They say 90% of systems fail due to inadequate bankroll.

What about the other 10%? Does that mean if you can afford to adequately capitalise the application of a system (to ride out any negative variance) then it will be successful and produce a longer term profit? I doubt it, very much. The other 10% (if it is 10%) will also be losses, attributable to the effect of the house edge.

Sputnik is correct in my opinion. Equal distribution is an objective force that limits random results. This force can be used to our advantage and Sputnik has come up with a way to identify specific triggers that are associated with these limits. I think he deserves alot of credit.

He's not. Really. His assertion that "

**Regression is the real thing**" is misconceived, and there is simply no logical merit in believing that recent past variance in results will correct itself within any given timescale to the same degree. As I've pointed out, even where the variance (measured in StdDevs) reduces what this represents grows as the number of trials increase - so the negative variance window for losing tends to get bigger, not smaller, as one plays even where the number of StdDevs variance reduces. That is it. Sorry if that contradicts something someone wrote in an internet forum ten years ago. Believe different? That's fine.

Sputnik has said that he's not going to be convinced that his approach isn't a winning one, and will be funding some extended travel across Europe on the profits. He is, of course, entitled to take this view and as I've said I wish him good luck with applying his method, and hope very much that he isn't too disappointed when he discovers it doesn't work. Also I think he'd better take a credit card with him when he travels.

Let's draw a line under this now, as we've all moved off of the question posed by the original poster.