The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory

[winkel]

thats his claim, can you confirm winkel?

Why should I?

If he is not reading and testing, he will never learn.

Can make your living from working? Yes!
Can you make your living without learning and hard working? NO!

So learn and get experience and see what is going on!

Otherwise, if you search for an easy system: Sit on the loo for 2h3min35sec. then run out and bet on the next possible table: Red!

[Jish]

Winkle you come across as a bit rude, perhaps all the personal attacks by ex-members have worn away the kindness I have seen in prior posts from you

[winkel]

Winkle you come across as a bit rude, perhaps all the personal attacks by ex-members have worn away the kindness I have seen in prior posts from you

What is rude?

Rude is not to read an trying to understand. Rude are people who come to a forum and ask just: What is the winning system? they want a guarantee and a starting bankroll as well.

They forget that roulette is a game. It is not made to make a living from it.
Some people make a living from playing chess. But if you don´t learn and read about it, don´t exercise and make experiences, you won´t be sucessful, would you?

I´ve tried to be polite as long as I could. but there seem to be 3 different kind of people.
1. the owners of the truth: Nothing works!
2. the owners of the superior truth: AP and VB works nothing else.
3. People who wanna win without thinking and working.

To them I´m not polite anymore.

[Jish]

So you have time for people that are willing to read, become educated, read more and try to understand......then.....ask questions?

[winkel]

@all

time after time I recieve PMs with questions.

I only answer questions referring my strategies when they asked publically.

BTW.
The strategy is now played by several people. naturally with enormous success.
There´s a software which is intelligent learning, and it gives correct advices for bets and wins.
I myself make 200 units per day with it.

br
winkel

[A3on47]

Nice to see from you Winkel

Can you please give the link to the program?
Do you use the program in your bets, or do you make some changes to it?

Regards,
Afonso

[winkel]

I don´t posess this program.

The guy who builded it is playing with it.

br
inkel

[A3on47]

Can I ask how to contact him?

[winkel]

Can I ask how to contact him?

He wouldn´t sell

[winkel]

G.U.T is obvieously and proofed the best system that had ever been published for free in an open Forum.

the software wouldn´t be for free. I hope you understand.

the software is not meant to be sold.

[A3on47]

I understand

But a software is always good...
By hand we are susceptible to some mistakes

And I remember when I was testing GUT, I had always some doubts then I couldn't play property and win.
But I'm being honest when I say GUT ,in my opinion, was always and still is the system where I've most hope !

Thanks for share your knowledge with us!

Best regards,
Afonso

[Bayes]

G.U.T is obvieously and proofed the best system that had ever been published for free in an open Forum.

Where is the proof? The only proof I've seen is the one where Kon-Fu-Sed showed it failed.

[Bayes]

If someone will explain clearly and step-by-step how to play this system I will write software for it. I've read some of the thread but it's very confusing, although I get the gist of it.

I repeat, I need clear, step-by-step explanations in order to write the software. I'm not interested in doing any testing by hand.

[winkel]

Where is the proof? The only proof I've seen is the one where Kon-Fu-Sed showed it failed.

Hi Bayes,

KonFuSed didn´t proof that it failed, he just proofed that every combination follows the natural probability if played long term.

Decisions are neccessary. If I watch "what´s going on" I can decide, if the crossing will hit or not. If in doubt, don´t bet. The "doubt" is very difficult to put into a software.

On the other hand the software I talked about is following an advanced way of playing this strategy.
But most people were not interested to learn this, they just wanted to disturb and to destruct.

br
winkel

[Bayes]

Hi Winkel,

I don't have a problem with "decisions", and for what it's worth I don't consider myself as being in any of the categories you mention above.  You are making some pretty grand claims here, and I'd like to give your system a try.
I haven't read all the posts but I found this one which seems to present the basic idea (reply #247):  

we have 37(38) numbers on the wheel. OK?
after the first spin we have 1 appeared and 36(37) not appeared (thats logical enough?)
with the second spin we count again
if a second number appeares we have 2 and 35(36) if the same number comes again we still have 1-36! do you agree and understand?

If you proceed this counting you will get at any time druing wathing a situation where you have
19 numbers that didn´t appear yet, and 18 numbers that have appeared once or more. Is that believable?

This is the first possible "crossing", but is not recommended to play.

All possible crossing that can be played:
18-17
17-17
17-16
16-16
16-15
please get the logic in it and fill the row by yourself downwords to 1-0

we have these crossings between
0 - 1 (numbers did´t appeare and numbers appeared "once") also called "0" or "R" and N or "1"
0 - >0 numbers that did´nt appear and numbers that appeared)  once and more than once
1 - >1 numbers appeared once and numbers appeared more than once
2 - >2 numbers appeared twice and numbers appeared more than twice.

We bet when a crossing is in sight.

a crossing is in sight, when the difference between two charcteristics is 0 or 1 (see list above)

Are there any other posts which may help? keep in mind I'm planning to write software for tracking. This software you're using - can you describe it so that maybe I could write a "clone" of it?

I'm working my way through the thread, here is another post which seems worth keeping (reply #375)

some more basics:

as far as we know there can be 33 numbers or just 15 numbers appearing in 37 spins.

relating to this strategy:
1. If there are 33 nmumbers we will have absolutely no crossing "0"vs"1" because after 19-18 at "0" vs "">0" the "1" will never be lower than the "0"s
as there wil be nearly no "2"s we will have no crossing "1"vs"2" or "1" ">1"

2. If there are only 15 numbers appearing we will have no crossing "0" vs any
There will be a crossing "1"vs">1" and "1"vs"2" maximum 8units to bet absolutely no risc.

So we we are safe for getting in extrem situations.

We will only bet if we are near to binomial distribution.
The "Law of the Third" doesn´t only tell, that there are app. 24 numbers hit, 12 not, and 12 more often than once in 37 spins.

If we break the 37 spins in 3 parts: 13spins/12spins/12spins
and make a statistic on it we will get this result:
spin 1-13: app. 10-11 unhit numbers appear
spin 14-25: app. 8 unhit numbers appear
spin 26-37: app. 6 unhit numbers appear
and
spin 38-50: app. 4-5 unhit numbers appear

total after 37 spins 24-25
total after 37 spins 28-30

We can be sure:
If in spin 1-13 were more/less than 10 numbers: in spin 14-25 there will be mostly 8 numbers
If in spin 14-25 were more/less than 8 numbers: in spin 26-37 there will be mostly 6 numbers
If ins pin 26-37 were more/less than 6 numbers: in spin 38-50 there will be mostly 4-5 numbers.

during watching whats going on, we just check if the above statistical values are hit or not.

[Bayes]

-