Possible Holy Grail Adapted

[GLC]

Flukey Luke, VIP, Ben, Albalaha,

If any of you are still available for a comment, I have an observation about this system.

I think just increasing your bets by 1 unit per the original system is twisting the odds of winning.  To increase by 1 when getting paid at 35:1 is okay, but is it the same ratio if you increase by only 1 at 11:1?

It just feels like we may need to increase by 2 unit steps instead of 1 units steps or maybe even 3 unit steps.

I don't have a lot of time right now for testing, so if any of you have any past experience thinking this way, or you can determine it off the top of your head, I'd much aprreciate it.

Thanks,

George

[albertojonas]

hi GLC,

i am also a turboGenious Fan.

I am now more devoted to small bankroll systems, they feel more "Real" to me, in the way i can put them at work in my visits to local casino.
anyway, i think increasing your bet on a win, stay the same on a loss until reach a new high, is a better money management than before. it feels safer and hopefully still profitable.
By the way i am currently using it at an adaptation of mine on pattern system by John Legend - wich i call Pattern X for no reason.



Best Regards George.

If you want i can make some tests on this one

[iggiv]

When you bet sleeping numbers or sections, you are just begging for disaster to strike, because eventually you will certainly find a number or section that will stay asleep for an unusual number of spins.  It may work in the short term, but in the long term it is suicide!


Ben

+1! yes 100 times

[iggiv]

Exactly Ben,
         That is what I wanted to say. Rather, play on most active streets.

+1

[GLC]

guys,  I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, but I have taken all your advice and am playing this on most recent hitting instead of farthest back.  At least I intend to test it on most recent.  My problem is that I want to test it on my airball machine and it for sure appears to have a tendency to favor more recent over farthest away.

Alberto.  Your bet method is kind of what we're doing, I think.  Except that after a cycle, we do increase by 1 and add another street.  Maybe staying at 1 until we have a win and then increasing by 1 if we are still in the hole is a safer way to play.  I'll give it a try.

Do you think waiting to add another street until we have a hit and are still minus is better or stay with adding another street after each 12 spin cycle with streets still being played.

If you don't mind,  a little help testing betting your way would be helpful.

Thanks,

G

[albertojonas]

,,,
Do you think waiting to add another street until we have a hit and are still minus is better or stay with adding another street after each 12 spin cycle with streets still being played.

If you don't mind,  a little help testing betting your way would be helpful.

Thanks,

G

I think add another is better to get out of the hole.

i will test it.

[iggiv]

Guys,  I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, but I have taken all your advice and am playing this on most recent hitting instead of farthest back.  At least I intend to test it on most recent. 

G

good stuff!

[Ralph]

This  post is a bit old stuff, but I found it  this morning, and tested it. I run the method for hours, the reason, it went so well, and wanted  to see if and when problems will come, I got 1260 units plus, average   about 5+ after each  hit, sometimes it needed two or once three hits to reach new high.

One thing I changed were the bet selection, I use to not bet on sleepers, I took always the second last shown street, the street just before the hitting, (second last otherwise it will always be the same street), no other tracking.

I changed the progression, so I put two chips on the second street, after 10 trials, keeping the single chip on the street which did not hit in 10 trails, 2 on the second and the same then three streets were in play, most on the new, the other I suspect could be long sleepers, and the thought is a hit on the street with two or three pays more.

Has anybody tested  it for longer time?

It went very well, max three streets betting, max three chips on each other, and it were a few times only. I will do some more, this time the hit rate were  so good, I do not believe it will on average perform so well.