*PATTERN BREAKER*

[jon86]

Pattern Breaker is betting against the last pattern of eight High or Low: HHH, HHL, HLL, HLH, LLL, LHH, LLH, LHL

Pattern Filler is betting the last pattern of eight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was saying I hope Ophis makes a tracker of these two strategies so they won't be forgotten.

Yes i know

I just havent heard the Filler name before but i understand now why

Its my bad english again

[XXVV]

Pattern Filler I believe is the way to go here and the  proven history of its cousin Pattern Breaker speaks for itself.

I have an idea which must be much more fully tested but if I outline why this has a tendency to happen you will be able to develop it yourself.

We are seeking a match for the missing eighth pattern.

There is an elastic force at work seeking to close this gap and the longer the cycle goes on, say past 55 spins, then the stronger this force will be.

From my testing I feel we are on the right track with the original intent to get in and take a win at the first opportunity, say the first part of RRB with red 23 showing.

The outcome though may have been RBB.

The full RRB is yet to show.

If the cycle is not too long, ie not past 65 spins then there may be several close calls ( and an occasional total failure) before the RRB shows.

So my idea is that we peck at the target for (more or less) 4 sets of three spins and milk the profit and then get out.

You may use the 1,3, 7  or 1,2,4 , or even flat.

Say with the first play RBB we hit the are on the first spin and take the profit then wait for the next pattern to start.

There is a usual exponential distribution between first second and third outcomes.

The first is always most likely to hit.

By pecking away , say four times, we can get +1, +1 and an occasional +2 or +3.

I have seen quite long sequences before and after the missing eighth turn up, but the risk is a total loss outcome showing. Even so, after a loss, four plays can recover quite well, or better still get out before a loss.

I emphasise I have not really tested this fully so am taking a risk in suggesting this sort of approach but I believe it may quite regularly triple the PF returns, with the caution of an occasional loss.

However, because of the filling force at work here I believe there is more reason for this to work given sensible constraints such as 4 x 3 spins.

Good Luck in framing some rules. Hope this assists.

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV,

I am willing to give your idea a test but I would appreciate it if you would give a more visual description of your technique of playing it as you described.

In other words, an example of how you are suggesting to play.

Scooby Doo

[Johnlegend]

Pattern Filler I believe is the way to go here and the  proven history of its cousin Pattern Breaker speaks for itself.

I have an idea which must be much more fully tested but if I outline why this has a tendency to happen you will be able to develop it yourself.

We are seeking a match for the missing eighth pattern.

There is an elastic force at work seeking to close this gap and the longer the cycle goes on, say past 55 spins, then the stronger this force will be.

From my testing I feel we are on the right track with the original intent to get in and take a win at the first opportunity, say the first part of RRB with red 23 showing.

The outcome though may have been RBB.

The full RRB is yet to show.

If the cycle is not too long, ie not past 65 spins then there may be several close calls ( and an occasional total failure) before the RRB shows.

So my idea is that we peck at the target for (more or less) 4 sets of three spins and milk the profit and then get out.

You may use the 1,3, 7  or 1,2,4 , or even flat.

Say with the first play RBB we hit the are on the first spin and take the profit then wait for the next pattern to start.

There is a usual exponential distribution between first second and third outcomes.

The first is always most likely to hit.

By pecking away , say four times, we can get +1, +1 and an occasional +2 or +3.

I have seen quite long sequences before and after the missing eighth turn up, but the risk is a total loss outcome showing. Even so, after a loss, four plays can recover quite well, or better still get out before a loss.

I emphasise I have not really tested this fully so am taking a risk in suggesting this sort of approach but I believe it may quite regularly triple the PF returns, with the caution of an occasional loss.

However, because of the filling force at work here I believe there is more reason for this to work given sensible constraints such as 4 x 3 spins.

Good Luck in framing some rules. Hope this assists.

Now you are on the right track here XXVV, in my experience the last pattern can sleep for more than 120 spins (40 sets of 3) Whereas the first 7 patterns usually form inside 60 spins. This leaves alot of potential to exploit this.

Although that final pattern usually occurs inside 24 spins of the seventh. Commonly within 12 and of course consecutively from time to time.

But I like what you are suggesting  here. Ive dabbled with it before and if you hit a super sleeper, WELL.

[XXVV]

Hi Scooby and JL

Thanks for your interest and comment on this suggested variation.

I will provide an exact set of results on a recent test and this will illustrate where I am coming from. I totally agree with the summation by John.

There are opportunities here, but we must be prepared as you correctly state for the occasional sudden loss. But there seems lots of opportunities for streaks and multiple earnings. My suggested play of say 4 runs of outcomes on any particulat EC is a conservative preliminary rule of thumb stop point.

I will set out the full Dublin Bet live sequence of 120 spins so you can use this as the base and can extend the test further if you choose to the end of the 120 spins.

Please note in this case ( as opposed to the P4 test) I have treated zero as I normally do, ie invisible, so carry on the three sequence around it as you will see from my number setout - in P4 test I handled zero as JL has suggested.

I always hedge zero aggressively so when it appears for me it is a bonus win.

9
29
11

16
28
12

18
36
7

35
22
33

8
11
32

26
19
3

23
26
(0)
36

16
23
4

31
34
34

(0)

26
3
32

6
5
36

31
20
16

17
17
24

33
9
27

19
19
23

23
8
6

17
22
27

33
23
3

35
(0)
29
16

(0)

11
26
32

15
23
28

28
31
36

8
1
30

21
23
22

6
23
34

4
6
7

28
16
14

20
9
6

12
8
27

10
13
1

33
24
25

30
17
14

6
3
36

9
16
11

31
7
10

5
2
(0)
15

36
24
29

27
34
26
18


ie overall 120 spins one session.

LHL   RBB   OOO
LHL   RBR    EEE
LHL   RRR    EEO
HHH  BBB   OEO
LLH   BBR    EOE
HHL   BRR    EOO
HHH  RBR    OEE
                             OOE  as PF the missing eighth ( very fast unfolding!)
LHL   RRB    EO*     hit on O on second play thus +2  (using 1,3, 7 series)
                              BRB as PF ( again a fast unfoldment)
HHH  B*      O*       +1 and +1
HLH   B*      EO*     +1 and +2
LLH    B*     EO*      +1 and +2
HHL   B*      O*       +1 and +1 ( after 4 consecutive hits on one EC )
LLH   B*      O*        +1 and +1
HLH   B*      O*       +1 and +1
HHH  RR*     O*       +2 and +1
HLL   RBB*   O*       +3 and +1
LHH  B*       O*        +1 and +1  (note target PF is LLL)
HHL* B*      O*        +3  +1 +1   now close and take profit  on spin56.

The LLL would have had three more consecutive wins before a triple loss ( so again another good reason for my suggestion of taking profit after 4 wins but overall it is a discretion call and the runs on R/B and O/E had been excellent. Wins on these would have continued ten and seven sequences respectively.

overall +33 units  while basic PF is  +3 +1 +2  = +6 units

a more conservative take might be +3 + 4 +9 = +16 units

All in all a very good and encouraging result.

Hope this analysis helps.

Looking forward to your comments and suggestions.

Testing will continue here. It is slow but necessary. I can assure JL all my work is conducted manually with genuine live session data from real casinos either from reputable sources or my own personal records.

Now also can happily turn attention back to the promising matrix work that has developed from P4.

I should also make clear and this does affect results that on my P4 testing I halted progression at 1,3, 7 max and if that lost recorded a loss as -11.
By playing on no doubt different results will have materialised and streaks would would have run much longer! This may account for the considerable differences between my results and those of JL.

We have to be clear on this.

I will review earlier results on the basis of a longer progression ( although I personally would not play live on such a basis). I will be very happy to see positive outcomes in this case.

Good Hunting!

[Johnlegend]

Pattern Filler I believe is the way to go here and the  proven history of its cousin Pattern Breaker speaks for itself.

I have an idea which must be much more fully tested but if I outline why this has a tendency to happen you will be able to develop it yourself.

We are seeking a match for the missing eighth pattern.

There is an elastic force at work seeking to close this gap and the longer the cycle goes on, say past 55 spins, then the stronger this force will be.

From my testing I feel we are on the right track with the original intent to get in and take a win at the first opportunity, say the first part of RRB with red 23 showing.

The outcome though may have been RBB.

The full RRB is yet to show.

If the cycle is not too long, ie not past 65 spins then there may be several close calls ( and an occasional total failure) before the RRB shows.

So my idea is that we peck at the target for (more or less) 4 sets of three spins and milk the profit and then get out.

You may use the 1,3, 7  or 1,2,4 , or even flat.

Say with the first play RBB we hit the are on the first spin and take the profit then wait for the next pattern to start.

There is a usual exponential distribution between first second and third outcomes.

The first is always most likely to hit.

By pecking away , say four times, we can get +1, +1 and an occasional +2 or +3.

I have seen quite long sequences before and after the missing eighth turn up, but the risk is a total loss outcome showing. Even so, after a loss, four plays can recover quite well, or better still get out before a loss.

I emphasise I have not really tested this fully so am taking a risk in suggesting this sort of approach but I believe it may quite regularly triple the PF returns, with the caution of an occasional loss.

However, because of the filling force at work here I believe there is more reason for this to work given sensible constraints such as 4 x 3 spins.

Good Luck in framing some rules. Hope this assists.

I am in total agreement with your proposed idea XXVV its a definate longterm winner. In my experience with the method a pattern can fall asleep so long it would become the final pattern in TWO consecutive games.

[XXVV]

Thanks for your earlier post Scooby. For your information I have gone into some detail of explanation and development of the idea and posting of results on the thread "Experimental Ideas in Pro Play" on the Gambling Framework section.

The point of that thread was always to experiment, discuss and assemble the most suitable bets for professional play. Also to overlay some money management and player psychology.

What more could you want.

So far the testing has been very successful as long as the occasional triple loss ( reversal of the eighth pattern) is taken in stride. When this happens it appears that to play on is the answer but always to cut the session to say 120 max spins.

The progression I have used is a simple 1,3,7 and stop with loss at 11 units.

Good luck testing.

[Johnlegend]

Pattern Filler I believe is the way to go here and the  proven history of its cousin Pattern Breaker speaks for itself.

I have an idea which must be much more fully tested but if I outline why this has a tendency to happen you will be able to develop it yourself.

We are seeking a match for the missing eighth pattern.

There is an elastic force at work seeking to close this gap and the longer the cycle goes on, say past 55 spins, then the stronger this force will be.

From my testing I feel we are on the right track with the original intent to get in and take a win at the first opportunity, say the first part of RRB with red 23 showing.

The outcome though may have been RBB.

The full RRB is yet to show.

If the cycle is not too long, ie not past 65 spins then there may be several close calls ( and an occasional total failure) before the RRB shows.

So my idea is that we peck at the target for (more or less) 4 sets of three spins and milk the profit and then get out.

You may use the 1,3, 7  or 1,2,4 , or even flat.

Say with the first play RBB we hit the are on the first spin and take the profit then wait for the next pattern to start.

There is a usual exponential distribution between first second and third outcomes.

The first is always most likely to hit.

By pecking away , say four times, we can get +1, +1 and an occasional +2 or +3.

I have seen quite long sequences before and after the missing eighth turn up, but the risk is a total loss outcome showing. Even so, after a loss, four plays can recover quite well, or better still get out before a loss.

I emphasise I have not really tested this fully so am taking a risk in suggesting this sort of approach but I believe it may quite regularly triple the PF returns, with the caution of an occasional loss.

However, because of the filling force at work here I believe there is more reason for this to work given sensible constraints such as 4 x 3 spins.

Good Luck in framing some rules. Hope this assists.

XXVV, I have an idea to cement the rules for PF. What this way of playing the PATTERN BREAKER concept represents, is similar to that of someone following the wheel betting on say RED or BLACK. In effect you can only lose once. Pattern Filler offers this same principle in a more certain format. You profit until random figures out the code.

And there are instances where this can take more than 20 lots of 3 to occur. I have a session that took 133 spins to conclude the first 7 patterns formed in 51 spins. I will start intensively testing this over the weekend. And see if it can be manipulated in our favour longterm...

[XXVV]

Thanks JL and I look forward to your suggestions/ rules.

On a recent test ( always late at night!) I had one of the toughest PF and variation game(levels,1,2 and 3) as there was a triple loss on two EC's in the same betting cycle. Down 22 in one spin!

The level one standard game had provided a safe  +1 +1 +1 result =+3 but it was taking a long time for the middle R/B EC to play out the seven patterns.

(Under the standard rules for level one I play out only the first attack on every EC and then do not return to that EC. Safe and effective).

Playing level 2 and on one EC ( theO/E) went very well if we stopped at four wins. And in a discretion view you could say to be offered +10 in 50 spins even though we had not 'completed' parts of the game, this would still be a good time to exit.

However if we carried on and by the time the H/L EC joined in we were +13 at one stage but then the two triple losses cut in without warning of course, so down to -9.

Only later did the middle R/B join in and if we carried on with the other two in recovery, we got back to +8 then we had another triple loss. But still no full eighth pattern appearance.

And so it see-sawed along and there were several situations when in live play you might have said, OK lets cut it at +3 units overall ( at 80 spins).

But if we soldiered on at 100 spins we were +5, and then a couple of the eighth patterns revealed, but carrying on ( why not?) by spin 119 (!!!)we were at +19 and climbing, and as my notional target is +20 I closed the session.

Plenty of scope for review on that one, but what I am trying to say is that despite some mid game setabacks, by perservering this method appears 'forgiving'. Mind you thats a dangerous sentiment to hang on the 'enemy'. Dont expect any mercy when things go bad and when in doubt probably safer to bale out earlier( sort of an RD Ellison practical pro philosophy).

[XXVV]

I should add that on reflection on this late night tough game there was a simple and effective strategy that could have worked by doing the following :
1. take profit on the first EC opportunity at level 2 , ie O/E +1+3+2+2=+8
2.stop
3.then the second EC the H/L started its run but failed on the 3rd cycle and then followed triple losses quite closely.... +1+2-11+3+1-11 but then a streak of 12 wins on H/L followed of which some could be used to mop up the loss and take a small profit o/a for that EC at +5.
4. By this stage the third EC theR/B came on stream and it provided four quick cycle profits, +1+2+1+1.

So overall by stopping at four when no triple loss, but continuing on if a loss so as to neutralise the loss ( where possible and within reason). then in this case we would have achieved a settlement by spin 80 that was...

+5  +5   and +8, so o/a +18 by spin 80

That is what I am suggesting by being 'forgiving', but I could also say 'flexible' because losses can be quickly mopped up.

Doubtless there will be sessions occasionally where this just might not happen and we will have to stop loss, that could be say -40 worst case.

But that should be replaced by two winning sessions should that scenario ever eventuate, and lets hope that would be a rare event.

At this stage I have had 20 successive winning sessions, by ploughing on when there were early setbacks. All the level 1 PatternFiller bets have been successful.

I propose as a definitive test to rationalise this testing to 30 sessions of strictly 100 games once I have sorted the best set of rules. This first phase has been some trial and error.

[Johnlegend]

I should add that on reflection on this late night tough game there was a simple and effective strategy that could have worked by doing the following :
1. take profit on the first EC opportunity at level 2 , ie O/E +1+3+2+2=+8
2.stop
3.then the second EC the H/L started its run but failed on the 3rd cycle and then followed triple losses quite closely.... +1+2-11+3+1-11 but then a streak of 12 wins on H/L followed of which some could be used to mop up the loss and take a small profit o/a for that EC at +5.
4. By this stage the third EC theR/B came on stream and it provided four quick cycle profits, +1+2+1+1.

So overall by stopping at four when no triple loss, but continuing on if a loss so as to neutralise the loss ( where possible and within reason). then in this case we would have achieved a settlement by spin 80 that was...

+5  +5   and +8, so o/a +18 by spin 80

That is what I am suggesting by being 'forgiving', but I could also say 'flexible' because losses can be quickly mopped up.

Doubtless there will be sessions occasionally where this just might not happen and we will have to stop-loss, that could be say -40 worst case.

PBut that should be replaced by two winning sessions should that scenario ever eventuate, and lets hope that would be a rare event.

At this stage I have had 20 successive winning sessions, by ploughing on when there were early setbacks. All the level 1 PatternFiller bets have been successful.

I propose as a definitive test to rationalise this testing to 30 sessions of strictly 100 games once I have sorted the best set of rules. This first phase has been some trial and error.

XXVV I will only be testing on the H/L EC. I have total faith and solid experience with this even chance. I have just completed a session and won on the first spin. The first 7 patterns form in 42 spins. The elastic force pulled in the 8th pattern by spin 57. A tripple loss occurred by spin 69. And still tracking thst 8th pattern form again by spin 90.

[XXVV]

Thanks JL

Its all very well in cool hindsight to test, but live play testing is probably better and I will start doing this.

By running one EC alone this is probably very sound and avoids errors.

Running the three EC's might be okay for overview or for short play.

In the heat of real play time pressures we would need to be super organised to manage three EC's.

So this practicality, feasibility, needs to be factored into the equation because we will be playing live only and that Latvian feed supplied to several live casinos is on a very fast time scedule. Dublin Bet varies of course.

[Johnlegend]

Thanks JL

Its all very well in cool hindsight to test, but live play testing is probably better and I will start doing this.

By running one EC alone this is probably very sound and avoids errors.

Running the three EC's might be okay for overview or for short play.

In the heat of real play time pressures we would need to be super organised to manage three EC's.

So this practicality, feasibility, needs to be factored into the equation because we will be playing live only and that Latvian feed supplied to several live casinos is on a very fast time scedule. Dublin Bet varies of course.

Well I believe testing where you intend to play for real the best way. You get a truer picture of what to expect. I tested pattern filler on jackpot challenge an airball site and its works as well as the Russian feed.

[XXVV]

Testing P/F.
At last encountered the session from hell - which I am pleased about because we know that despite the tide helping us, sometimes there can just be too much adversarial stuff going on to make it worthwhile to continue, and before you know it the tide may be going out again and you are in deep quicksand.
I will publish this game later today as some experts out there may be able to suggest how to better handle it.

Firts time in my experience on level one, that two of the EC's had a triple loss, although one would have been bad enough. Now this could have been overcome by taking the progression on to the next triad cycle and thus hitting on the fourth spin with a progression say 1,3,7,15. In both cases this would have won and we could continue on our merry way.

But it was still a shock, and effectively ended the 30 plus streak of EC wins on first level with a loss on 31 and 32 games!

I am a bit uncomfortable with this progression and if I had taken the -11 loss in both cases, we would still have been well up in our multi session progress but it would have severely dented the rate of earning.

What I now need to know is the frequency of such events, so am racing ahead doing a sample of 100 games to just level one and see what the statistical risk actually is and then decide on the best progression(s).

Now on to level two. The nightmare continued and as all EC's were encountering early multiple triple losses ( and in one case the recovery progression would have needed to go to an eighth spin as there was a double triple loss on one EC later - so on these level two plays I kept to the basic 1,3,7 and took the 11 unit loss on the chin)

So I kept a running count of the net outcomes after each cycle of play and we were never in positive territory ( assuming a 1,3,7 progression on level one), however as the tide came in and eventually all three eighth patterns were hit you could see on overview the tide going out again as the cycle moved on!

Actually in spite of all the mayhem the running count including a standard loss on level one if we had stopped at -11 twice, gave two opportunities to get out. And if we had taken profit on level one by taking the progression to step four for level one only, we could have escaped with a profit after 70 odd spins at the standard +20 spins. So that may be good advice, but still wary of level one progression length.

However if we played more conservatively we could have got out at -2 units overall, as there was an earlier -1 as well. The worst low point was -46 units, suggesting playing risk bank needs to be probably 100 units. Also by 120 spin the running score was going down again as the tide went out, ending at -30.

A most unusual session, from a German live casino record.

Plenty to review and reflect on. More testing during today to put level one results in a bigger context.

Will publish these spins ( no working notes)from this game later today.

I am anticipating this session was exceptional.

[Post]

there is no sutch thing as exceptional in roulette everything can and does happen