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

News:

The only way to beat roulette is by increasing accuracy of predictions (changing the odds). This is possible on many real wheels.

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

Two dozen method by TurboGenius

Started by ego, Jan 21, 10:05 AM 2015

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

thelaw

Quote from: psimoes on Jan 22, 04:50 PM 2015
If you can, just publish the LW. I've come to the conclusion that's all there is to know. Think it deserves a thread on its own.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to post all results, but here is an example of the type of chops that I'm seeing (actual spins) :

L
w
L
w
w
w
L
w
L
L
w
L
w
L
L
w
L
w
w
w
L
L
w
L
w
w
L
w
w
L
L

......again...just my $.02 (the spins that I am running into seem to have more chops than others posted here-not sure why) :)

You sir.......are a monster!!!

psimoes

Guess the dozens are streaky. It's the only situation that kills it. I'll have to "read" the table carefully. Still, if waiting for four virtual losses before betting, no actual loss has happened yet. Thanks for sharing.
[Math+1] beats a Math game

thelaw

Quote from: psimoes on Jan 22, 05:21 PM 2015
Guess the dozens are streaky. It's the only situation that kills it. I'll have to "read" the table carefully. Still, if waiting for four virtual losses before betting, no actual loss has happened yet. Thanks for sharing.

Another quick idea - what about betting after each loss (seeing a bunch of single losses in all of these samples-Marti if you've got the stones) :)
You sir.......are a monster!!!

GLC

Bet 2 dozens until you have 4 wins in a row.  On 4 wins in a row, you drop back/down 1 level.  On 2 losses in a row, you increase 1 level.

So, with 3 or less wins in a row, you keep playing the same bet amount.  With only 1 loss, you keep playing the same bet amount.

Shoot for 1 unit per attack and then reset back to the 1 unit level.

So, we start by betting 1 unit each on 2 dozens.  You decide which 2 dozens.  As long as we only lose 1 time in a row or only win 3 or less times in a row, we stay at the 1 unit each on 2 dozens level. 

WWLWWWLWLWWLWLWWLWWWL  with this Win/Loss record, we are still betting 1 unit on each dozen because we haven't had 4 wins in a row or 2 losses in a row. 

WWLWWWLWLWWLWLWWLWWWLL  Uh oh!  We had 2 losses in a row so we start betting 2 units each on the 2 dozens. 

WWLWWLWLL  Uh oh! another 2 losses in a row so we move to betting 3 units each on our 2 dozens. 

WWWLWLWLWWLWWWW  Uh oh!  We just had 4 wins in a row so we drop back to betting 2 units each on our 2 dozens.  Etc...etc...etc...

We can play until we reach a predetermined win target if we want instead of resetting every time we reach +1.

This is not a complete system, just a betting method that has pretty good staying power.

Best of luck,

George
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

ego

Quote from: thelaw on Jan 22, 05:08 PM 2015
Unfortunately, I don't have time to post all results, but here is an example of the type of chops that I'm seeing (actual spins) :

L
w
L
w
w
w
L
w
L
L
w
L
w
L
L
w
L
w
w
w
L
L
w
L
w
w
L
w
w
L
L

......again...just my $.02 (the spins that I am running into seem to have more chops than others posted here-not sure why) :)

Yes that is a bad session or bad strike, lets take a closer look:

L
w +1
L
w +2
w
w
L
w +3
L
L +1
w +2
L
w +3
L
L +1
w +2
L
w +3
w
w
L
L +1
w +2
L
w +3
w
L
w +4
w
L
L +2
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.

psimoes

Played this method at the casino today. 4 L, 13 W. Flat bet. Profit 5 u.
[Math+1] beats a Math game

ego


Nice ...
If some one has follow this topic, so was the point not to post a winning method.
The point was that i can stand next to the table for 8 hours collecting data and look like a system player with out losing to much with low variance.
I test 300 trails and lose 24 Euro - but during the play i had a peak around +12 units.

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.

thelaw

Quote from: ego on Jan 23, 02:26 PM 2015
Nice ...
If some one has follow this topic, so was the point not to post a winning method.
The point was that i can stand next to the table for 8 hours collecting data and look like a system player with out losing to much with low variance.
I test 300 trails and lose 24 Euro - but during the play i had a peak around +12 units.

Cheers

Hey Ego,

Was that using the betting selection mentioned in your last post above, or flat betting each spin?

Thanks! :)
You sir.......are a monster!!!

psimoes

Quote from: ego on Jan 23, 02:26 PM 2015
Nice ...
If some one has follow this topic, so was the point not to post a winning method.
The point was that i can stand next to the table for 8 hours collecting data and look like a system player with out losing to much with low variance.
I test 300 trails and lose 24 Euro - but during the play i had a peak around +12 units.

Cheers

I see your point. Well, if there is such alternative method, I'd be interested to know about it.
There is still some variance with this one. Four losses in a row aren't so rare. It's valid for columns as well. And sometimes the losses coincide (dzs 2,3,3,1 + cls  A,B,B,C and next outcome: dz2 + cl A for example). Although it's not frequent. I was on a losing streak and decided to place my last two chips on the two splits and won. I'll remember this for a long time.
[Math+1] beats a Math game

TwoCatSam

Quote from: ego on Jan 21, 10:05 AM 2015
This method is by TurboGenius and i like the method very much.
One reason is that you need no tracking and it is easy to play.

You track the last four dozen that hit and bet against them on a rolling basis.

2.
3.
3.
3.
2 L.
2 W.   
2 W.   
1 W.   
1 W.   
2 L.
1 W.   
2 W.   
1 L.   
1 W.   
3 W.   
1 W.   
1 L.   
2 W.   
1 W.   
3 W.   
2 W.   
2 L.
1 L.   
1 W.   
2 L.   
1 W.   
1 L.   
2 W.   
3 W.   
3 W.   
1 L.   
3 W.   
3 L.   
1 W.   
2 W.
2 W.
1 W.
2 W.
1 W.
1 W.
2 W.
2 L.
3 W.
2 W.
3 W.
2 L.
3 L.
1 W
3 L
1 W
1 W
1
1
2
2
1
2

I want to play and have a reason standing next to the wheel starring at it.
Then i been thinking about this method.

But a 4 step marty would be to agressive for my taste, so i was thinking to use one skip and flat betting the first two bets and raise the last one.
I want to play as much i can and lose as little i can during that time standing next to the wheel starring at it and collecting data.

1:1
1:1
2:2

That way i win with my first bet and accept loses with my secound and last bet.
The idea is that first bet and secound bet will hovering around break even territorium.
As first wins one unit and the secound lose one unit.

WWWWLWWWWWWLWW


2.
3.
3.
3.
2 L.
2 W. +1
2 W.
1 W.
1 W.
2 L.
1 W. +2
2 W.
1 L.
1 W. +3
3 W.
1 W.
1 L.
2 W. +4
1 W.
3 W.
2 W.
2 L.
1 L. +2
1 W. +3
2 L.
1 W. +4
1 L.
2 W. +5
3 W.
3 W.
1 L.
3 W. +6
3 L.
1 W. +7
2 W.
2 W.
1 W.
2 W.
1 W.
1 W.
2 W.
2 L.
3 W. +8
2 W.
3 W.
2 L.
3 L. +6
1 W  +7
3 L
1 W  +8
1 W
1
1
2
2
1
2
3



Read the red.  What if the last four dozens to hit are 1 2 3 2.  That's certainly possible.  How do we bet against that?

Do you mean to say, "Look at the last four outcomes.  If only one dozen is missing, bet it."

Am I missing something?

Sam



If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.  ...Will Rogers

GLC

Sam,  All this method does is bet that the last four dozen sequence won't repeat in the next 4 spins.  this is a double dozen system.  So if we have 1 3 2 2 as the last four spins, we will bet against the 1 dozen hitting, if the 1 doz does hit then bet against the 3 dozen hitting, if the 3 doz hits, then bet against the 2 dozen hitting and if the 2 dozen hits, then bet against the next 2 dozen hitting.

So we're betting that this:

1 3 3 2

won't become this:

1 3 3 2
1 3 3 2

Turbo used a standard martingale progression for 2 dozens: 1-1;  3-3; 9-9; 27-27. 

Really all we're doing is betting 1-1 that the dozen that hit on the 4th spin back won't hit on this, the 5th spin.  If it does, we will bet 3-3 that the new 4th spin back won't repeat on this new 5th spin.  If it does, then 9-9 and finally 27-27.  We only lose all four bets if the exact 4 dozens repeats in the next four spins.

TwisterUK posted a similar system on the even chance bets.  He bet a 10 step martingale against the last 10 spins repeating in the next 10 spins.  I think he called it the closest system to a holy grail he'd come up with.

I think it's not any more profitable than just writing down about 25 sets of 4 random sets of dozens.  Like the following:

1 2 3 3
2 3 1 3
2 2 3 1
2 1 1 2
2 3 3 3
2 1 2 1
1 1 1 3
3 2 2 1

etc...

Just bet 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27 that each line won't repeat.  When you win on a line, just drop down to the next line and start over at 1-1.

If you lose all 4 bets, you will lose 80 units.  Keep playing the same progression and hope in the long run you win more than you lose.

If you go through all 25 sets that you wrote down before coming into the casino, just go back to the top and go through them again.  The wheel doesn't know what you're doing.

GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

TwoCatSam

George

You have a unique way of explaining things:  I can understand them!!   :thumbsup:

I had a sneakin' suspicion I was reading it wrong--and I read it many times!

Thanks and did you move yet?

Sam
If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.  ...Will Rogers

atlantis

@twocatsam
For double dozen I sometimes like to use the RO/BE  RE/BO selection methodology from the "easy peasy" system (EC + 1 Line)
Remember that fun little system you made a video of? btw, do you ever still play it? :)

A.
Thru the darkness of Future Past the magician longs to see. One chants out between two worlds:
"Fire -- Walk with me!"

TwoCatSam

Atlantis

Call me crazy--and many have!--but when I learned that pretty young woman had taken us for a ride and didn't really exist, I soured on that idea.  I have not played it since.   I rarely get to a casino anymore.  I have only been once or twice in that past six months.  When I do go, I almost always play the "Tic Tac Toe" by Dane.  I am constantly amazed at how that thing works.

For years now, I've swore I'd someday play MRJ's "Two's Company" for real as I never have.  I tested that thing with the Zuma Tester until it won over $5,000 and quit.  It is a horrible progression--CONTRADICTION TO FOLLOW--but in the "long run" it always wins a ton.  Or it did...

I am always looking for new ideas that are easy to play and DO NOT use a progression (OOPS).  At Riverwind, there seems to be a tendency for the RNG to get in a "repeater" mode and the same numbers come up in batches.  Yes, I know; I need to devise a system for that.

Oklahoma seems to be the child of climate change as our winters are becoming very mild and short.  Sadly, this leaves me more time to work in the yard.  I have two more summers and then I turn 70.  If I'm still alive by then, I will hire me a SammyClone to do my work for me. 

Good to hear from you.  Take care.

Samster



If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.  ...Will Rogers

psimoes

So we're supposed to retrack another four spins after a win? I thought we'd bet continuously, i.e. bet against the last fourth dozen. As Ego said "on a rolling basis", which is the original point of this thread... a method that lets you play every spin...

Anyway retracking after a win might reduce variance (or not), if the random outcomes are regarded as a continuous process (debatable). So if there's still room for improvement this method should deserve its own thread.

Imagine if, by betting every spin, we face the following variance:

WWWLLWWWLWWLWWLLWWWLLWWWWLLLLWLWWWW

By retracking after a win we'd miss out a few wins but we could also be skipping over clusters of losses:

WNbNbNbNbLWNbNbNbNbWNbNbNbNbWNbNbNbNbWNbNbNbNbLW

Or we can just accept the variance and wait for a number of virtual losses before staking. Guess I'm surrendering to the virtual betting idea.

[Math+1] beats a Math game

-