, the first has 75% to repeat, on average! I think at once everyone realized that it is better to put only one first instead of two out of three. Maybe I certainly checked it a little after opening my perfect pattern and it turned out to be worse than this template. That's why it's not all. Okay, I've already written a lot, so a little shorter. In general, when I realized that of the two numbers that fell out, it is not worth putting on two of these numbers, but only on the first, I thought, and why not then put the third number, which should fall much later? And that's the paradox. Remember, in the door contest, I've been thinking for a long time how to apply it to roulette? I still don't know how, but maybe it's something like that. But in general, this is related to the activities of Vaddy, whom I tested a lot, and there was one moment in my life that is to long for tell about this, but a long time ago I tested that if 2 numbers fell on the street, then there was one test to put just on the number that did not fall. And there were pretty good tests. Not winning, but good. And I immediately remembered it. So, in the end, we return to the finished ideal pattern for three things. When two of the three appear, you need to bet on the first thing that has appeared and what has not yet appeared! That's my perfect template for three things. So, for example, how to test this. Take the first street. The number 1 fell on it. We put it on 1. If it repeats perfectly, we continue to bet on it. When the second number falls, let's say 2 falls, then we put it on 1 and on 3. And then let's say the number 1 fell. Now, as we put it next. We look at this from the point of view that if we had entered the game later than any first number fell. Example. We had in the order of falling the number 1 then 2 then again 1. After 2 fell, we put on 1 and on 3. Now after 1 is repeated, we look at the last two numbers in the drop-out order - this is 2 and then 1. And now we put on 2 (because it is the first of the last two numbers) and on 3 because it did not fall out of the last two numbers. The next suppose is the number 3. We won again. Then we put on 1 and on 2 because 1 is the first number of the last two numbers, and 2 is not a occur number of the last two numbers. If the number repeated twice we respectively lost. There are different options, but I put it just on one of these numbers. In general, I checked this so far in hand and on the streets and just on different three numbers, and on dozens. And, hell, the hit is over very strong. Now I'm just testing it on a dozens and I want to say that I personally did not have such a result yet. I tested with a flat bet, and three different sets of numbers of 1000 spins and so that at the end of each there was either a small plus or a small minus - for me this is very impressive. Even for the dozens where I haven't adjusted the zero and some normal progression yet, it's just very good. It may of course be the same if you put on two fallen numbers, but as far as I remember there was always a good minus at the end. And I wrote all this here because I have to play inside numbers. And if I found, at least for myself, the perfect pattern for two out of three things, and these are two numbers of three in the street, so, and I don't know how to do this with the streets. Because I don't know how to win in the 50\50 system. Therefore, of course, I would like to know how to win through the streets playing 50\50 and then introduce the 2\3 pattern there.