HOW TO FIND A CONSISTENT WINNING ROULETTE BET

[WARRIOR]

THATS FUNNY NEW KEN.MADE ME LAUGH

[New Ken]

Glad to hear it Tino ol' pal.

JHM, I'm sure I screwed up the math. Did I win or lose??

Maybe I was betting tens...

[New Ken]

I think I'm beginning to understand what Hampshire means when he says to beat the game, not the odds. 
The game is RANDOMNESS. And he does say that you have to beat randomness to win.

So---what beats randomness, JHM?

(Just my thinking, of course)


NEW KEN!

[WARRIOR]

NEW KEN A BET THAT IS IN MOVEMENT AND NOT IN FIXITY AS CHARLES SAYS.

[JHM]

Ken,

You placed bets on 2 dozen. That means.

Win = +1
Lose = -2

Wins 35 x 1 = +35
Loses = 15 * 2 = -30

35-30=+5

You won 5 units mate.

[JHM]

Lateral thinking beats randomness, at least that's what Charles tells us to do, think lateral.

Ken I was thinking this yesterday. When a dozen and a column both hit twice. We almost know sure 1 of both will jump. If we bet both:

win both = 4-2= +4
win 1 bet / lose 1 bet = +2-3= -1
lose both = -4

We know one will jump, if we bet 2, we know the change is small to win both 43% (16 to 37).

Which do we bet?

[New Ken]

Jhm, of course I won 5 ( I really didn't mean to make you do all that math   ).

Importantly, I do believe the attack should be geared toward Randomness.

[New Ken]

Jhm, your bet would involve waiting for the opportunity, whichever choice is best. I'm believing that Charles' bet, while it may have a waiting period for hits, is about playing every spin--with an uncomplicated bet.

Tino suggests a bet that is in "movement" can beat randomness. Good, but how??

[MattyMattz]

So, I'm thinking : What can possibly beat randomness (which Hampshire says is necessary). Well, hell--it's gotta be ORDER, I thought


So I dreamed up this 1-2-3 thing. It's based on the idea that dozens(or cols) will not play in a 1-2-3 order, so I'm playing "against" that happening.

Goes:  1st spin, I play 2nd and 3rd dozs--second spin, play 1st and 3rd dozs---3rd spin, play 1st and 2nd dozs--then back again to top.
NEW KEN!

Isn't this idea similar to the one system Simon was touting over at RouletteForum?  Changing 2 dozen's each bet in some sort of order?

MM

[toxic]

Yeah Matt,

But Simon's worked like this.

Bet doz 1 and 2
next spin 2 and 3
then 1 and 2
and so forth alternating every spin.

Also use a pogression with this. 1,3,9,27

Doz 2 gets bet every spin.

bye
Tox

[ikarianman]

hello everyone,i tried to beat randomness with randomness..
in every spin a made my own random dozen by betting 4 different streets every time random.
it faild.
what works a bit is waiting for a dozen or a column to hit 3 consecutive times and bet the other 2.most of the time you win,but then the dozen or column can hit up to nine times if you are unlucky and lose big

[New Ken]

HEY, people...MY dozen-order system hasn't failed yet---'cause I only tested it for 50 spins


Charles Hampshire says: "We love randomness!". So, they've found a way to exploit it.

[Compa]

A 2-3
B-1-3
C-1-2

ABC?

lol

[New Ken]

Maybe it's along those lines, Compa

[Marven]

NEW KEN A BET THAT IS IN MOVEMENT AND NOT IN FIXITY AS CHARLES SAYS.

Correct mate.

I usually refer to a bet that relies on a fixed rule(s) of selecting the bet as 'A Static Bet Selection';
and a bet that relies on a mechanical way of selecting the bet but with a random element as 'A Mechanical Bet Selection with a Random Element'.

Charles' bet is probably the latter.

[Marven]

-