HOW TO FIND A CONSISTENT WINNING ROULETTE BET

[WARRIOR]

i did 200 more spins plus 19  but i no that something else has to be done.just looking for it

[ernesto]

I tested this way:

when
1. dozen come I play 2. and 3. column
2. dozen come I play 1. and 3. column
3. dozen come I play 1. and 2. column

But I'm not sure Tino play this way, because this is really "conventional".
And there is no "bet within the bet".

ernesto

[WARRIOR]

ernesto your right but i m still searching 

[JHM]

Tino's bet we have the following testing

200 spins: +19 (Tino)
215 spins: +20 (JHM)
545 spins: -16 (Ernesto)

Ernesto, what was your highest + and lowest - in the sessions?

[redhot]

more results from tinos bet

285 spins

183 wins
92 losses
9 zeros

total = (183*1) - (92 *2) - (9 * 2) = -19

[redhot]

I've got a new idea following on from my last post about the 4 codes that will win more

How about we 'maufacture' our own even chance bet, 18 numbers but we will include as many numbers as we can from the 4 codes that win more

the four codes were

ROL
ROH
BEL
BEH

We can't include them all because that would be 20 numbers so what if we include most of them like this:

all of ROL
all of ROH
all of BEL
and 3 numbers from BEH

Total of 18 numbers

I don't know if its worth testing what do you think?

[Marven]

more results from tinos bet

285 spins

183 wins
92 losses
9 zeros

total = (183*1) - (92 *2) - (9 * 2) = -19

It will end with -2.7 on the long run. [smiley=police.gif]

Guys, you're flat-betting on 2 columns. Past spin don't matter.
But as I said, perhaps this is the basis for a bet inside it or something.

Aside from that, I like the bet selection. I'll use it with Victor's LD/JD.
Thanks Tino.

Cheers,
Marven

[Marven]

Guys,

Let's go back to this:

In the words quoted by Moccoman, Charles spoke about the 'Differentials' in the table, then he said that you should NOT follow that route because it's conventional; and then he clearly put an emphasis on looking at the OPPOSITE.

The opposite of WHAT?

[redhot]

Guys,

Let's go back to this:

In the words quoted by Moccoman, Charles spoke about the 'Differentials' in the table, then he said that you should NOT follow that route because it's conventional; and then he clearly put an emphasis on looking at the OPPOSITE.

The opposite of WHAT?

dont use conventional 'differentials', 'maufacture' your own with inside bets

[JHM]

Guys, I came across this on Charles site

ours, an engineered bet with condensed instructions for ease of play.

The bet is easy, so what's easy and unconventional?

If we were going for say a 12 point profit hit and after 7 or 8 ahead we hit a bad sequence, we would not go below 3 points win. We quit at 3 points win.

He talks abouth 12 units up and after 7-8 ahead we start losing. His bet is defenately NOT on single (1) or a cheval (2) numbers, because the unit count would be much higher, right? Or he should be covering like 24 units per spin, when win you are up 12, but than your session would end direct. And when a loss comes in you're down -24. So you can't go down a few single units units. Even when playing 6 single numbers, the wins can go from 2 - 30 units, not consistent enough.

That leaves us inside bets where more numbers can be covered with single units:

Full inside:
- Block / Carré (4 numbers)
Part inside:
- streets (3 numbers)
- double streets (6 numbers)
- dozen
- columns

The bet alone, without the professionalism ....is not enough to substain a long career. You must put the complete "Formula" together.

I think we're not looking for a bet that you can play blind and wins much more than it losses. Is could even end negative after 100 spins. But the bet has consistant winnings, so in almost all sessions there comes a point where you're up 5> and you decide to end. But the bet never get deep in negative.

Profit control is part of your formula

Here we go, there isn't a formula that just wins more than it losses. It's the consistance of the bet and the player controlling the units.

The bet alone, without the professionalism ....is not enough to substain a long career. You must put the complete "Formula" together.

So maybe we're just all looking in the wrong direction by looking for a single bet that does the trick? I mean why should you need profit control when the bet wins more than it loses, it will never be negative than right? so we don't need to look at the winning but the consistency of the positive runs.

I'm just thinking loud here guys, I'm not saying I'm right.

[pighead]

I've got a new idea following on from my last post about the 4 codes that will win more

How about we 'maufacture' our own even chance bet, 18 numbers but we will include as many numbers as we can from the 4 codes that win more

the four codes were

ROL
ROH
BEL
BEH

We can't include them all because that would be 20 numbers so what if we include most of them like this:

all of ROL
all of ROH
all of BEL
and 3 numbers from BEH

Total of 18 numbers

I don't know if its worth testing what do you think?

I have been there.. my friend..

[JHM]

1
-2
1
1
-2
1
1
-2
1
1
1
1
-2
-2
1   
1   
1   
1   
1   
1   
1   up 6 here
-2   
1   
-2   
1   start losing up 4 session end
-2   
-2   
   
Tino's bet had great consistent runs. I don't say this is the bet. But I do think we need a bet that has consistent runs. In the 200 spins I have tested I have always had consistent runs of 7>

[New Ken]

jHM, I was talking about your "street discovery". I know Tino is the author of that other doz/column bet----and what you're saying about the  CONSISTENCY perhaps being more important than the WINNING part of Charles' bet makes sense----


...except didn't he say ---to throw the casino managers off track---you can even puposely LOSE a few bets?!

THAT, to my mind, sounds like a bet that is pretty sound.


NEW KEN

[Moccoman]

Hi Guys,

A few corrections and comments:

JHM/Ernesto - 545 x 2units/spin x -2.7% = -29.43, the result of -16 was almost half the edge, so there may have been some profitable 100s along the way.

Madupz4 - there 5 more double streets 4-9, 10-15, 16-21, 22-27, and 28-33.

Gavioli - the criteria is to formulate a bet that wins over exactly 100 spins and if you can find one then test it over 30 sessions of exactly 100 spins - if you only have 1 minor loss then you have something that can be "tested to destruction".

Getting something to win over exactly 100 spins is the first MAJOR hurdle!!

You are right when you said the the bet has been known to lose 6 times in a row - which could be over 20 spins or so.

Generally -
Charles says the each of his sessions can last about 2 hours at approx. 43 spins per hour to win (say) 12 units. On the deleted pages he says bet 12 units to win 8 or lose 4 , so it seems to me that most of his sessions are much shorter than that. Surely after 13 years of smoky tables, sweaty, rude and aggressive punters, you would want to get out as soon as possible!

And the game has perfect symmetry regarding the numbers - and that IS the problem.

He also says that the Consistent Bet came to him after he started coding results, so to code individual streets and double streets seems way too hard for me. The coding I feel, to a certain extent, ignores the particular number and only takes into account what it represents (colour, odd/even, hi/lo, dozen and column). Otherwise we get back to that old scenario of "do you notice how many times street 12 comes out after street 5", type of thing.

So the solution becomes, find something that works over exactly 100 spins and go from there.

Mocco

[madupz4]

Madupz4 - there 5 more double streets 4-9, 10-15, 16-21, 22-27, and 28-33.

What are you talking about?  Yes I know there are other streets.  My response had to do with the table being symetric if folded in half at exactly 1-18.

[madupz4]

-