Notice: 5/8/2017 -- RouletteForum.com is closed to new posting and will remain in read-only mode for 30 days. If you wish to preserve any of your posts, do so soon.

Okay over many many many spins all the numbers end up breaking even why don’t we wait until there is a massive swing either when the red or with the black is 50 or 100 points ahead the same goes all the numbers end up breaking even why don’t we wait until there is a massive swing either when the red or with the black is 50 or 100 points ahead the same goes. For the high and low if black or red hi all low is in front by 50 100 then we play the opposite and eventually it will catch up all my records show that it catches up…A difficult question I’m asking you is when is a good time to get in?? A difficult question I’m asking you is when is a good time to get in and start chasing the balance up??

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

Fair enough

100% is a bold clame. Why 7k? How do you calculate bank requirement, wich table limits you calculated it for? Wich profits you may expect daily using your system?

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to count red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

Fair enough

100% is a bold clame. Why 7k? How do you calculate bank requirement, wich table limits you calculated it for? Wich profits you may expect daily using your system?

U will make lots of money

Ok when u walk to a table or a monitor when u see a number hit twice u play that number if another number hits twice play that number aswell if any numbers hit twice play them to but if one hits a third time drop the twos off and only play the one that’s hit three times if the ones that hit twice happen to hit three times yiu take them on again but now if one number has hit four times u only play that number at any stage if you get to heights start again on one chip every time you reach heights start again look in the board and start playing the numbers that have hit twice and so on

This way ur playing the numbers that are getting hit there is always one number that keeps hitting this will get you out every time my biggest draw down was 10k try it on ur boys u will see it works Remember to pay me when ur rich

The above is a site I found quickly—I am sure there are others—that reports the actual results of actual spins on actual tables. Perhaps you would be so kind as to run your system against a table from this or one of the other similar sites for yesterday (1 July 2015) and report how it did? Better yet, might I persuade you to show what you bet when to achieve that result, and the bankroll you needed to achieve it? (The table I chose, French Roulette 1 reported over 450 spins, not the “long run” by any means but somewhat representative IMHO.)

The above is a site I found quickly—I am sure there are others—that reports the actual results of actual spins on actual tables. Perhaps you would be so kind as to run your system against a table from this or one of the other similar sites for yesterday (1 July 2015) and report how it did? Better yet, might I persuade you to show what you bet when to achieve that result, and the bankroll you needed to achieve it? (The table I chose, French Roulette 1 reported over 450 spins, not the “long run” by any means but somewhat representative IMHO.)

As you mentioned previously, there is more to your system than you have revealed to date—I presume there is a progression of some sort, for example—so you are the only one who can test it against historical spins. You also claim 100% success, a claim that defies conventional wisdom; therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to cou nt red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

Fair enough

100% is a bold clame. Why 7k? How do you calculate bank requirement, wich table limits you calculated it for? Wich profits you may expect daily using your system?

U will make lots of money

Ok when u walk to a table or a monitor when u see a number hit twice u play that number if another number hits twice play that number aswell if any numbers hit twice play them to but if one hits a third time drop the twos off and only play the one that’s hit three times if the ones that hit twice happen to hit three times yiu take them on again but now if one number has hit four times u only play that number at any stage if you get to heights start again on one chip every time you reach heights start again look in the board and start playing the numbers that have hit twice and so on

This way ur playing the numbers that are getting hit there is always one number that keeps hitting this will get you out every time my biggest draw down was 10k try it on ur boys u will see it works Remember to pay me when ur rich

What do you mean by ” drow down” , is it biggest your loss?

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to cou nt red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

Fair enough

100% is a bold clame. Why 7k? How do you calculate bank requirement, wich table limits you calculated it for? Wich profits you may expect daily using your system?

U will make lots of money

Ok when u walk to a table or a monitor when u see a number hit twice u play that number if another number hits twice play that number aswell if any numbers hit twice play them to but if one hits a third time drop the twos off and only play the one that’s hit three times if the ones that hit twice happen to hit three times yiu take them on again but now if one number has hit four times u only play that number at any stage if you get to heights start again on one chip every time you reach heights start again look in the board and start playing the numbers that have hit twice and so on

This way ur playing the numbers that are getting hit there is always one number that keeps hitting this will get you out every time my biggest draw down was 10k try it on ur boys u will see it works Remember to pay me when ur rich

What do you mean by ” drow down” , is it biggest your loss?

ye your biggest stretch or loss the longest period without a hit

I have a couple of quick question for you off the top of my head.

1. How do you know that the 50-100 point difference you have observed is not really catching up from a deficit that built up before you showed up?

2. Do your records, which show the EC pairs balancing out, account for the green results? (For example, if all you do is count red vs. black then you are ignoring the 0; IMHO you need to cou nt red vs. not-red.)

As a general comment I suggest you read up on The Gamblers Fallacy (and yes, Systemicks, this is a recording).

MS is of course right. You have no idea what the real MEAN is so you are unaware if it is regressing from a previous LOW or a previous HIGH.

The correct method is to establish a temporary, OBSERVED mean (which will not be parallel to the real mean) and bet the small variations that occur around that. The danger is that you might decide to start betting just as the overall variation changes direction.

NOT A PLEASANT THOUGHT !!

Harry

f

I have a system that works 100% of the time it needs around 7k to play and it has never lost I’ve been doing it for a year now
I call it nipple theory

Fair enough

100% is a bold clame. Why 7k? How do you calculate bank requirement, wich table limits you calculated it for? Wich profits you may expect daily using your system?

U will make lots of money

Ok when u walk to a table or a monitor when u see a number hit twice u play that number if another number hits twice play that number aswell if any numbers hit twice play them to but if one hits a third time drop the twos off and only play the one that’s hit three times if the ones that hit twice happen to hit three times yiu take them on again but now if one number has hit four times u only play that number at any stage if you get to heights start again on one chip every time you reach heights start again look in the board and start playing the numbers that have hit twice and so on

This way ur playing the numbers that are getting hit there is always one number that keeps hitting this will get you out every time my biggest draw down was 10k try it on ur boys u will see it works Remember to pay me when ur rich

What do you mean by ” drow down” , is it biggest your loss?

ye your biggest stretch or loss the longest period without a hit

Could you please explain yourself???? You told that your system needs 7k and it’s 100% winning. Now you say that you were 10k down!!!! How do these statements of yours correlate? 7k is a sensible amount of money.
Why wouldn’t you explain your system properly, l could code it in excel ( if it has some logic that can be expressed by math). So we both can see how it perform on some samples of mine. If it has foundation , we probably could improve it . Tell me if you are interested.

Online roulette is also very popular in Australia with many of the internet casino brands directly targeting Australians, resulting in a huge choice of roulette sites available to Australians. CasinoReef recommends Ruby Fortune casino as one of the top online roulette casinos available in AUD. For New Zealanders, CasinoKiwi recommends Jackpot city casino as the most popular choice for new Zealanders playing roulette online.