• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Almost every system has been tested many times before. Start by learning what we already know doesn't work, and why.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Win or break even.

Started by ego, Oct 01, 02:33 AM 2012

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ego


-

I try to rap my mind around this - win or break even.

I like the bell curve Victor post as it shows that if we can catch average events - then we can hovering around 95/68% with our strike ratio - then we have around 34% of negative expectation - but not all true as the bell curve has no limits as nothing is due to happen.



-

Then the question becomes if we can win and break even to that point we operating with only winnings.
I like that idea.

The only thing i can find as average events for even money bets is present change - i find that be more constant then any other movement with 50/50 distribution.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego


Now lets test to catch average events of the distribution with even money bets.
With out any entering points or exist points.

This is the result of 300 trails with today's file from random org 2012 10 01

W W W W L L

L W W W W L L

W W W W W W W L W L W L L

L W W W L W W L W L W L L

W W L W W W L W W L W W W W W L L

L L

W L W W L L

W W L L

L W

Now this is using the even money with three present states and you play for a change.
42 WON 28 LOSS

Now if some one continues betting we will always face the sequenses losing strings at the end.
We would reduce the loses if we would play to win once with each cycle - but then we would get less action and not gain so much.
So each strategy has its downside.

W L W W L W W L L W W L W

Cheers





Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego


Now with this results the tendency is more even with 39 won and 33 loss.
The results are from random org 2012 09 30 with 300 trails.


W L W L L

L W L W W W W L L

W L L

L W L L

W W W W W W W W L L

W L L

W L W L W L L

L L

L W W W W W L W W L W L W L W W W W L L

W W W W W L L

L L

If we now test one win with one cycle we get the following results with reducing losing strings.

W L W W L W W W W L L L W W L L

I am pretty sure that if some one wanted to succed to win and break even that the last option would be optimal as playing model with less variance.
If some one would pick the first option then it would come with higher variance.

Cheers


Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego


Should mention that the basic idea behind this march is based upon Markov and Marigny.
Now this is the next file with a better tendency then previos day.
The file is from random org 2012 09 29 with 300 trails.


W L W L W W W W L W L W W W W W L W W W W W L W L L

L W L W W L W W L L

W L W L W W L L

W W L L

L W W L W W L L

L W W W W W L W L L

W L W W W W L W W L W W L W

The average tendency with this results is with 49 wins and 33 loses.
If we would play once to win with one cycle we would get the following results:

W L W W W L W L W W

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego


I have two way's to use a march based upon Markow and Marigny.
The first one using the outcomes as they come with out involving Markow chains.
The other one use both.

Cheers

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Drazen

I think you use here sequential betting strategy as you personaly coined that phrase.


And one could be safer and could stand hard fluctuations if it start attack after 3 same states in a row for example, or can start 2 for more action, doesn't have to go for immediate change.


But results are cool, especialy with the way i just told.


Also one can have 2 marches in his arsenal and use one which he chooses as standard to play and when good situation shows (and it has to eventualy) he can switch to the other and he can "reap the cream" from such situation


I mean here on playing against and playing to repeat but at very specific predetermined events (triggers).


Also when a hard deviation comes, when few losing shots comes, one can take advantage out of it by recalibrating unit size as probability is raising to very very low point.


So my humble opinion is that is vital to find and start at "medium"  point of deviation where you can handle bad sequences with very low probabilty with using above said.


Cheers


Drazen

ego


But i was not referring to that march you mention for three states to alternate - i find a better march.
You play against that the previous state will repeat.

That is also imbalance when one state grows and then the STD for that state grows.
PM me and i send you both and we can do some testing together with the optimal playing model.

This might be my final research for a valid method for Asian Handicap play with sport-betting.

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Drazen

Quote from: ego on Oct 01, 05:25 AM 2012
But i was not referring to that march you mention for three states to alternate - i find a better march.
You play against that the previous state will repeat.

Cheers


Well i reffered to that also mr. ego


I mentioned two marches. Playing states to alternate and playing states to repeat.


I am testing that also.


And i have seen one dozen repeated 9 times in a row (111111111) so as I am saying it is important  to attack at the right moment or to fine calibrate length of the attack if going immedietaly from last state not to repeat.


I found decent attacking in this case to start the attack after 3 dozzens in a row

For example 3 series or 3 singles, or 3 hovering states


Like 111; 222 ; 333


Cheers


Drazen
     





ego

Drazen i write from mobile so i keep it short
You doing it wrong
If one state repeat once you dont bet you wait for a new state
So one state can repeat 100 times it does not effect us
look at my LW Registry above
You play against 11223322
Pm me and we will clear things out
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Drazen

Thanks mr. ego for poinitng that out.


PM is coming.



Regards


Drazen






ego


Drazen i find today's file from random org with some serios fluctation and low strike ratio.

L L

L W L L

W L L

W W L W W W L L

L L

W W W L L

W L W L L

L W L L

L W L L

W L W L L

W L W L W W L W W W L L

L W L W W W L L

L L

W L L

But even if the strike ratio was low so did the optimal march playing once for each cycle still produce steady reulsts

LWWWLLWWLWLWWWLWLLW

I have test 5 x 300 trails session and never hit 4 losses in a row - that show that the this method has low variance ...

This is the file so you can backtrack the betting behavior.

1
2
2
1
2 L
2 L
2
1
1
2
2 L
1
2 W
2
1
2 L
2 L
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1 W
1
2
1 L
1 L
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
2
2 W
1
2 L
2 W
1
1 W
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2 W
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 L
2
2 L
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 W
1
1
2
1 W
2
1
1
1
2
2 W
2
2
1
1 L
1
1
2
2 L
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2 W
2
2
1
1 L
1
2
1 W
2
1
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 W
1
2
1 L
2 L
2
2
1
1
2
2 L
2
1
2 W
1
1
1
2
1 L
2 L
2
1
1
1
2
1 W
1
1
2
1 L
2 W
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
2
1 L
1 W
2
1 L
2 W
2
2
1
1 W
2
2 L
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
2
1
1 W
1
2
1 W
1
2
1 L
1 L
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
2 W
1
2 L
1 W
2
1
1
2
2 W
1
2 W
2
1
2 L
2 L
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2 L
2
2
1
1 L
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1 W
2
2 L
2
1
1 L
2
1
2
1
1
1

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Drazen

Thanks

Yes i tested 15 wiesbaden sessions and I know what i saw.

But i can't get what do you mean with that one bet each cycle? I mean how to reduce or play with lower variance? If it is low enough, there is always bigger chip to compensate waiting and patience :)

Can you explain please?

Regards

Drazen

ego


Entering point.

You wait for one present state to repeat.
Then you wait for a new present state to show.
Now you play against the new present state that show that it will not repeat.
If you win that is the end of the attack.
If you lose you continue until a win using the march i describe above.

Staking plan.

I am still looking into that subject.

Step by step explanation.

1
2
2
1
2 L
2 L One state repeat now wait for a new present state.
2
1
1 New present state now play it will not repeat.
2
2 L
1
2 W Bet won end of attack.
2
1
2 L
2 L One state repeat now wait for a new present state to show.
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 New present state show now play against that this state will not repeat.
2
1 W Bet won end of attack.
1
2
1 L
1 L
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
2
2 W
1
2 L
2 W
1
1 W
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2 W
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 L
2
2 L
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 W
1
1
2
1 W
2
1
1
1
2
2 W
2
2
1
1 L
1
1
2
2 L
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2 W
2
2
1
1 L
1
2
1 W
2
1
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 W
1
2
1 L
2 L
2
2
1
1
2
2 L
2
1
2 W
1
1
1
2
1 L
2 L
2
1
1
1
2
1 W
1
1
2
1 L
2 W
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
1 L
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
2
1 L
1 W
2
1 L
2 W
2
2
1
1 W
2
2 L
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
2
1
1 W
1
2
1 W
1
2
1 L
1 L
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 L
2 W
1
2 L
1 W
2
1
1
2
2 W
1
2 W
2
1
2 L
2 L
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2 L
2
2
1
1 L
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1 W
2
2 L
2
1
1 L
2
1
2
1
1
1

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Drazen

Thanks, I understand.

Now lets see the trick..

Cheers

Drazen

ego


Every method has its losing strike - so we have to set our limits - could be six losses.
That would be four repeating states in a row after each other.
I am going to run random org files from 2012 09 01 to 2012 09 30 and see what happens.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

-