Winning Structurally

[TRD]

I'd like to put out some principles, which my body of work consists of,
& found them essential/useful in roulette, that work for me.


First, above all the description & explanation of a roulette systems, concepts & principles, I guess we all, for sure me, its about (making) the wheel work in our favor.

By this I mean, we all know that no bs type of selection attempt is impregnable by itself, although admittedly some overall produce better results than others, or offer an overal better performance.

Out of this, we know that relying on bs itself, we cannot expect an all-winning system, or simply we cannot predict which number will come out (comment: here I am not dismissing the possibility of computers or more sophisticated ways of perception/sensing, but I do not rely them).


So what else is out there, what else can be used to ensure consistent win;
in other words what else can be used to 'make the wheel work in our favor'.

When I say 'make', I am not implying any sort of illusion over the control over the wheel,
but speaking about mechanism that we actually have control over, that can be used in
such congruent design (of a system), its modules or constituents,
the concepts & principles combined taking shape as a resulted system.

[TRD]

Not long ago I came over, for me, a new term .. although not a concept that I've used.
This term, allowing for more clear communication is 'irreducible complexity'.

Its originally a biological term (wikipedia, irreducible complexity), nonetheless when designing consistently winning roulette system, its my firm stand that a certain amount of functions serving/operating/satisfying sufficient amount of purposes has to be satisfied.

Def1: ... a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.[10]

Def2:  intelligent-design; a system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.


When I talk about all these next principles, I talk abput them in this irreducible complexity context.

We all know, & tend to, to simplify the things as much as possible, & rightly so I add,
still there's a certain amount of mechanism  that have to be included in the design itself,
& working in-sync, or symbiotically, or in synergy congruently ..
to address the variance & its inherent uncontrollable nature in the way proper;
in the way that makes tbe wheel work in our favor, hermetically & consistently so.

[TRD]

Besides variance uncontrollable, what is there that is controlled:
the amount of chips used & the way those are distributed (layout) --
that's it! .. nothing more, nothing less .. that's all in our control.
That's the interface as a whole, to keep the game in control.

Now, if we cannot predict variance, if we cannot predict the next or next few number,
the bs --less assembling a more sophisticated one that overall produces better results
than its contenders .. when all the trends go haywire & the only trend remaining is completely chaotic -- is useless in terms of hermetically seal our play in an all-winning fashion.


So, variance being uncontrallable, what else is there, to keep the game in control ..
which is the key; which mechanism can be & are put in place to facilitate, even unsure this.

What does 'to keep the game in control' means;
in other words which factors are essential in playing the role in the game being kept in control
•  firstly, what we deal with has to be quantifiable (otherwise we could be talking fruit-cake hippy mumjumbo -- in short, any & all meta-physical concepts have matter, or be sense-fully represented)
•  secondly, from all the factors that are quantifiable, what is essential, what is the aim; to profit, or after deliberately creating & entering the debt is to generate enough funds to cancel out the outstanding debt & then more so to profit.


So we are talking foremostly about exposition.

[TRD]

Since variance is uncontrollable & (in concordance with) any bet selection applied,
there are periods, intervals of spins, even prolonged ones (gaps, clusters forming) ..
where variance goes & is out of favor.

Seem so, no bs type assembled, or even alternating between them types,
addresses the variance in a hermetical & winning assured way;
thereof we have to some tools = mechanism, derived of & assembled with the only two things we have in control, & at least a certain amount them congruently, to address it so.


Thereof debt creation & exposition is unavoidable;
however with the tools congruently applied it can be kept,
& with this game in control .. as a result, keeping the drawdowns at any point in time 'recoverable'.

Another point I wanna make, another factor in this game of keeping the game in control is 'volatility'. Interestingly, with the recovery rate used (how quickly we recover) & how much profit we aim at & make once resurfacing (into a new high) -- or 'how much' chips we use (first thing of two we have in control -- we directly delf-influence, create volatilty.

So, the 'recovery rate' & 'profit protrusion rate'  = volatility;
& with these two also be kept in deliberate control ..
we determine the frequency of volatility, or volatility rate;
thus locating & identifying two essential keys of keeping the game in control;
which also have direct correlation to the exposition generation,
&or direct effect on 'how much' are drawdowns recoverable.



Simply speaking, variance simply is; & with a type of interaction with it ..
its us who create game, define the nature/character of the game, determine its unfolding,
& ultimately decide & ensure that the game is being kept in control.

[TRD]

To recap;
we only control the amount of chips placed & how the placement is distributed,
with the recovery & protrusion rate we directly determine the volatility & exposition;
to retain the drawdowns recoverable (at any point = game in control),
we have to traverse the out of favor variance creating the least debt possible.

The quicker we recover, the higher the frequency of volatility = size of drawdowns.
The more we protrude into the new high, the higher the frequency of volatility = size of drawdowns.
The higher the frequency of volatility, the higher the drawdowns = the less are drawdowns recoverable.

The more recoverable the drawdowns, the quicker recovery .. once variance turns into favor,
the more recoverable drawdowns require shorter intervals of variance returning in our favor.

[Blueprint]

Perhaps we should bring this back to somewhat familiar terms like derived numbers, cycles and cycle lengths, unique numbers, mixing things together, parallel games, and parachuting.   

The only thing that sounded familiar in your post is a CONSTANT bet... which is fixed amount of chips on fixed positions.   Aside from that, I have no idea how anyone is supposed to get anywhere with the above info.  If it works for you I'm happy to hear that though!!

[TRD]

==================================================================
Yes, I intend to & will progress from intuitive-abstract to practical realm;
the above is intended as an abstract, but clearly defining & deducing, intro.

.. having any other suggestions to make this more
comprehensible/usable, don't hesitate doing so.
==================================================================

Thereof it makes complete sense to create the least exposition .. & how to ensure that.

Here are the few essential principles, which I will dedicate its own in detail description further below:
•  minimum betting
•  minimum new high profit
•  alternating between high, wide, focused coverage

The latter is an actualization more of the second of the two things we have in control
(how the amount of chips are placed, layout), however both have to be used congruently;
which brings me to my own •  multi-dimensional unified-progression concept,
unlike when progression is mentioned its usually straight interpreted in/as 'vertical progression 'dimension.

Moreover, in architecture/mesoamerican shamanism, there is a principle termed as tensegrity,
a concept of the distribution of weight/pressure uniformly on all the corners or angles, or in equal measure; extended & applied to roulette this means managing the (weight of) outstanding debt in a way of distributing it over & to be handled by various progression dimensions &or designed mechanism proportionally/evenly (so that no system constituent/module serving its own purpose carries more weight that others) .. & in such a way drive the exposition mark/game in controlled fashion(back) in (nominal) profit.

[TRD]

Now, let's slowly proceed by applying the above-mentioned into, as Blueprint suggested, context;
by firstly clearly describing & defining the bolded in the above post,
together accompanied with the examples within the context.

Nominal profit & minimum betting
these two complement each other, or basically need to be applied as one to work at all.

The fundamental idea/principle is to bet the least possible to make that +1 profit.


Why!?

Every seasoned player knows that once the vertical progression is applied, & this is to be applied as the last of all measures anyway, the size of the base or initial outstanding debt at the point of doing has & defines the ripple effect (that carries all along the ladder) directly impacting the acceleration of vertical progression, or vertical progression increase rate.

In addition, in my own experience, any profit/spin ratio that exceeds the 0.3u-0-4u/spin, produces volatility of a higher rate/frequency, effectuated in more than necessary drawdown amounts .. simply speaking, more than minimum possible, & as such less recoverable.

Moreover, every little unnecessary 'weight', self-produced btw, from whatever source, whatever design, put together magnify themselves the more & the longer the variance is out of favor (planning & preparing = being ready for the eventual black swan type of variance included); so it only makes sense & its (only) upon to .. in the initial system design, from the original idea, over the drawing board, to the actual system assembly .. to account for this & regard this in every angle & detail possible.

The most important point, the merging & distillation of the three passages above, is the least generated exposition, resulting in the most recoverable drawdowns, requiring the shortest intervals of variance (turning) in favor.

[TRD]

So, no matter what we play for/against, & in what way, including the derived numbers, repeat cycle, &
what MoneyT101 is proposing the latest .. is to start with EC over DZ district (=compartment), & of the games yet not resolved & system restarted then proceed to & on DS itself (even further applying Q district, more on this later) .. meanwhile, all the time tracking (in) the determined-bs way to position/selection ready.

Some might be reluctant on this idea, but when you run this through the three passages above, you'll see (& perhaps admit to yourself as well), that it makes complete sense:
•  starting straight with eg. 2DS (=2x Ä'S 1u/each) your profit potential is +4u, at the first spin. Fine, you'll get plenty of those spin when you make +4, effectively increasing your profit/spin ratio; but that backfires .. on multiple counts ..
   one -- after one no-hit spin the game is already -2u down, so the exposition increase rate is already higher than absolutely necessary;
   two -- the base for vertical progression dimension is thus also impacted, either & as well both, forcing you to apply the vertical progression (vp) increase sooner (even if it is the last measure applied) .. & as well its own increase rate, making it(s acceleration) quicker .. to compensate for the more than necessary recoverable drawdown;
   three -- since the produced drawdown is more than necessary, the vp applied sooner than necessary, its increase rate sooner than necessary, the drawdown bigger than necessary .. you might find yourself in a type of catch-22 .. where the only solution to keep the games to new high acceptably short, & the profit/spin ratio accetably high & worthy if your time investment .. is to apply even higher  vp at a higher increase rate -- & when the inevitable prolonged out of favor variance intervals are meet, such could be simply named as self-produced recipe for self-destruction.



Surely you must have learned to appreciate by now, having been offered the insights, & must comprehend the paramount importance of what is done from & on the first spin onwards, the ripple effect of such actions carried throughout the game till its profit (new high), & how the impact of these initial actions gets magnified the more the out of favor variance is prolonged; & as the handling of the most prolonged ones is crucial to the assembling of an all-winning system & actually surpassing them being aware of the coming of such an interval & being ready for when it comes, its also crucial to account for it from the initial idea, over the drawing board, .... , to its actual execution.

Even if its -2 units upon -2 units upon -2 units, in long-term professional play it means a lot in terms of  the ripple effect & its impact on the game .. vs .. potential profit units already secured at a higher probability, lower cost, & most importantly a better base to recover from .. especially when its impact is magnified in the longest out of favor variance intervals.


Moreover, having to resort to a lower bankroll requirement, even if that profit/spin ratio seems a bit low at first .. means in the long run .. firstly, that the actual cash credits can be converted into a higher base unit bankroll .. secondly, that the base unit increase rate is quicker, due to having to win much less session that at sizeably higher bankroll .. thereof, with the compounding effect being (nearly) maximized .. the overall long-term profits are much higher = generating sufficient momentum force propelling/catapulting you out of the profits' gravity well.

Suddenly, that low profit/spin ratio doesn't seem that negligible anymore.

[TRD]

That naturally brings me to the concept of the attack & recovery,
& the transition point between the two.

I define the attack as the interval of spins, in which one hit is enough to (bring the game) to profit.
Recovery, thereof, as the first instance & a particular form of a divisor, requires two or more.

The transition point between the two; the longer this point is postponed,
the worse the 'base', the stronger the ripple effect & the less recoverable the drawdowns are.


Obviously, its up to anyone, to define & determine the locus of such point,
but further you push this the higher the bankroll requirement will be,
& with it the more imparted the compounding effect, & the base unit increase rate.



For those interested, I am hereby attaching the image on the attack I use, namely, Attack Ultimate.

The transition between the two, attack & recovery, ain't clear-cut.. but somewhat interlaced ..
as it moves from one hit to two, back to one (due to the transition through payouts)
& eventually to two again, as the clear initiation of the recovery.

It tops at either (-5,-6), where the recovery begins.


Its an optimization of the classic parachute, where the amount of numbers played
(as the sum of straight-up numbers grouped as positions placed) for the lowest possible cost,
thus maximally cost-effective at the highest coverage & probability ..
as it moves through the districts of EC, DZ&CL, & DS.


In addition it has a perk, of hitting a higher return;
specifically, where all 3EC or in DZ+CL a few numbers overlay,
facilitating an opportunity of either .. returning a few extra units on the first spin,
or converting a required two hits on the 2nd spin into a one-hit resolved game,
also with some extra units .. thus resembling more of an attack,
meanwhile still keeping the units & exposition ultimately low.


Read the image downwards vertically, as the two possible lines of attack,
contingent on the result of the first bet, either (-1,-3).

[MoneyT101]

A couple years ago I tried to make a game like that which would be played on two groups ec/ double street or dozen/double street.

But I couldn’t get it to work the way the idea was in my head.

But I do believe it’s a way to shortened the law of large numbers

[Blueprint]

I'm reminded of Redd's old post of the following.  The math didn't quite add up as written but I think the point was to show different outcomes on the negative.

Lets define the betting unit U as 4\*b, b=base bet

bet1:
if previous dozen=1 or 3: bet 0.5 units on dozen, bet 0.25 on line that completes the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the opposite half
If previous dozen=2: bet 0.25 on line, bet 0.5 units on dozen that completes the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the opposite half

What can happen:

1. Opposite half (another unique dozen): we win, technically the session is not ended, but we end it anyway
2. zero, we win, technically session is not ended, but we end it anyway
3. covered dozen -\> we win 0.75 units on the negative permutation, so overall we lose 0.75 units (instead of the 1.5 units we would have lost without covering the negative permutations

[TRD]

Now, why I am not worried about posting the attack at all;
coz not which .. all of them fail -- so the true engine of an all-winning system
is recovery!


When applying the  eg. MoneyT101 latest NY+YN selection;
•  after the first spin with 3EC 1u/each ..
    game is either in (+3,+1) profit, so restart; or at (-1,-3)
•  one the second spin
    in the case of (-1), place DC or DZ+CL bet, 1u/each;
     when both hit (4 numbers only) (+4) .. game is cumulatively at (+3), so restart
     when either hits (+1) .. the game is cumulatively at (±0) â†' proceed with a single EC â†' DZ position
     when both fail (-3), or sequence through ECâ†'DZ fails (-2) .. proceed with NY+YN double streets
    in the case of (-3), same .. proceed with NY+YN with DS positions;


The number of positions available at NY+YN varies from spin to spin;
cumulatively it offers between three to one potential positions ..
on occasion, none so on that spin proceed with YY,
with usually one position only.

[TRD]

The latter goes in line with the original Attack Ultimate schematics;
where there are the first two no-hit spins (-3),
or (-2) after an unsuccessful (±0)â†'ECâ†'DZorCL sequence;

with a notch over in the progression in risk dimension .. double streets district,
& still satisfying the minimum betting + nominal profit ..
two 'DS 1u' spins still resolve the game in plus, either (+2,+1),
alternatively, bring the game to (-5) â†' initiate recovery, = 2x hits to finish.


In the case of NY+YN having only one option, do the same.
If on the 3rd spin there is one option resulting in no-hit (-4),
& on the 4th two options are available, you can either go with
•  both, giving you (+4) & cumulatively (±0) â†' single EC,
as the most cost-effective option at the highest coverage,
thus best probability to close the game & restart.
•  you might even decide to go with one of them, by the low derived criteria,
   thus at a lower coverage giving you an extra spin for the variance to produce
   a favorable result; & in the case of both no-hit .. initiate pure recovery,
   
   .. by extending a notch in the horizontal progression dimension = adding an extra position,
   effectively increasing the coverage thus increasing the hit probability;
   the probability of the first hit, since now in recovery two are required,
   & after the first hit is realized, reduce this dimension for a notch again,
   giving the wheel a few spins !at a lower cost! to produce the required result.

[TRD]

This ultimately keeps the cost & exposition down, meanwhile traversing the variance,
  effectively buying you spins for the variance to turn in your favor;
  which is the introduction of high←â†'wide←focused or coverage alternating principle;

  when you get that first hit & the second does not come in a few spins,
  expanding & contracting the coverage .. as breathing,
  a game is traversing variance at lowest cost generating the lowest exposition,
  keeping the drawdown the most recoverable for the interval in which variance,
  turning temporarily in favor, produces two hits close nearby.

  You can see this also as a type of a positive progression,
  where the wide (coverage eg. 2DS) gains are pressed over several spins ..
  with either &or both, lower coverage + better payout;
  effectively regressing a notch in the horizontal dimension = one position
  (plus potentially even increasing a notch 'in risk' dimension to = Quads 4-number position).