Even Chance Tour De Force

[GLC]

Just a note from my sessions:

Not all doublets will end RRBBRBR, moving us to chops.  I have had more end RRBBRRR, where I have moved successfully to follow-the-last.

Just a slight addition.

Thanks Colbster.  I did overlook that one in my explanation.  I've been playing this form of tracking so long it's second nature to me.


What do you think about adding the RRBRRBRRBRRB pattern?


I know that when the chops and doubles are bouncing back and forth is when you get your long streaks of losses.  That can't be overcome with any mechanical bet selection method that I'm aware of.


Tomla021 mentioned that while he was playing Iceman1313's system, he got a lot of win clusters.  It might be worth playing it with Icey's bet selection.  As always, enough testing to make a fair determination is one of the main hurdles to overcome.


Our trade-off from just betting a single color is that with a single color we only have to have 5-in-a-row.  With our trot we really have to have 6-in-a-row for a win on 5 parlays.


Any thoughts on that trade-off?


Good Luck,


GLC

[Colbster]

Any more than exist in your present form will just be more confusing, leading to less interest and more errors.  No matter how many tweaks you throw into the mix, there will be a pattern that can beat it.  As you mentioned, it is rare to go high up the progression as it is, so I don't think the extra pattern is necessary.

At some point, we would be playing some sort of hybrid-differential betting method that would be impossible to track.  Before I really read your explanation, I jumped onto a play table and was trying to play all the patterns simultaneously, which was a nightmare.  I like the way you have it outlined currently, and am looking forward to seeing the longer-term results.  So far - fantastic! 

[Colbster]

Considering how easily the wins have been coming, there might be a valid argument for only going 4-deep on the parlay.  This would allow you to have a lot less risked, with shorter growth to the next levels of the progression.  Still, if the hit rate remains this solid, it might be worth changing bankroll requirements and making a end-of-parlay win twice as likely.

[GLC]

Considering how easily the wins have been coming, there might be a valid argument for only going 4-deep on the parlay.  This would allow you to have a lot less risked, with shorter growth to the next levels of the progression.  Still, if the hit rate remains this solid, it might be worth changing bankroll requirements and making a end-of-parlay win twice as likely.

I like the way you thinking Colbster.


My problem is that if we start with $1, we will have to be able to bet $768 units on a 48 unit starting bet.  I don't have access to a table with anywhere near that kind of spread.  At least not B&M and I haven't ventured out into the world of on-line roulette yet.  I keep hoping our gov't will give us a break with on-line betting.  But, I think the Vegas and Atlantic City casinos have too much influence in Congress.


I do have an airball machine with 6 screens that will accommodate 100 quarters on each screen.  I could bet up to level 37 if no one else is playing at the time.  Of course, I would probably never go all the way to the 5th bet if I were that far along in the progression.  Way too risky for my blood.


I haven't started testing against my 20,000 live spins yet, but should get some down time later tonight.  The family's celebrating the 4th of July at our house, so we've been cleaning and cooking and entertaining everyone.  No time for roulette.  The wifey would be ticked if she knew I sneecked of to take a peek at what's going on on the forum.


GLC

[Bayes]

Nice work George, I'm definitely going to give this a whirl. 

Regarding bet selection, my trend following system can turn up some impressive winning streaks, and it's very easy to use. The problem with trying to 'plug holes' in any BS is that you're subject to the law of 'conservation of losses'; fixing one weakness just tends to shift it elsewhere. You can find the nemesis of any BS just by writing down the pattern which will occur assuming that every bet results in a loss, then having found it ask yourself: 'what are the chances of this pattern occurring?' and the answer, of course, is: 'the same as any other pattern'.

However, I'm not of the opinion that all BS are created equal. While I doubt that any will give positive results in the long term flat betting, my research shows that some are better than others with regard to drawdowns. Even simple DBL is better than betting one side continuously. I think this is due to diversification, which is mathematically proven to reduce variance. For example, taking DBL vs betting one side, you are not 'putting all your eggs in one basket' so much with DBL as betting one side, because DBL wins on chops and streaks on either side, whereas betting one side depends for its success on the side you've chosen being dominant.

Note
BS = Bet selection, not bovine excrement. 

[chrisbis]

...and DBL = Decision before last, not Dublin Bet.


(Bayes, I think, is not sponsored by the a fore mentioned casino!)

[Drazen]

...and DBL = Decision before last, not Dublin Bet.


(Bayes, I think, is not sponsored by the a fore mentioned casino!)

Regards
                   Drazen

[Colbster]

Working backwards, take your table max and divide by 16.  For instance, a table that has 300 unit max can play up to 18 (288 max bet with parlay).  According to my quick count, that is 110 steps into your progression.  That is considerably farther than the 64 or so steps that you advocate in option #2, allowing us to only step up to the 3rd level of the progression.

The drawback that we run into is predictable - we will drastically shorten our progression by moving up to higher starting amounts with accumulated winnings.  Depending on the table, we might be able to circumvent this by artificial bets, most easily on L/H instead of R/B or E/O (we could place smaller bets on each line or street to mirror larger bets on High or Low - best on BV no-zero because you don't have so many chips hanging out for the green goblin!)

So far, still looking stellar.  I haven't made it into the 2nd level yet, although I have had to climb a ways up into the first.  Won cleanly every time so far, though! 

[GLC]

Nice work George, I'm definitely going to give this a whirl. 

Regarding bet selection, my trend following system can turn up some impressive winning streaks, and it's very easy to use. The problem with trying to 'plug holes' in any BS is that you're subject to the law of 'conservation of losses'; fixing one weakness just tends to shift it elsewhere. You can find the nemesis of any BS just by writing down the pattern which will occur assuming that every bet results in a loss, then having found it ask yourself: 'what are the chances of this pattern occurring?' and the answer, of course, is: 'the same as any other pattern'.

However, I'm not of the opinion that all BS are created equal. While I doubt that any will give positive results in the long term flat betting, my research shows that some are better than others with regard to drawdowns. Even simple DBL is better than betting one side continuously. I think this is due to diversification, which is mathematically proven to reduce variance. For example, taking DBL vs betting one side, you are not 'putting all your eggs in one basket' so much with DBL as betting one side, because DBL wins on chops and streaks on either side, whereas betting one side depends for its success on the side you've chosen being dominant.

Note
BS = Bet selection, not bovine excrement. 

I remember your trend following system, Bayes.  I will look at it again.  If it gives us streaks more often, that's what we want.  Even if we have losing streaks as well.  We don't really care about losing streaks as long as we get a winning steak within 65 levels if we use 4 as our cut-off point or within 139 levels if we go all the way to 48.  That could be around 250-300 bets to find 5 in a row of something.

Will this ever lose a full progression?  Of course it will.  As we all know, the question isn't will it lose, but will it win enough more than it loses to make it worth playing.

GLC

[Colbster]

Bayes,
Somehow I managed to miss your trend-following system (Probably because it said "fun" in the title and I couldn't imagine how making a ton of money could be anything other than monotonous and painful - might have been shortly after I blew a bankroll!).

I just reviewed your system and I think it would fit brilliantly with this progression method that George has given us.  Very good contribution on this one!

[Colbster]

Just an aside - Playing Bayes' system with the Hollandish progression now, and it seems like it could be epic!!

[Colbster]

And by epic, I don't mean great, I mean "Oh my god, will this ever recover??!!"  For those of you that are familiar with the Hollandish, I took it to the 16th level before coming even.  I have never gone that high before.  My imaginary bankroll was sweating bullets (imaginary bullets, too, for those of you who opined against our right to carry guns in ADulay's post  )

[IIIRAZORIII]

not sure if should post this here but your bet selection gave me inpiration.

been messing with labouchere, as seen by my last system posted.

i found a fixed labouchere of 10/1's with your bet selection to be very very effect.

thank you.

p.s if this doesn't belong here np just delete mate. although i found this system to be very interesting and well thought out, just seemed very high risk,time consuming and for very little profit in comparision.

[GLC]

For a little different bet method, please see the following linK:


link:://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/even-chance-tour-de-force-ii/msg61242/#msg61242


GLC

[vundarosa]

I remember your trend following system, Bayes.  I will look at it again.  If it gives us streaks more often, that's what we want.  Even if we have losing streaks as well.  We don't really care about losing streaks as long as we get a winning steak within 65 levels if we use 4 as our cut-off point or within 139 levels if we go all the way to 48.  That could be around 250-300 bets to find 5 in a row of something.

Will this ever lose a full progression?  Of course it will.  As we all know, the question isn't will it lose, but will it win enough more than it loses to make it worth playing.

GLC

-----------------

I'm testing this betting follow the last colour and reseting at every high, even if i've not won 5 times in a row

500 consecutive spins, max drawdown so far -47, max bet 2 of my units and would be up by 167u


vundarosa