It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[cheese]

If you have a winning method, it should go like this.

Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.

Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.

There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.

The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.

Flat betting only.



If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner.  If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.

I should add, knowing when not to bet is a big part of a winning method. Just as important as knowing when to bet.

[ReDsQuaD]

Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?

Who is mike talking about? That's your awnser.

James.

[cheese]

Who is mike talking about? That's your awnser.

James.

Destroy? Like ants?  Thats cool, always something to look forward to around here.

[ReDsQuaD]

Destroy? Like ants?  Thats cool, always something to look forward to around here.

I don't get what you mean.

James.

[gizmotron]

Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?

I'm not going to destroy Mike. He's just a typical mathboyz kind of a guy. Proof is actually his demand. So be it.

[gizmotron]

If you have a winning method, it should go like this.

Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.

Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.

There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.

The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.

Flat betting only.

If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner.  If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.

Go ahead, open up a Paypal account and teach ten students. You will discover what I discovered. You can try to teach this. But if they won't practice like you have, then they will not do very well. You were right all  along. In fact it was your idea. They would not be able to do this even if you showed them step by step. It's funny, six months go by and nothing has changed. Now that's not to say that some of my students are off to the races with it. But I do know this. This is very hard to do. I thought it would be easy to teach.

A demonstration in front of everyone will have no effect whatsoever. They will not believe their eyes.

[cheese]

Go ahead, open up a Paypal account and teach ten students.

Wising up chumps isn't my thing. Knock yourself out..

[gizmotron]

Right...

[Zindrod]

Zindrod, I really can't relate to "betting on Red for no particular reason".

As for your other statements, I'm not interested in discussing money mangement methods in this topic.  I also don't want to get involved in a debate where I have to spend time and effort trying to prove my thoughts about how the  expectation that an individual Roulette Player will conform to the "longrun" mathematical statistics is a fallacy.  (By the way, even though I think it's true, I don't think that I can prove it.)

VKM

ok.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

If you have a winning method, it should go like this.

Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.

Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.

There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.

The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.

Flat betting only.



If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner.  If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.

This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks.

[Mike]

I'm not going to destroy Mike. He's just a typical mathboyz kind of a guy. Proof is actually his demand. So be it.

Destroy? 

Come on guys, why the melodrama? this is an internet forum, chill out...

[gizmotron]

Destroy? 

Come on guys, why the melodrama? this is an internet forum, chill out...

It's not my idea. People are going to react to these demos. Those that believe what they see will say the mathboyz are wrong. I can't see that solving or proving anything. Nothing will change until a math person actually sets out to explain why targeting opportunities of coincidence actually work long term. That's the only argument I'm presenting anyway. I just have no interest in learning all that math. I did my part learning how to program. That's enough brain cells for this. If I produce a working algorithm that beats roulette with my concepts then that would be validated proof. That I might set out to do some day. But this live demonstration is far easier to accomplish.

[cheese]

This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks.

How do you know when a trend will be small and not large?

[ll l ll l lll ll]

How do you know when a trend will be small and not large?

I don't.  I can only go by what has been happening in the past and bet it will continue to happen in the future.

[cheese]

I don't.  I can only go by what has been happening in the past and bet it will continue to happen in the future.

What does that mean? There is no clue as to how long a trend will be, if there were everybody would be playing trends.

[cheese]

-