Original poster, post #1 evidentally has the right idea in mind
All i believed from the beginning was that this is a good idea to build from
Grabbed this from a lotto site
using the above quote, is it beyond the realm of possibility that dividing the wheel into 6 number groups (6 groups of 6 equals 36) and betting that they will not hit in order 1 2 3 4 5 6
I agree. It's like a lot of things where you have to stop, and reset your thinking. And go back to
the original premise. I like the original 123. And I think that fashioning a method where you lean in
a direction of more hits, and not too much money risk is a better place for a method that you can
play without blood pressure meds.
I think that placing the loss in a position of "less likely" is a good one. In accordance with what Ken
has been saying about not fooling yourself with a notebook of results, but real ones that you can
deal with in reality.
And this last one about the 1,2,3,4,5,6 thing has merit. Prerhaps fodder for the new thread where
we can rip each other apart for 100 pages. It's really a masochistic thing here in the forum. Like
hockey used to be. Nothing better than a good brawl.
Anyway, I can't speak to statistics, but it almost does seem like a winner to just sit and play against
a 1,2,3, and take the occasional 28 unit loss. Maybe something like double your unit after a loss for
some recoup, figuring that lightning won't strike twice in the same place.
But again, embracing the "unlikely".
(See you in the next thread. Who's going to start it?)
