The 4Selecta system

[Mr Chips]

JCN,

Yes, keep posting your results as it gradually builds up a picture of how people are progressing with 4Selecta and any problems they are encountering with the system.
 
Regards
 
Mr Chips
 

[Mr Chips]

RouletteBR,
 
Welcome to the forum.
 
I will show the correct result as follows :
 
[table=,]
Select spins,+/-,action,,,,,Table,,,,,,,,,,Available numbers
23,,,,,,,,LG,MG,HG,C
10,-1,bet 23,,,,,,1,1,1,1,,,,,,,,23 32 6 15 33
36,-2,bet LG number 10,,,,,,2,2,2,,,,,,,,,10 28
32,-3,bet LG number 10,,,,,,,3,3,,,,,,,,,36 17 x 2
6,-5,bet 23 32,,,,,,,4,,
15,-8,bet 23 32 6
17,-9,bet 36
33,-13,bet 23 32 6 15
0,-18,bet 23 32 6 15 33
28,-23,bet 23 32 6 15 33
17,-25,bet 10 28
[/table]
 
A particular problem in understanding 4Selecta concerns when it's not possible to bet on on a leading Group section, in this example MG, as 3,17 cannot make an MG section. We therefore have to go to the next in the lead. If this is not possible as in this example we have go with the 'active' Group section and that would have had a . after the 2 to denote it is the 'active' Group section on that particular line. The section that made LG section 'active' was 30,11,32,28.
 
When section 3,17,17 came in it became a second leader and the 'active' status of the Group section LG in the Table ceased.
 
I hope the above makes it a bit clearer for you and if you have any further queries let me know.
 
We will always be interested to hear about your results.
 
Regards
 
Mr Chips

[RouletteBR]

Thank you Mr. Chips, today i made another test at dublinbet, i run the system through 100 spins, here is the result:



The things in orange are doubts about my decision, i want to know if i made right or not.

Regards.

[Mr Chips]

RouletteBR,
 
There were some errors, but practice will eventually sort out the problems. If you can work through my corrected version and then let me know if there is anything that is unclear.
 
This session is a perfect example of a minimum loss and most times when losses occur they should be in the -50 range. There were indications earlier in the session as shown in the Table when LG, HG, and C were constantly level or close to it. There were only 3 available numbers that hit. At one stage there was a minimum profit of +8 which soon became a loss. When you way up all this information and you are approaching spin 90 you will be looking for a minimum loss. It is important to be realistic in such sessions, as 4Selecta allows for such minimum  losses in it's overall strategy.

There was just one error in the sections :
 
10 LG
6 MG
0 
----  This makes a section as 0 is on the betting line and of course it will not be noted in the Table.
 
[table=,]
Selected spins,,+/-
34,,,
24,,-1
3,,-2
15,,-3
0,,-4
35,,-5
23,,-7
7,,-9
1,,-12
10,,-15
9,,-18
26,,-21
31,,-24
15,,+8
16,,+5
1,,0
2,,-5
7,,-10
36,,-16
11,,-23
17,,-28
31,,-36
28,,-44
33,,-51
1,,-58
29,,-66
33,,-37
Exit
[/table]
 
[table=,]
LG,MG,HG,C
1,1,1,1
2,2,2,2
3,3,3,3
4,4,4,4
5,,5,5
6,,6,6
7,,7,7
,,,8
[/table]
 
Available numbers:
 
34,35,7,9,26,16,36,17
 
24,15x2,23,31x2,33
 
3,1x3,10,2,11,28
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

[table=,]
Date,Spins,Selected Spins,+/-
1.9,109,31,-42
2.9,80,24,+58
3.9,77,23,+47
4.9,71,19,+206
5.9,55,14,+94
6.9,91,27,+18
[/table]

[TwoCatSam]

Mr. Chips

Every time I test this system, I am amazed that the C group almost always pulls ahead of the others.  Have you experienced this?

It would seem they should either be about equal or take turns, but C seems to always win the race.  I have no intention of trying to tweak your system, but I am puzzled over this happening repeatedly.

As is the nature of a roulette player, when I see something repeat with regular monotony, I want to exploit it. 

@ others who may be testing this system........

Do you find this to be true?

Sam

[MattyMattz]

Sam,

although I haven't tested the 4selecta lately (focusing more on 5lines) I did notice the same thing... C almost always dominates.

Matt

[Mr Chips]

Sam & Matt,
 
Yes it's true C is the leading section Group a lot of the time. See the Table I produced on the previous page.
 
I have been giving this some thought and have come up with an idea, which will solve the problem when C is in the lead and the other section Groups are getting the hits.
 
This will be an optional facility and can be activated depending on the circumstances of a particular session.
 
If C is the leader and say LG is second in the lead and the next result would have been a win if LG had been in the lead instead, then you could activate the C Table as follows :
 
[table=,]
l,m,h
1,1,1
2,2,
3,,
[/table]
 
This additional Table is a small version of the main Table. A C section unlike the others can have various Group numbers to complete the section eg
 
7
14
3
---

Here the 3 completes the C section and will be noted in the above Table under l. If you chose to activate the Table in this example bets can only be placed when a C section will be completed by an LG number.
 
10
16
 
To make this into C section it needs a MG number, therefore the C section Group in the main Table is ignored and bets are placed on the second leader or if that does not qualify then the next in line.
 
[table=,]
l,m,h
1,1,1
2,2,
3,3.,
[/table]
 
As in the main Table there is a . which denotes m is the 'active' Group number and now bets will only be valid from the C section Group if the Group number to complete the section is an MG number as m is the 'active' Group number in the C Table above.
 
This additional optional facility should be used carefully and only when C is in the lead in the main Table. If at any time C levels with another section Group then this option should stop. I have done some limited testing with this option and it certainly has changed losses into wins. There will be occasions when of course you will miss out on a C win and you will therefore have to consider how the session is developing at any particular time.

It is possible now to opt out of a losing C streak and take advantage of wins from the other section Groups.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

An interesting observation concerning C section Groups is that we know more are due than any other section Groups and yet according to the Maths wizards nothing can be due in roulette, so that dismisses another Maths fallacy!!!
 
Mr Chips

[TwoCatSam]

Well, I didn't want to say that............

Mr, Chips,

But me thinks you may be right.  I was wondering if I was on a long line of "lucky" hits for the C but I don't know.  Wouldn't it be something if it held up over thousands of spins?

Sm

[bliss]

we know more are due than any other section Groups and yet according to the Maths wizards nothing can be due in roulette, so that dismisses another Maths fallacy!!!

Nice try Mr Chips, but you really didn't expect me to let you get away with this did you? 

You are using the word "due" here to mean 2 different things in the sentence. Your first use of "due" means "expected", and the second means "more or less likely given that some event has occurred" which is indeed a fallacy given that roulette is a game of independent trials (I know - boring but true). This means that your argument is a fallacy - you can't use the same word to mean different things in the same sentence and expect it to be valid.

It's a bit like saying:

All Jackasses have long ears
the wizard of odds is a jackass
therefore, the wizard of odds has long ears

only more subtle.

As to why the C group is in the lead, it's a simple consequence of the fact that it represent all 3 groups (all numbers on the wheel), and given an unbiased wheel why would you expect the results to be any different?

My advice is to take a look at Kon-Fu-Sed's excellent probability tutorial.

[Mr Chips]

bliss,
 
So therefore as we can expect C section to be in the lead, we can say obviously say C section Group numbers are due more often than other section Group numbers.
 
How are you coming along with understanding 4Selecta?  Hopefully your not having too many sleepless nights
 

[Mr Chips]

I have completed 5 months testing of Spielbank  spins, at the halfway stage and have made a start this month so in total 160 sessions. I am incorporating the C Group section option ( C Table) and will see what difference this will make to future results.
 
[table=,]
Date,spins,selective spins,+/-
15.3,105,28,-135
16.3,66,19,+57
17.3,77,23,0
18.3,88,22,+21
19.3,65,17,+22
20.3,100,28,-68
21.3,n/a,,
22.3,90,27,-51
23.3,91,26,-43
24.3,111,33,+113
25.3,126,33,-73
26.3,70,19,+189
27.3,103,28,-85
28.3,86,23,-57
29.3,95,25,+70
30.3,67,21,+188
31.3,99,28,+202
[/table]
 
[table=,]
Month,Unit Profit
January,1031
February,480
March,764
July,1717
August,1318
Sept 1-6,381

Total,5691
[/table]

[bliss]

How are you coming along with understanding 4Selecta?

I think I understand it now, but the tracker is on the back-burner for a while, until I have more time.

Those results are pretty impressive, how do they compare with profits from your EC system?

It doesn't seem to be attracting as much attention as G.U.T.  maybe because "holy grail" is not in the title. 

[Mr Chips]

bliss,
 
It,s good to hear that you have got a handle on 4Selecta, its much simpler than my EC method.
 
I am of course still testing 4Selecta so I can't really compare it with the EC. My target here is 10,000 units profit and despite maths people saying it will be insufficient to prove it a long term winner, I will be satisfied as to it's viability for using it in a casino. I certainly wouldn't laboriously hand test this system if I had any doubts about it making long term profits.
 
When you get more time to discuss the tracker PM me. I know not enough hours in a day.
 
Chips
 

[Mr Chips]

-