Author Topic: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS  (Read 2892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Third

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2018, 10:23:04 AM »
I personally use a 70 spin history where if a number drops to only 1 hit in the last 70 spins, I cease betting that number and I only bet numbers that have at least 2 hits in the last 70 spins.  I use 35 as my expectation instead of 37 because we only get paid on 35.  Anytime a number I am betting misses for 35 spins straight, I will switch to a stronger number immediately or barring that, switch to any number that becomes equally strong.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 10:24:58 AM by Third »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2019, 01:37:15 AM »
Another way I have been testing is this:
We wait a full cycle (37 spins ), and mark the numbers that didn't show up.
In the same example in the picture above 2,5,10,12,22,26,28,31, 32,35,36 are missing in 37 spins.
we play each of those numbers only after they show up.
10 came immediately after showing up for the first time.
31 came twice back to back after 15 spins.
26 came back in 5 spins.
2 in 8 spins.
28 in 9 spins.
32 twice back top back after the 1st show. (wow).
28, 10,and 32 all one after the other after 2 spins. 
By this time you have a HUGE profit.
You don't need to go any further.
Start a new count for 37 spins.

Hey Palestis

Im new here :)

Are you still using this system?
Did you do any more tests or tweaks?

After using this system I am currently up 71 units after my first session (20 numbers played) which is nice thanks to u.

I want to keep using this system but if u have a better version I would love to know.

thank you
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Thanked: 1317 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2019, 12:13:38 PM »
sweaterszn,
How did you came up with 20 numbers?
Did 20 failed to show up in 37 spins?

Btw, this a really interesting system by palestis.
 

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2019, 02:53:13 PM »
Hey Kav

There were 20 numbers that I played altogether in the session.

For example: I counted back 37 spins and 14 #s did not show up. I began to bet on those numbers as they appeared and made it to 11th number and stopped. Then I took a quick break. After my break I came back and counted back 37 spins again. This time 11 numbers did not show up. I began to bet on those numbers as they appeared and made it through 9 of the 11 numbers then ended the session.

So altogether I played 20 numbers (11+9) total in the session.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 02:56:06 PM by sweaterszn »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

palestis

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2019, 02:56:11 PM »
@Sweatrszn
There are several versions based on this system.
One is to play a number repeated in the last 8-15 spins, to repeat for the 3rd time. And you play it for 35 spins, but 20 spins is ok too, as mentioned by Rinad.
But I make sure that this twice repeated number hasn't appeared in the previous 20+ spins.
(which means it was probably a cold numbers about to turn hot).
But my tweaks have always have to do with virtual losses.  In just about every system I play.
There are times that even the best system will sometimes fail.
Or if it doesn't fail , it will squeeze your B/R to the end before you have a hit.
Forcing you to abandon for fear of losing it all.
By using virtual losses, I force the system to approach its losing limits, where there is no other option than to succeed in the next few spins.
Unless of course you run into a new record, not encountered during long term tests.
But I doubt that a player will always encounter new records every time he plays.
That's y long term testing is so important. To find the losing limits of every system tested.
But for now I am waiting for the new casino to open 15 min. from home.
I found that long time travel to go to a casino doesn't work.
Because you get tired and you are forced to eat fatty restaurant foods that affects your patience and thinking.
And worst of all it is the dreaded lonely return trip for home.
Which restricts your playing freedoms, to avoid driving back a loser.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 03:07:22 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Third, sweaterszn

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2019, 03:19:31 PM »
LOL

Wow thats great and it looks beautiful in the picture. I know you'll make a killing there.

Thank you so much for the response. And Yes the VL's are so important. I was just reading an older post from u about VL's in regards to the single dozen system. I will be using VL's from here out no questions asked.

How do you use VLs in regards to this system (system with fewer numbers) ?

Could you give an example or 2?

thank you
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 03:42:33 PM by sweaterszn »
 

palestis

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2019, 10:29:54 PM »
Here is an example of how to use virtual losses for this particular system:
Initially the numbers that qualify (not appeared in about 20 previous spins) are 34 -14-16-10-28-30-5 .
The 34, if played from the beginning, it would've won only 6 chips as it reappeared in the 30th spin.
But if you had waited to lose some spins without actually betting (virtual bets that lost ), (say 20 for example), and then started betting on it, it would've hit in 10 spins giving a profit or 25 chips.
The 14 won almost immediately after 3 spins, but this winning opp. would've been lost if you had waited for 20 VL's. But you didn't lose any money. Just your time only.
16 and 10 would've lost anyway whether you played them from the beginning or after 20 VL's.
(By the way if I let 20 virtual losses go by, I only bet a number for another 15 spins to complete the full cycle).
The 28 won late even after the 20 virtual losses, but it made a small profit anyway. (which would've been a loss if played from the beginning.
The 30 and the 5 won pretty quickly after the 20 VL's giving a hefty profit compared to the profit they would've made if played from the beginning.
If you follow the other qualified numbers (like 21 and 7) you will find that they too, gave an acceptable profit if 20 virtual losing bets went by first. But also some winning opportunities were lost.
                   
            The bottom line is that it is up to the individual player to decide how many virtual losing bets will let go by before starting to bet on a number.
It  is a matter of patience. The more the better.
But you have to ignore lost winning opportunities. And don't get upset if you missed them.
It is the end result that matters.
My suggestion is to do some testing and find the average number of spins that it takes before the qualified number reappears.
If for example they appear on average in 20 spins, then you can use 15 virtual losses.
But personally I would wait for a lot more virtual losses, to the point that I reach almost to the extreme limits where I can only lose if I run into the black swan.
And I am prepared to pay for that with exhaustive patience and plenty of lost time.
Something I cannot do if the casino is far away.
Winning consistently is tough enough due to the HE and the limitations of the player's B/R (compared to the casino's B/R).
So every trick of the trade has to be devised to rise above these obstacles.
Extreme patience and use of many virtual losses has worked perfectly for me.
Adrenaline and get rich quick schemes do not apply in roulette.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 10:36:37 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third, sweaterszn

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2019, 02:15:26 AM »
thanks a lot for the example. 

Do u still bet on a # that hit before the 20 VL spins?

Or do u simply dismiss that number and move onto the next?
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

palestis

Re: SYSTEM WITH FEWER NUMBERS
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2019, 02:12:17 PM »
Yes. I drop that number and replace it with new qualifying numbers.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third, sweaterszn