Lohnro's Double Street System

[insidebet]

Boo_Ray,

You mean switch table until I find a "lucky" one?  Everyone is free to have his opinions, but I always felt that, if a system is good, it will be so no matter the table or the dealer.

Insidebet

[TwoCatSam]

inside

I once held that same opinion--that a table was a table was a table.

I now know that a table can change and the physical table you're playing on will be a "different" table tomorrow. 

Sam

[Boo_Ray]

Boo_Ray,

You mean switch table until I find a "lucky" one?  Everyone is free to have his opinions, but I always felt that, if a system is good, it will be so no matter the table or the dealer.

Insidebet

So what you are saying is that you constantly sit behind one table for 81 000 spins and using one sistem that is good?

I want to be able to do that!

[TwoCatSam]

Boo

Where you gonna pee?

Sam

[Boo_Ray]

Boo

Where you gonna pee?

Sam

I dont know sam, I dont have system that holds up for that long jet !

[insidebet]

Boo_Ray,

All I am saying is:

1- Changing table because you are loosing is NOT a system.

2- A winning system is one where your full bets hit at a rate better than 1 in 36, your double street bets will hit at a rate better than 1 in 6, and so on.

3- You could play such system for 81 000 spins in a row and, for sure, come out ahead.  (Any old man reading: put a bucket under the table. This will do good to your bladder).

4- I have not yet read anything on VIP or this site that can come close to winning long term.  Some claim to be able to do it (hello Winkel) but when the time comes to come up with the proof, they say "believe me or go to hell".

Insidebet

[Boo_Ray]

Boo_Ray,

All I am saying is:

1- Changing table because you are loosing is NOT a system.

2- A winning system is one where your full bets hit at a rate better than 1 in 36, your double street bets will hit at a rate better than 1 in 6, and so on.

3- You could play such system for 81 000 spins in a row and, for sure, come out ahead.  (Any old man reading: put a bucket under the table. This will do good to your bladder).

4- I have not yet read anything on VIP or this site that can come close to winning long term.  Some claim to be able to do it (hello Winkel) but when the time comes to come up with the proof, they say "believe me or go to hell".

Insidebet

Look changing table or something.. It works for me.. You cancel big drawdowns what more do you want? If that makes system win it is o.k for me.. why taking hard way to find Holy grail?

[ChickenDinner]

Hello,


81 000 spins on RX.

-1 575 units.    -3.82%

Not great....

Insidebet

@inside bet


-3.82% sounds pretty good me. Why? Well, as we know the house edge is 2.7%, & this system does not include betting the zero, so the house edge increases by 2.7%. So we are up against 5.4%, yet after 81,000 spins the losses are only 3.82%. It not only plays as close the house edge as possible, but actually beats it! (well, it beats it after 2,025 continuous hours of not peeing).

So if you can surf the dispersions (and in my opinion, remove the progression & use a divisor), I really can't see how this bet selection will fail.

I know we've been over your opinions of dispersion surfing before, but let me give you a quick example. I played a session of this yesterday and soon ran into 24 back-to-back losses. If I had been playing with the progression I would have lost about 100 units, but because I was using Lanky's divisor and was also surfing the dispersions after the first missed cycle, I lost just 12 units! And then within a few spins I had hit my win target and was one happy surfer...!!!

I'd be interested in seeing how this performs on RX if it could be programmed with a built in bet divisor and some kind of dispersion surfing activator...something tells me that the result would be a hell of a lot better than a 3.82% loss.

Cheers,
CD

[MattyMattz]

Well explained CD.

[insidebet]

Chicken,

The 81 000 spins were on a single 0 wheel.  So -3,81% is actually worse than house edge.

Insidebet

[Boo_Ray]

Chicken,

The 81 000 spins were on a single 0 wheel.  So -3,81% is actually worse than house edge.

Insidebet

Inside bet.. CD told that system doesn't bet on zero and If you dont bet on zero house advantage is doubled.. I think winkel told us that and I think it is true

[insidebet]

Look.  There is no mystery to this.  Whether you bet on 0 or not, this is how it goes: Singel 0 wheel has a 2,70% disadvantage;  00 wheel has a 5,40% disadvantage.  Again whether you bet on 0 or not, I really do not care what anybody says, does not change anything.

The Insider

[Boo_Ray]

Look.  There is no mystery to this.  Whether you bet on 0 or not, this is how it goes: Singel 0 wheel has a 2,70% disadvantage;  00 wheel has a 5,40% disadvantage.  Again whether you bet on 0 or not, I really do not care what anybody says, does not change anything.

The Insider

As you wish.. I dont realy know what are we trying to achive while explaining some things to people which know everything..
I am not saying that you are wrong, so as I am not saying that you are right...
It is realy up to individuals who will take this method as a good method or a bad method..
As we get a hint from your name we know that you are faithfull to inside bets and ofcourse you are not gonna like outside bets..I also play inside bets for real money but I am always open for new ideas and exploring new areas... Some have holy grails but it is realy up to one person if he is gonna like it or not. I found a few winning methods, but I only play one or two, maybe three... Because there are methods that I like and methods that I like but they are not in my most favourit part of mind when puting money on the table..
For every method, you need special type of nerves when putting(or waiting to put) money on table... that could be my quote LOL 

[ChickenDinner]

Sorry, what I meant to say was that the system outlined by Lonhro doesn't beat the 5.4% house edge, but performs 1.6% better than the math says it should. Which is great news!

Obviously the house edge is there due to the odds, i.e, taking a risk of 1 out of 37 possibilities to win 35, gives you a 2.7% disadvantage. But from my understanding, the reason the house edge is doubled when a system excludes the zero in a bet selection is easy to work: 36 numbers are played out of 37 possiblities, so 36 % 37 = 0.9729, multiplied by 100 = 97.29. 100% minus 97.29%= 2.7%. Winkel is certainly right!

I suppose a way round this would be to include the zero in 1 of the line groups, ie, line 1-6 is 0-6, however, you'd have to play the numbers rather than the lines, same odds though...hmmm...could that work?...I'll have to think about that one...

Cheers guys

[TwoCatSam]

Forget that last post........

Is someone/anyone saying the house edge cannot be increased? 

"Check yes or no"...George Strait.

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

-