Hello,
We can argue forever if roulette can be beaten or not.
However here is a challenge for you to test your creativity, knowledge and intelligence: Beat roulette given specific (hypothetical) certainties.
The challenge
You have 20.000 units bankroll. Your bet can be from 1 unit to 500 units (500 is the table limit).
You are only allowed to bet on RED, as often as you like.
In the next 100 spins the RED will appear exactly 30 times, but we do not know in which spins.
Make a profit of at least 1 unit after the 100th spin.
How would you do it?
Two questions Kav:
1.) If we are only allowed to bet on Red, why
not play Baccarat (which has a better payout.)
2.) How do we know if Red has appeared 30 times unless it
has already happened and the game in question is not playable?)
Hello Proofreaders2000,
Thank you for the interesting questions.
1) Baccarat may have better payout, but don't know much about it. I work with roulette only.
2) The exactly 30 REDS in 100 spins, is the hypothesis on which the problem/challenge is based. Indeed, in reality you do not know for sure that in the next 100 spins, 30 of them will be RED. However this is a theoretical mental challenge, so we assume that we know that 30 Reds will appear, but we do not know when.
Believe me this is an extremely difficult mathematical problem I pose here. If one can see the solution to this, that would be of great help even for sessions when we do not know the future out comes at all.
PS: At least you didn't ask me "why don't we bet on BLACK?" ;-)
When you say we are only allowed to bet on RED as often as we like, do your soley mean the outside bet of RED,
or can we bet on the INSIDE numbers that are RED?
(Reminds me of that old joke........
What's Black and White and Read ALL over?)
[reveal=answer]
A Newspaper
[/reveal]
Wait for 29 RED numbers to show up. Count how many spins did it take to get to the goal of 29 reds. Take the remaining spins and calculate the progression that you will use to make a profit of one unit when the 30th red does hit, using the 500 units as fight fund.
Kimo Li
Kav, the modified labby was tested in this topic:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3280.msg29753#msg29753
The main difference is that the worst distribution in 200 spins was 75 or maybe 74 of the lowest hit even chance. 74 our of 200 is 34%. Bayes couldn't find a series as bad as 60 out of 200. I'm assuming that 30 out of 100 could be encountered because we know that the smaller the sample, the more out of balance the distribution can be. 15 out of 50 is easier to believe and I've seen 8 out of 25 and all of us have seen 3 or 4 out of 12.
I do think this is a very good challenge because if we can learn to beat 30 out of 100 or even 15 out of 50 it would give us something solid to work with.
Another parameter to consider, is the maximum number of even chances that can hit in a row. So if we don't expect to hit more than 23 of an even chance in a row, we can use that in our computations.
Another thought is, okay, maybe we can get 20+ e.c.'s in a row, but what about some of our bet selection methods that use triggers to set up a bet opportunity. Can they have 20+ losses in a row? I personally have never had more than 12 losses in a row using my favorite bet selection trot.
It is worth noting that Fripper and Al did defeat these horror sessions.
It sounds like your challenge is for exactly 100 spins in sequence. This eliminates the idea of 100 placed bets after triggers because this would take us into more than 100 consecutive spins. Right?
One more thought is that if we can learn to defeat even 15 out of 50 or maybe 7 out of 25 would be acceptable, then we can use that as an attack procedure which can be incremented in case of the rare loss.
Let's say we use bet sizes from 1 to 60 to defeat a 7 out of 25 run. And we only lose 1 time out of 100 attempts. That would mean that if we had a recovery bankroll of 2-120 units, we have an excellent chance of staying ahead of the game. And, heaven forbid, if we should lose 2 attacks in a row, and we were kin to Tomla021 and could have him back us with a tiny portion of his winnings to the tune of 4-240 units, we might have something to take a shot at.
Of course the other option is to just flat bet and have a good back up bankroll of say 500 units and it should give us an "almost" guaranteed shot at beating the game.
Quote from: Kimo Li on Sep 02, 10:21 AM 2013
Wait for 29 RED numbers to show up. Count how many spins did it take to get to the goal of 29 reds. Take the remaining spins and calculate the progression that you will use to make a profit of one unit when the 30th red does hit, using the 500 units as fight fund.
Kimo Li
Smart thinking, but wont work if the first 29 REDs come in the first 60 spins. Then you'd be left with 40 spins and a single RED, which you still don't know when it will come.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 02, 10:31 AM 2013
Kav, the modified labby was tested in this topic:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3280.msg29753#msg29753
The main difference is that the worst distribution in 200 spins was 75 or maybe 74 of the lowest hit even chance. 74 our of 200 is 34%. Bayes couldn't find a series as bad as 60 out of 200. I'm assuming that 30 out of 100 could be encountered because we know that the smaller the sample, the more out of balance the distribution can be. 15 out of 50 is easier to believe and I've seen 8 out of 25 and all of us have seen 3 or 4 out of 12.
I do think this is a very good challenge because if we can learn to beat 30 out of 100 or even 15 out of 50 it would give us something solid to work with.
Another parameter to consider, is the maximum number of even chances that can hit in a row. So if we don't expect to hit more than 23 of an even chance in a row, we can use that in our computations.
Another thought is, okay, maybe we can get 20+ e.c.'s in a row, but what about some of our bet selection methods that use triggers to set up a bet opportunity. Can they have 20+ losses in a row? I personally have never had more than 12 losses in a row using my favorite bet selection trot.
Thanks for the reply GLC,
The problem with that thread - which is extremely valuable food for thought - is that the progression soon became too complicated (play a martingale mini-progression, change EC after 4 losses etc.). So, technically there is no clear answer in that thread.
What is interesting is that when faced with such a problem, we instinctively think of a negative progression (up as you lose).
The thing is, in case the hits come late, you try not to increase the bets too fast. on the other hand, in case some hits come relatively early you don't want to let them pass by without taking advantage, so you must increase the bets...
Another interesting twist to the problem would be the following:
Even if you don't manage to make a profit how would you minimize your losses. How can you minimize your losses in such a 100 session.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 02, 10:58 AM 2013
It sounds like your challenge is for exactly 100 spins in sequence. This eliminates the idea of 100 placed bets after triggers because this would take us into more than 100 consecutive spins. Right?
Since we take as granted, that whatever triggers or bet selection we have only 30 wins in 100 spins, bet selection doesn't count. Anyway, yes "(it) is for exactly 100 spins in sequence" - yet you are not forced to bet on every spin if you don't want to.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 02, 11:10 AM 2013
One more thought is that if we can learn to defeat even 15 out of 50 or maybe 7 out of 25 would be acceptable, then we can use that as an attack procedure which can be incremented in case of the rare loss.
Let's say we use bet sizes from 1 to 60 to defeat a 7 out of 25 run. And we only lose 1 time out of 100 attempts. That would mean that if we had a recovery bankroll of 2-120 units, we have an excellent chance of staying ahead of the game. And, heaven forbid, if we should lose 2 attacks in a row, and we were kin to Tomla021 and could have him back us with a tiny portion of his winnings to the tune of 4-240 units, we might have something to take a shot at.
Of course the other option is to just flat bet and have a good back up bankroll of say 500 units and it should give us an "almost" guaranteed shot at beating the game.
Now that's a VERY interesting thought! (flat bet would provide no advantage - it is as good as not playing roulette at all ;-)
I just looked at the worst horror session posted by Bayes and it starts out with only 4 wins out of the 1st 25 spins?? :o :o
What if we bet 1 unit after each loss and then try to recover the losses after a certain trigger to increase our bets?
I have posted recently and attempted to do this by betting 1 unit until 3 losses in a row and then bet to recover those 3 losses with 1 bet. My thinking is that losing 4 times in a row is not that common. If the logic worked, it would improve by waiting 4, 5, 6 or more losses in a row and then attempting a recovery. It's all trying to cheat the odds because we know that there's still a 50/50 chance for a win or a loss (not counting zero) no matter how many losses you've had in a row.
To be honest, unless someone can come up with something unique and never thought of before, I have nothing left in the gas tank.
think either win-loss +1unit shd work fine/place bets on red always/stop when you are +1 unit at any time.
assume you have first 70 spins as black/You are -2485.
next 30 spins as red. You are +2565/Net +80/maximum placed bet is 100 - much below 500 table limit.
did i miss something?
Oops. There was a drop of gas still in the gas line.
I like Flat's new BP system idea of using a 9 bet series to determine the next bet amounts. Since we have up to a 500 unit bet limit, we could do something like bet 1 unit for 9 spins. If we're up, repeat. If we are in the hole, our next 9 bets will be whatever amount we're in the hole, but if we get back to even, we stop and reset back to 1 unit starting a new 9 spin sequence.
If we're in the hole at the end of the 1st attack and also in the hole more at the end of the 2nd attack, our 3rd 9 spin attack will be based on the total units we're in the hole. This is just a little more aggressive than Flat's system. It gives us the possibility of recovering anytime we start a 9 spin attack with a Win or a Loss-Win-Win or L-W-L-W-W-W etc...
If 9 spin attacks are too small, we can expand it to 11, 13, or more.
Just thinking out loud.
Another change to his idea is that any time we get ahead by at least +1 in the 1st 9 bet attack, we reset back to 1 on a new 9 bet attack. This means that we don't increase our bet amount unless we end a 9 bet attack in the minus. With luck, we could end our 100 spins and never have had to bet more than 1 unit. Not likely, but possible.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 02, 12:12 PM 2013
Another change to his idea is that any time we get ahead by at least +1 in the 1st 9 bet attack, we reset back to 1 on a new 9 bet attack. This means that we don't increase our bet amount unless we end a 9 bet attack in the minus. With luck, we could end our 100 spins and never have had to bet more than 1 unit. Not likely, but possible.
If we are ahead 1 unit, we just stop and do not bet on the next spins. That's not the problem. You don't have to bet each spin. The problem is to reach profit at some point.
Hey Kav
Is there a way of doing this ?
Kav, glc, think either win-loss +1unit shd work fine/place bets on red always/stop when you are +1 unit at any time.
assume you have first 70 spins as black/You are -2485.
next 30 spins as red. You are +2565/Net +80/maximum placed bet is 100 - much below 500 table limit.
did i miss something?
Hello D1,
I posted the question as a thought provoking puzzle.
I want to hear peoples ideas and approaches to the problem.
It is funny; we thing we know about roulette and money management and systems and probability, yet we find it almost impossible to solve a problem like that.
Anyway. Since you asked me and although I'm still working on the problem, my solution at this point would be as follows:
First of all, for simplicity purposes, please allow me to change the problem a bit and make the hits 33 instead of 30. (the logic remains the same even for 30 hit, but the calculation is much simpler for 33 hits.
So we expect a win ratio of 33/100.
That is a win for every 2 losses.
- In the beginning, for the first 4 spins, I propose a progression like: 1-2-4-8 So in case of a win in the first 4 spins we are in profit and we stop to bet. We won - problem solved.
After the first 4 spins I will use the following formula to calculate how many units I will bet each spin
B = LU/((LS/2)-WS) +1
B=bet in units
LU= Lost units so far
LS= Lost spins so far
WS= Won spins so far
According to this formula, my 5th bet would be
(remember in the first 4 spins I lost 1,2,4,8 = 15)
B=15/((4/2)-0)=15/2 +1=7,5 (+1) so my 5th bet would be 9 units. (we always round up)
For example, if I'm down 150 units and so far I have lost 26 spins and won 5 spins, my bet for the next spin would be:
B=150/((26/2)-5)=150/8=18,75 (+1) so my bet would be 20 units
If I won that bet then, I would be down 131 units the next bet would be
B=131/((26/2)-6)=131/7=18,71 (+1) so my bet would be 20 units again....etc.
Note that with this formula if at any point we reach the 33/100 win ratio then we are in profit and we stop to bet. We won.
If you have any questions or ideas please comment.
Also an excel with the formula would be helpful if anyone cares to make one...
Quote from: RouletteMaster on Sep 02, 03:31 PM 2013
Kav, glc, think either win-loss +1unit shd work fine/place bets on red always/stop when you are +1 unit at any time.
assume you have first 70 spins as black/You are -2485.
next 30 spins as red. You are +2565/Net +80/maximum placed bet is 100 - much below 500 table limit.
did i miss something?
In order to be +1 unit on a win you'd have to use Martingale progression 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512... so you are out of limits. (if I understand you correctly) Furthermore you don't know when the wins will come. So it's more complicated than that.
i dint mean +1u at the end of a win and do marty. i meant, whether win or loss increase by 1 unit until you are up by a unit. spin bbbrrbrrb, bets will look like
1 - loss
2 - loss (-3)
3- loss (-6)
4 - win (-2)
5 - win (+3) - target achieved.
Quote from: RouletteMaster on Sep 02, 06:07 PM 2013
i dint mean +1u at the end of a win and do marty. i meant, whether win or loss increase by 1 unit until you are up by a unit. spin bbbrrbrrb, bets will look like
1 - loss
2 - loss (-3)
3- loss (-6)
4 - win (-2)
5 - win (+3) - target achieved.
I see. Still it won't work in most sequences (e.g. LLLWLLLWLLWLWLLLWLLWW)
Quote from: RouletteMaster on Sep 02, 03:31 PM 2013
Kav, glc, think either win-loss +1unit shd work fine/place bets on red always/stop when you are +1 unit at any time.
assume you have first 70 spins as black/You are -2485.
next 30 spins as red. You are +2565/Net +80/maximum placed bet is 100 - much below 500 table limit.
did i miss something?
RM- If that would work all the time, the forced win progression would be all we need, but with a little different mix of Wins VS Losses, we don't come out so good.
Pretty much every negative progression idea works when we front load the losses and back load the wins.
The problem, I think, is when we get the notorious LLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLW sequence. It doesn't have to be 2 and 1 exactly, but just enough losses between wins so that we never catch up with the losses.
I do think a modification of the forced win progression is a powerful bet progression idea, but I haven't been able to make it bullet proof yet.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Sep 02, 07:58 PM 2013
The problem, I think, is when we get the notorious LLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLW
This "notorious" sequence highlights the futility of setting up these specifically designed puzzles. Even if you were to able calculate the exact mathematical algorithm to deal with the puzzles requirements it will not help you figure out how to beat the EC’s in a real game full of real random where the next 100 spins are a mystery.
As for LLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLW, in a real game with real random, after spin 7, whatever you’re using to make your bet selection you should be betting for it to lose, plain & simple. But in this fabricated puzzle you must stick to betting red to win, sure you can choose not to bet, but the point is in the real world if you’re bet selection is picking red, then after spin 7 you should be betting black until the tide turns again.
Seriously, in my opinion, about one third of all the information you need to consistantly beat the ECs is in the first 7 spins of this sequence.
Good luck with the puzzle game guys, but realistically, don’t hope to learn too much.
can we get the LW for the 100 spins? make the hardest one up if you want, just so we have something to try our thoughts on
Quote from: soggett on Sep 03, 02:52 AM 2013
can we get the LW for the 100 spins? make the hardest one up if you want, just so we have something to try our thoughts on
Soggett,
One of the interesting things about this problem is that there are, literally, millions of different possible sequences that you have to deal with.
However I understand that some people find the problem too abstract and need some kind of reference sequence to try their ideas on.
Here's one:
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
w
Hi Kav . . .
Here's an excel tracker with your formula included.
It contains an RNG so simply press function key F9 for another set of spins or you can just clear the numbers in Column A and insert them manually or from whatever source you wish.
Enjoy
Nick
Kav .. . .
I went through this a while ago, trying to solve the problem of winning when you have 65 Reds in 200 spins. I tried all kinds of labby and other progressions to no avail.
I find it pays to revisit this problem and others as we often evolve in our thinking and might have a different perspective.
Rather than trying to hit it over the head with massive progressions, I thought why not attack this from a different perspective.
We know that 30 reds in 100 spins will have many Singles and Series of Reds. In other words, in this 100 spin cycle we will see BBRB which is a Single Red. We will also see BBBRRB which is a series for Red. We will also have BBBRRRB which is another series of Red.
They will not all be Single Reds. It is possible that they will be, but highly unlikely.
Therefore, my suggestions is to bet Red ONLY after a Red wins. We are betting that the next spin will produce a series of Red.
With this type of betting, most any type of progression should get us the one win.
Attached is an excel tracker with this type of betting and 3 types of progressions you may want to try or you can enter any progression you want.
Don't know if this solves this problem but it's an interesting system nonetheless.
Enjoy
Nick
what about using a soft progression of 3 steps to bet after 3SD. it should work right?
How about this progression:
B=(LU/(33-WS)) +1 (we always round up)
B=bet in units
LU= Lost units so far
WS= Won spins so fa
The idea behind this progression is that we just need to recuperate our losses with 33 wins. (or the wins we have left from the 33 initial wins)
Example:
1rst bet = 1unit Loss
2nd bet = 1/33 +1 = 2 (we always round up) Loss
3rd bet = 3/33 +1 = 2 Loss
4th bet = 5/33 +1 =2
etc.
Let's say after 40 spins we are down 100 units and we have won 10 spins.
Next bet would be:
100/(33-10) +1= 100/23 +1 = 6 units
.....
Now let's say after 70 spins we are down 280 units and we have won 20 spins so far
Next bet would be:
280/(33-20) +1 = 280/13 +1 = 23 units
... etc.
Of course from then on, as we get some wins and the denominator decreases, the bets will increase rapidly. Still, I believe we won't reach the 500 units limit.
Gentlemen , I think I solved the problem. :thumbsup:
Nick, could you program this?
Ok,
Here's the Tracker with the new formula.
Let us know how it works.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Kav on Sep 03, 04:38 PM 2013
How about this progression:
B=(LU/(33-WS)) +1 (we always round up)
B=bet in units
LU= Lost units so far
WS= Won spins so fa
The idea behind this progression is that we just need to recuperate our losses with 33 wins. (or the wins we have left from the 33 initial wins)
Example:
1rst bet = 1unit Loss
2nd bet = 1/33 +1 = 2 (we always round up) Loss
3rd bet = 3/33 +1 = 2 Loss
4th bet = 5/33 +1 =2
etc.
Let's say after 40 spins we are down 100 units and we have won 10 spins.
Next bet would be:
100/(33-10) +1= 100/23 +1 = 6 units
.....
Now let's say after 70 spins we are down 280 units and we have won 20 spins so far
Next bet would be:
280/(33-20) +1 = 280/13 +1 = 23 units
... etc.
Of course from then on, as we get some wins and the denominator decreases, the bets will increase rapidly. Still, I believe we won't reach the 500 units limit.
Gentlemen , I think I solved the problem. :thumbsup:
Nick, could you program this?
:.Roulette30.com
This entire post is completely messed up.
Skip all the fancy stuff, and focus on the basics.
There's an elegant solution to this.
GARNabby,
I'm sorry you can't get anything from my post, but it is your problem. Read elsewhere.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 03, 11:42 PM 2013
GARNabby,
I'm sorry you can't get anything from my post, but it is your problem. Read elsewhere.
The reason that you guys never get any real help.
garnabby---i play a ton and do well,,, i mix stuff that works together on roulette -and i have had trying times but I move it around--but so far so good.... on baccarat I play slower versions. You criticize a lot but don't really say much?
28 B -1
20 B -3
24 B -5
1 R -3
33 B -5
20 B -7
19 R -5
3 R -3
1 R -1
26 B -3
11 B -5
31 B -7
23 R -5
11 B -7
9 R -5
20 B -7
6 B -9
35 B -11
27 R -9
8 B -11
33 B -13
35 B -15
29 B -17
31 B -19
0 0 -21
23 R -19
10 B -21
6 B -23
34 R -21
14 R -19
25 R -17
11 B -19
28 B -21
6 B -23
8 B -26
6 B -29
35 B -32
9 R -29
23 R -26
30 R -23
0 0 -26
25 R -23
4 B -26
9 R -23
2 B -26
6 B -29
9 R -26
16 R -23
5 R -20
2 B -23
12 R -20
18 R -17
4 B -20
33 B -23
19 R -20
18 R -17
5 R -14
34 R -11
10 B -14
31 B -17
12 R -13
12 R -10
28 B -13
7 R -9
15 B -12
21 R -8
26 B -11
28 B -15
31 B -20
18 R -14
13 B -20
6 B -28
12 R -17
26 B -27
2 B -42
12 R -20
2 B -41
24 B -83
28 B -167
10 B -335
35 B -671
26 B -1343
1 R 1
Quote from: Kav on Sep 03, 04:38 PM 2013
How about this progression:
B=(LU/(33-WS)) +1 (we always round up)
B=bet in units
LU= Lost units so far
WS= Won spins so fa
The idea behind this progression is that we just need to recuperate our losses with 33 wins. (or the wins we have left from the 33 initial wins)
Example:
1rst bet = 1unit Loss
2nd bet = 1/33 +1 = 2 (we always round up) Loss
3rd bet = 3/33 +1 = 2 Loss
4th bet = 5/33 +1 =2
etc.
Let's say after 40 spins we are down 100 units and we have won 10 spins.
Next bet would be:
100/(33-10) +1= 100/23 +1 = 6 units
.....
Now let's say after 70 spins we are down 280 units and we have won 20 spins so far
Next bet would be:
280/(33-20) +1 = 280/13 +1 = 23 units
... etc.
Of course from then on, as we get some wins and the denominator decreases, the bets will increase rapidly. Still, I believe we won't reach the 500 units limit.
Gentlemen , I think I solved the problem. :thumbsup:
Nick, could you program this?
:.Roulette30.com
So you playing with 20,000 bankroll for 1 unit bets?
Quote from: weddings on Sep 04, 01:56 AM 2013
So you playing with 20,000 bankroll for 1 unit bets?
Weddings,
The whole issue with roulette is how to win that F@@ing 1 unit. How to be in profit even for 1 unit. Yes.
And this method never puts you in the negative for 20K units.
The sequence you posted is a very special one, where the first 32 hits have appeared, and there is left only 1 Red, so every loss doubles up like Martingale. In such a situation you can add one or two wins in the denominator and it becomes 2 or 3 instead of 1 and the bets increase much more slowly.
And you didn't use my progression anyway!
I used the one nick posted. Is that wrong?
Attached is my funky d'alembert progression for the ECs as played for Kav's Lw registry.
Ok, it busted out of the 500 max bet on one major occasion after 10 L's in a row, but in principal it did finish with profit so might be worth further study.
Cheers.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 04, 02:06 AM 2013
Weddings,
The whole issue with roulette is how to win that F@@ing 1 unit. How to be in profit even for 1 unit. Yes.
And this method never puts you in the negative for 20K units.
The sequence you posted is a very special one, where the first 32 hits have appeared, and there is left only 1 Red, so every loss doubles up like Martingale. In such a situation you can add one or two wins in the denominator and it becomes 2 or 3 instead of 1 and the bets increase much more slowly. And you didn't use my progression anyway!
Can you post an example with my numbers?
Lets say after 32 wins what would be your bets?
Weddings,
Read the first two post on Page 3 of this thread.
B 1 -1
B 2 -3
0 2 -5
0 2 -7
R 2 -5
B 2 -7
B 2 -9
R 2 -7
B 2 -9
B 2 -11
B 2 -13
R 2 -11
B 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
R 2 -13
R 2 -11
B 2 -13
B 2 -15
B 2 -17
R 2 -15
B 2 -17
R 2 -15
R 2 -13
R 2 -11
B 2 -13
B 2 -15
B 2 -17
B 2 -19
B 2 -21
R 2 -19
R 2 -17
R 2 -15
R 2 -13
B 2 -15
B 2 -17
R 2 -15
R 2 -13
R 2 -11
R 2 -9
B 2 -11
B 2 -13
R 2 -11
B 2 -13
R 2 -11
B 2 -13
R 2 -11
R 2 -9
R 2 -7
B 2 -9
B 2 -11
R 2 -9
R 2 -7
B 2 -9
B 3 -12
B 3 -15
B 3 -18
B 3 -21
R 4 -17
R 4 -13
B 5 -18
R 5 -13
B 8 -21
B 9 -30
R 10 -20
Is this correct?
How do you continue 131/(33-33)+1?
Hello weddings,
Sorry, this is not correct.
For example the last spin you posted would be
141/(33-32) +1 =141 +1 142
But there are mistakes all along.
The equation is:
Bet = LostUnits/(33-WonSpins) +1
After we have won 32 spins we take a look at our situation and decide how to go from there, in order to keep bets manageable.
Did you test nick's latest sheet? That is the tracker for your post on page 3.
Quote from: weddings on Sep 04, 05:45 AM 2013
Did you test nick's latest sheet? That is the tracker for your post on page 3.
Yep, I tested it. It is REALLY good. (btw,
thanks Nick!)
The only problem I notice is the case the 32 hits have appeared and you wait for that last hit, and every loss is added straight to the equation. That's why I believe in case we have encountered the 32 hits special care should be taken.
So I encountered a bet more than 500 units perhaps the progression needs to be tweaked further?
Funky d'alembert for weddings numbers...
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 04, 08:55 AM 2013
Funky d'alembert for weddings numbers...
Hi, what's the progression?
Funky d'alembert for weddings Black/Red
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 04, 09:34 AM 2013
Funky d'alembert for weddings Black/Red
Except giving an example could you please
describe the progression?
How this for size you bet dbl or what every you fancy,for 100 spins and if you make 60 units or break even at a 5 dollar table you did really well ,that's the best you will do at roulett.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 04, 09:39 AM 2013
Except giving an example could you please describe the progression?
The funky d’alembert works quite well in principal, but does have a tendency to become too explosive. As it stands you would need an unrealistic table spread of at least 1 to 1000. Are there any casinos that offer those luxurious limits? If you didn’t mind betting across a personal permanence then you could move between tables with lower & higher limits to cover the spread, but you would need to be a high roller to get to the upper level tables.
Anyway, you start a session with 1 unit. You always go up 1 unit on the second bet of the session.
After two bets you check the wL registry to decide the next bet direction, either up, down, or hold.
Always keep a running tally of the wL registry as this is used to decide all future bet directions.
WL Registry.
Whenever the W’s are leading the tally, go up on a win and down on a loss next bet.
Whenever the L’s are leading the tally, go up on a loss and down on a win next bet.
Whenever the L’s and W’s are equal in the tally hold the same bet level next bet.
Whenever the difference between W and L is 4, hold the same bet level next bet.
Whenever the difference between W and L is 5, hold the same bet level next bet and dump the current wL tally next bet.
Start a new wL tally and bet from the preceding level. This new wL tally is treated as the first bet of a session, so the following bet always goes up.
The condition of the bankroll can impact on the unit size for the next bet once the direction (up, down, hold) has been decided.
Bankroll.
As play progresses, keep an eye on the bankroll balance.
After EVERY winning bet check the previous bankroll high point and see if the new bankroll went up or down.
If the bankroll went up overall, put a zero beside the current result.
EVERY time you write a zero beside the current result, go back to 1 unit for the next bet.
If the bankroll was down from a previous high and went up a portion but not fully recovered, put the newamount owing the bankroll beside the current result.
This owed amount is now used as the progression increment for future bets until the next winner, after which the bankroll is checked again.
If the bankroll went down, put the amount owing the bankroll beside the current result.
This owed amount is now used as the progression increment for future bets until the next winner, after which the bankroll is checked again.
The amount bet is always slave to the master wL tally directive.
Example: After a winner you check the bankroll and find it is owed 6 units. From this point forward you will increase or decrease the bets by 6 units. The previous bet was 8 units and the wL tally is wLLLw. The L’s are leading so you go down on a win. The next bet is down 6 units, so bet 2 units.
Obviously whenever the increment is greater than the previous bet amount then going down will always result in a next bet of 1 unit.
Another example: After a winner you check the bankroll and find it is owed 6 units. From this point forward you will increase or decrease the bets by 6 units. The previous bet was 8 units and the wL tally is wLLwLw. The W’s and L’s are equal so you hold the next bet. The next bet is hold 8 units, so bet 8 units.
Another example: After a winner you check the bankroll and find it is owed 14 units. From this point forward you will increase or decrease the bets by 14 units. The previous bet was 8 units and the wL tally is wLw. The W’s are leading so you go up on a win. The next bet is up 14 units, so bet 22 units.
Over on Betselection.cc the member Albalaha put up a wL registry that goes 30L - 10W - 30L - 11W - 30L - 12w.
Here is the funky d'alembert result:
L1 1 -1
L2 2 -3
L3 3 -6
L4 4 -10
L5 4 -14
L1 4 -18
L2 5 -23
L3 6 -29
L4 7 -36
L5 7 -43
L1 7 -50
L2 8 -58
L3 9 -67
L4 10 -77
L5 10 -87
L1 10 -97
L2 11 -108
L3 12 -120
L4 13 -133
L5 13 -146
L1 13 -159
L2 14 -173
L3 15 -188
L4 16 -204
L5 16 -220
L1 16 -236
L2 17 -253
L3 18 -271
L4 19 -290
L5 19 -309
W1 19 -290 290
W2 309 +19 0
W3 1 +20 0
W4 1 +21 0
W5 1 +22 0
W1 1 +23 0
W2 1 +24 0
W3 1 +25 0
W4 1 +26 0
W5 1 +27 0
L1 1 +26 0
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5 19 -382
W1 19 -263 290
W2 309 +46 0
W3
W4
W5
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W1 1 +55 0
L1 1 +54
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5 19 -255
W1 19 -236 290
W2 309 +73 0
W3
W4
W5
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W1
W2 1 +83 0
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 04, 07:58 PM 2013
L5 19 -382
W1 19 -263 290
Typo... should be L5 19 -282
Why so many bets are left blank, Skakus?
Quote from: kingsroulette on Sep 05, 12:02 AM 2013
Why so many bets are left blank, Skakus?
Because Albalaha's wL registry and the funky d'alembert are in almost perfect synergy. The blank bets are exactly the same as the first round of bets so I just put in the final and first bets of each round to save some time.
Cheers.
Can this solve another riddle from albalaha, going LLWLLWLLW............. till 100 spins?
Silence says, it can't. ;)
The given progression will work for certain condition in the same win:loss ratio and not in some.
Ran it against my numbers check this out:
R 1 -1
R 2 -3
R 2 -5
R 2 -7
B 2 -5
R 2 -7
R 2 -9
R 2 -11
B 2 -9
B 2 -7
R 2 -9
B 2 -7
B 2 -5
B 2 -3
B 2 -1
R 2 -3
R 2 -5
R 2 -7
B 2 -5
B 2 -3
R 2 -5
R 2 -7
R 2 -9
R 2 -11
R 2 -13
R 2 -15
B 2 -13
B 2 -11
R 2 -13
B 2 -11
0 2 -13
R 2 -15
R 2 -17
B 2 -15
R 2 -17
0 2 -19
B 2 -17
R 2 -19
0 2 -21
R 3 -24
R 3 -27
R 3 -30
R 3 -33
R 3 -36
B 3 -33
B 3 -30
R 3 -33
B 3 -30
R 3 -33
B 4 -29
0 3 -32
R 4 -36
R 4 -40
R 4 -44
R 4 -48
B 5 -43
B 5 -38
R 4 -42
B 5 -37
R 5 -42
R 5 -47
B 5 -42
B 5 -37
B 5 -32
0 5 -37
B 6 -31
R 5 -36
B 6 -30
R 6 -36
R 7 -43
B 8 -35
R 7 -42
B 8 -34
B 8 -26
R 8 -34
B 10 -24
R 9 -33
R 12 -45
B 16 -29
R 16 -45
R 24 -69
0 36 -105
R 54 -159
B 81 -78
0 79 -157
R 158 -315
R 316 -631
R 632 -1263
R 1264 -2527
R 2528 -5055
R 5056 -10111
R 10112 -20223
R 20224 -40447
R 40448 -80895
B 80896 1
Just want to see the max it can go (of cause this is without stop loss):
E 1 -1
E 2 -3
E 2 -5
E 2 -7
E 2 -9
O 2 -7
O 2 -5
O 2 -3
E 2 -5
E 2 -7
E 2 -9
E 2 -11
O 2 -9
E 2 -11
E 2 -13
E 2 -15
E 2 -17
E 2 -19
E 2 -21
O 2 -19
0 2 -21
E 2 -23
E 2 -25
E 2 -27
0 2 -29
E 3 -32
O 3 -29
E 3 -32
E 3 -35
E 3 -38
O 3 -35
E 3 -38
E 3 -41
O 3 -38
O 3 -35
O 3 -32
E 3 -35
O 3 -32
E 3 -35
O 3 -32
0 3 -35
E 3 -38
E 3 -41
E 3 -44
E 4 -48
O 4 -44
E 4 -48
E 4 -52
E 4 -56
O 4 -52
0 4 -56
E 4 -60
E 5 -65
O 5 -60
E 5 -65
O 5 -60
E 5 -65
E 5 -70
O 6 -64
E 5 -69
O 6 -63
E 6 -69
E 6 -75
E 6 -81
E 7 -88
O 7 -81
E 7 -88
O 8 -80
O 8 -72
O 7 -65
O 7 -58
O 7 -51
0 7 -58
E 8 -66
0 9 -75
E 10 -85
E 11 -96
O 12 -84
E 12 -96
O 13 -83
E 13 -96
E 15 -111
O 17 -94
O 17 -77
E 17 -94
O 20 -74
E 20 -94
E 25 -119
E 31 -150
E 39 -189
O 49 -140
0 48 -188
E 64 -252
O 85 -167
E 85 -252
E 127 -379
O 191 -188
E 189 -377
E 378 -755
E 756 -1511
E 1512 -3023
E 3024 -6047
E 6048 -12095
E 12096 -24191
E 24192 -48383
E 48384 -96767
E 96768 -193535
O 193536 1
Quote from: kingsroulette on Sep 05, 01:42 AM 2013
Can this solve another riddle from albalaha, going LLWLLWLLW............. till 100 spins?
No I don't think it will beat that one.
Cheers.
In a sequence of unknowns, and across all forms of betting, runs of LWL are the worst, but WLW are the best.
Anyway, I'm surprised that someone hasn't yet posted up an exhaustive optimal solution against the 30% strike rate. It's not that difficult.
Quote from: GARNabby on Sep 05, 09:52 PM 2013
Anyway, I'm surprised that someone hasn't yet posted up an exhaustive optimal solution against the 30% strike rate. It's not that difficult.
I'm surprised you yourself haven't posted the relatively simple optimal solution to the original 30% strike rate puzzle.
Actually that's not true, as nothing surprises me anymore...
QuoteAnyway, I'm surprised that someone hasn't yet posted up an exhaustive optimal solution against the 30% strike rate. It's not that difficult.
I am very surprised to see an old member speaking like this. Do not forget that even dangerous progression like fibo and labby can not work out in 30% win rate (they need more than 33% hits to clear with 1 unit) and you are thinking it a child's play to create a better doing progression. Nobody will ever be able to create a reasonable progression with reasonable bet size that can beat this 30% thing in all probabilites. You can't deny math.
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 05, 09:59 PM 2013Actually that's not true, as nothing surprises me anymore...
This shall surprise you, dear Skakus.
The only problem with publishing original work is, others will try to claim it for themselves, and the scammers will spin new yarns based on it. I have come full circle in the gambling math/physics, and what I will share with the group here is but the true beginning of that journey, ending with a practical way to beat randomness.
I have another court trial to prepare for Monday, having favorably finished one this morning out of court, so let me get back to this late Monday, or early Tuesday, or at my earliest convenience..
I will PM you with a condition to my doing this here. Suffice it to say, I like to tie things neatly together.
Have you tried that EC-method i posted before in notepad? GreatGrampa mentioned it also on Betselection....
Regression to mean
The explanation goes it is the phenomenon in which if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurementâ€"and, paradoxically, if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first. Using Regression, as with any statistic concepts, you cannot be certain of something to happen, but you can certainly say that it will happen within a degree of predictability.
Simple applicability in roulette could be (ofcourse some people might disagree as statistics is common sense and what is common sense is always questionable), you see that there are 10 Reds in a row, then in the next 10 spins, there is a higher degree of probability for a balanced mix of reds and blacks to be present. Often people misunderstand that the next 10 spins will have more blacks than reds or completely black so that it will all even out. NO! That’s not the case. Regression to the mean will just imply that the next set of 10 spins will have a higher chance of a mix of blacks and reds. Again note, nothing is certain.
people consider 3 out 10 of an EC as a deviation that has crossed SD levels and start betting from that position onwards.
To me anything between 8 to 10 is a decent sample size to consider to be playable. For all practical purposes in this thread, I will consider a sample size of 8 spins and look for deviations from mean within this sample size."
After a series of any color (two or more) wait for the color to change then bet for that new color....
Bet black in all these cases
RRB
RRRB
RRRRB
RRRRRB
RRRRRRB....and so on
Bet red in all these cases
BBR
BBBR
BBBBR
BBBBBR
BBBBBBR... and so on
don't know if this will work, (haven't tested it enough myself) just an idea i had,
Hi ignatius,
Your bet selection is the same as the one Nickmsi posted on his post on page 2. Actually looking for series of RED. I do not see any benefit in it. Whatever the bet selection the possibility for extreme deviations is the same whether you just bet on red or you alternate bets or you wait for any trigger. For any bet selection there are equal probabilities for the sequence from hell, like the 33/100 hit rate I mention in this challenge. So this is basically a money management problem, not a bet selection/trigger problem.
Quote from: GARNabby on Sep 06, 02:16 AM 2013
I will PM you with a condition to my doing this here. Suffice it to say, I like to tie things neatly together.
Ok GARNabby,
Where do I sign, and can I read the small print first?
Hi,
I have long played a formula + progression for RED or BLACK which usually works good for me on *real roulette only*. (not r.n.g.)
I do not place a bet every spin.
And I only play it for really LOW stakes - so no real concern about losses here...
Below example session was using real casino numbers.
[reveal=DublinBet Spins]
# w/l cum. profit
==================
5 w+1 +1
11
13 L-1
24 L-2
32 w+4 +2
5
36 L-1
14 L-2
35 w+4 +3
26
5 w+1 +4
30
16 w+1 +5
23
35 w+1 +6
1
14 L-1
24 w+2 +7
23
7 L-1
29 w+2 +8
2
36 L-1
13 w+2 +9
9
20 L-1
4 L-2
26 L-4
27 w+5 +7
22
9 L-2
7 L-3
2 w+4 +6
21
8 w+3 +9
9
27 w+1 +10
18
27 w+1 +11
3
22 w+1 +12
25
25 w+1 +13
16
12 w+1 +14
18
0 L-1
24 L-2
15 L-4
28 L-5 +2
17
4 L-6
18 w+7 +3
13
0 L-8
11 w+9 +4
12
9 w+10 +14
6
0 L-1
23 L-2
16 L-4
15 w+5 +12
20
22 w+2 +14
19
10 w+1 +15
10
27 w+1 +16
28
23 w+1 +17
31
19 L-1
20 w+2 +18
35
33 L-1
15 L-2
10 L-4
36 w+5 +16
17
15 L-2
17 L-3
12 w+4 +15
2
27 L-2
23 L-3
14 L-4
7 L-5 +1
6
34 L-6
1 L-7
14 L-8
14 L-9 -29
31
8 w+10 -19
13
8 w+11 -8
34
6 L-12
33 L-13
5 w+14 -19
18
26 L-15
34 w+16 -18
2
33 w+17 -1
15
33 w+18 +17
13
9 L-1
2 w+2 +18
6
5 L-1
29 w+2 +19
19
8 w+1 +20
33
28 w+1 +21
7
8 L-1
18 w+2 +22
13
34 L-1
26 w+2 +23
33
1 L-1
26 w+2 +24
28
33 L-1
18 w+2 +25
22
16 L-1
14 L-2
15 w+4 +26
0
28
26 L-1
0 L-2
11 L-4
14 w+5 +24
31
7 L-2
7 L-3
26 w+4 +23
7
22 L-3
23 w+4 +24
32
17 w+2 +26
20
17 w+1 +27
4
2 w+1 +28
8
12 w+1 +29
32
7 L-1
4 w+2 +30
19
14 L-1
11 w+2 +31
33
2 w+1 +32
23
21 L-1
29 w+2 +33
0
24
31 w+1 +34
35
12 w+1 +35
8
12 w+1 +36
21
1 L-1
31 w+2 +37
31
26 w+1 +38
3
8 w+1 +39
27
20 L-1
30 w+2 +40
5
4 w+1 +41
26
36 w+1 +42
29
32 w+1 +43
34
8 L-1
7 w+2 +44
0
23
6 w+1 +45
5
10 w+1 +46
16
15 L-1
7 w+2 +48
15
13 w+1 +49
21
3 L-1
22 w+2 +50
29
8 L-1
10 L-2
25 w+4 +51
21
17 w+1 +52
31
4 w+1 +53
28
35 L-1
27 w+2 +54
19
16 L-1
4 w+2 +55
13
35 w+1 +56
36
2 L-1
18 w+2 +57
0
12
7 w+1 +58
17
33 L-1
5 w+2 +59
5
23 L-1
23 L-2
2 w+4 +60
20
22 w+1 +61
5
36 L-1
16 L-2
28 w+4 +62
18
22 L-1
5 w+2 +63
36
9 w+1 +64
4
2 w+1 +65
26
30 w+1 +66
32
13 w+1 +67
17
21 w+1 +68
30
23 w+1 +69
9
13 L-1
12 w+2 +70
27
33 L-1
25 w+2 +71
29
22 L-1
3 w+2 +72
10
4 L-1
31 L-2
32 w+4 +73
11
11 L-1
28 L-2
20 L-4
31 L-5 +61
22
16 L-6
18 L-7
35 W+8 +56
17
9 w+9 +65
9
12 w+8 +73
2
7 L-1
21 L-2
2 w+4 +74
5
15 w+1 +75
32
32 L-1
19 L-2
5 L-4
7 L-5 +63
28
14 w+6 +69
36
10 L-6
22 L-7
4 L-8
14 w+9 +57
16
32 w+10 +67
33
24 w+8 +75
11
2 L-1
26 L-2
29 L-4
22 L-5 +62
23
23 L-6
7 L-7
2 w+8 +57
29
2 L-9
7 w+10 +58
14
19 L-11
2 w+12 +59
6
31 w+13 +72
11
14 w+3 +75
34
3 w+1 +76
29
9 w+1 +77
23
34 L-1
36 L-2
32 L-4
6 w+5 +75
8
29 L-2
10 L-3
3 w+4 +74
36
27 w+3 +77
9
21 w+1 +78
26
12 w+1 +79
19
35 w+1 +80
0
24
17 w+1 +81
8
1 w+1 +82
26
25 w+1 +83
12
23 w+1 +84
33
1 L-1
13 w+2 +85
26
26 L-1
26 L-2
27 w+4 +86
22
17 w+1 +87
23
6 w+1 +88
23
8 w+1 +89
23
9 L-1
33 w+2 +90
32
31 w+1 +91
16
5 w+1 +92
35
36 w+1 +93
13
26 w+1 +94
26
28 L-1
33 L-2
16 w+4 +95
23
21 L-1
32 L-2
9 L-4
2 w+5 +93
18
22 L-2
21 w+3 +94
7
3 w+1 +95
24
31 w+1 +96
16
25 w+1 +97
3
17 w+1 +98
19
1 L-1
33 w+2 +99
31
29 w+1 +100
0
15
16 L-1
35 w+2 +101
24
13 w+1 +102
29
18 w+1 +103
31
8 w+1 +104
9
6 L-1
29 L-2
13 L-4
29 L-5 +92
19
16 L-6
30 L-7
21 L-8
28 w+9 +80
16
9 w+10 +90
11
14 w+11 +101
6
12 L-3
23 L-4
26 w+5 +99
32
4 w+5 +104
18
15 L-1
26 L-2
10 L-4
15 L-5 +92
32
12 L-6
8 w+7 +93
3
28 w+8 +101
28
6 L-3
20 L-4
26 L-5
27 w+6 +95
28
13 L-7
25 w+8 +96
2
32 L-9
25 L-10
13 w+11 +88
10
23 w+12 +100
27
4 L-4
28 L-5
4 L-6
34 w+7 +92
10
27 w+8 +100
25
3 w+4 +104
30
15 L-1
23 w+2 +105
26
15 L-1
30 w+2 +106
10
33 L-1
22 L-2
27 w+4 +107
32
0 L-1
7 L-2
12 L-4
11 w+5 +105
2
1 L-2
17 w+3 +106
10
1 w+1 +107
2
19 L-1
33 w+2 +108
24
35 w+1 +109
11
13 L-1
19 w+2 +110
31
26 w+1 +111
30
9 w+1 +112
23
30 L-1
28 w+2 +113
28
35 L-1
24 L-2
7 w+4 +114
23
1 L-1
3 L-2
36 L-4
4 w+5 +112
6
28 w+2 +114
27
10 L-1
17 L-2
12 w+4 +115
14
34 L-1
29 w+2 +116
13
18 L-1
5 L-2
26 w+4 +117
16
35 L-1
14 w+2 +118
13
3 L-1
31 w+2 +119
4
1 L-1
8 w+2 +120
32
18 L-1
21 L-2
17 w+4 +121
6
3 L-1
2 w+2 +122
23
5 L-1
30 L-2
32 L-4
15 w+5 +120
7
18 w+2 +122
15
0 L-1
7 L-2
7 L-4
20 w+5 +120
0
10
11 L-2
33 L-3
10 L-4
14 w+5 +116
3
35 w+6 +122
24
21 L-1
36 L-2
35 w+4 +123
7
0 L-1
2 L-2
29 L-4
25 w+5 +121
2
9 L-2
2 w+3 +122
27
31 L-1
26 L-2
15 L-4
30 w+5 +120
21
7 L-3
35 w+4 +121
27
29 L-2
35 L-3
25 w+4 +120
29
35 L-3
4 L-4
35 L-5
2 L-6 +102
11
5 w+7 +109
16
34 w+8 +117
8
1 w+6 +123
4
6 w+1 +124
29
21 w+1 +125
12
32 w+1 +126
8
10 L-1
32 w+2 +127
33
7 L-1
0 L-2
4 w+4 +128
35
9 w+1 +129
28
14 w+1 +130
10
11 L-1
10 L-2
9 w+4 +131
27
13 L-1
7 w+2 +132
31
7 L-1
22 w+2 +133
3
14 L-1
22 w+2 +134
35
17 L-1
23 w+2 +135
16
11 L-1
28 L-2
29 L-4
8 L-5 +123
16
22 L-6
28 L-7
12 w+8 +118
11
3 w+9 +127
24
25 L-8
21 L-9
14 L-10
26 w+11 +109
26
7 w+12 +121
30
28 L-13
12 w+14 +122
14
22 w+13 +135
30
36 w+1 +136
11
12 w+1 +137
18
2 L-1
31 L-2
5 w+4 +138
25
3 w+1 +139
24
21 L-1
25 L-2
33 w+4 +140
18
10 L-1
31 L-2
11 L-4
22 L-5 +128
9
36 w+6 +134
26
27 w+6 +140
4
25 L-1
0 L-2
28 w+4 +141
32
32 L-1
20 w+2 +142
22
17 w+1 +143
30
16 w+1 +144
15
4 w+1 +145
25
29 L-1
0 L-2
30 w+4 +146
29
32 w+1 +147
13
13 w+1 +148
5
30 L-1
12 L-2
32 L-4
19 L-5 +136
1
31 w+6 +142
2
6 w+6 +148
5
14 L-1
8 w+2 +149
30
10 L-1
1 w+2 +150
0
22
2 w+1 +151
27
6 L-1
16 w+2 +152
34
0 L-1
9 w+2 +153
17
26 L-1
5 w+2 +154
35
31 L-1
20 L-2
2 L-4
8 L-5 +142
9
10 L-6
32 w+7 +143
10
19 w+8 +151
4
9 L-3
9 L-4
10 w+5 +149
24
29 w+5 +154
13
2 w+1 +155
15
21 L-1
20 w+2 +156
5
10 w+1 +157
4
21 L-1
36 L-2
8 w+4 +158
6
15 w+1 +159
31
9 L-1
3 L-2
24 w+4 +160
21
34 L-1
16 L-2
28 w+4 +161
2
17 w+1 +162
2
9 L-1
25 L-2
31 w+4 +163
21
28 w+1 +164
18
17 L-1
23 w+2 +165
17
36 w+1 +166
22
27 L-1
34 L-2
3 L-4
30 L-5 +154
4
13 w+6 +160
20
11 w+6 +166
26
34 w+1 +167
26
23 w+1 +168
10
1 w+1 +169
27
23 w+1 +170
4
2 w+1 +171
26
23 w+1 +172
8
18 w+1 +173
34
6 L-1
7 w+2 +174
30
3 w+1 +175
16
12 w+1 +176
27
27 w+1 +177
6
26 w+1 +178
18
4 L-1
4 L-2
13 L-4
34 w+5 +176
8
20 L-2
1 w+3 +177
6
11 w+1 +178
10
3 w+1 +179
26
17 L-1
27 w+2 +180
36
28 L-1
15 L-2
10 L-4
23 w+5 +178
24
0 L-2
34 L-3
22 w+4 +177
4
29 w+3 +180
4
18 L-1
36 L-2
10 w+4 +181
15
12 L-1
18 L-2
25 L-4
13 w+5 +179
11
3 w+2 +181
27
10 L-1
1 w+2 +182
7
36 w+1 +183
23
21 L-1
32 L-2
10 w+4 +184
15
35 w+1 +185
17
17 L-1
25 w+2 +186
11
4 L-1
20 L-2
17 L-4
29 L-5 +174
27
24 L-6
5 w+7 +175
15
1 L-8
25 L-9
29 w+10 +168
13
24 w+11 +179
5
2 w+7 +186
29
34 w+1 +187
26
10 L-1
3 w+2 +188
27
6 L-1
25 w+2 +189
12
22 L-1
11 L-2
33 L-4
25 w+5 +187
13
19 L-2
29 w+3 +188
30
15 L-1
9 w+2 +189
7
32 w+1 +190
6
1 L-1
12 L-2
25 L-4
0 L-5 +178
13
35 w+6 +184
12
30 w+6 +190
35
2 L-1
3 w+2 +191
32
14 L-1
34 L-2
21 L-4
22 w+5 +189
15
19 L-6
28 w+7 +190
24
29 w+1 +191
1
0 L-1
4 w+2 +192
19
28 w+1 +193
10
8 L-1
29 L-2
20 L-4
21 w+5 +191
12
12 w+2 +193
27
23 w+1 +194
31
12 L-1
33 w+2 +195
30
29 L-1
24 L-2
28 L-4
22 L-5 +183
13
32 L-6
33 w+7 +184
28
30 w+8 +192
21
19 L-3
16 L-4
31 w+5 +190
9
1 w+5 +195
19
4 w+1 +196
25
23 w+1 +197
21
16 L-1
14 L-2
3 L-4
28 w+5 +195
8
22 L-2
4 L-3
13 L-4
20 L-5 +181
16
7 w+6 +187
12
30 w+7 +194
33
0 L-3
6 w+4 +195
30
34 w+2 +197
0
24
36 L-1
30 L-2
28 w+4 +198
3
34 L-1
21 L-2
4 w+4 +199
7
27 w+1 +200
18
29 L-1
22 L-2
22 L-4
19 w+5 +198
16
33 L-2
9 w+3 +199
34
18 w+1 +200
10
14 w+1 +201
12
3 w+1 +202
24
29 w+1 +203
18
2 L-1
32 w+2 +204
32
28 w+1 +205
35
23 w+1 +206
21
31 w+1 +207
7
22 L-1
30 w+2 +208
26
2 L-1
25 w+2 +209
18
19 w+1 +210
19
23 L-1
3 L-2
25 L-4
8 w+5 +208
1
27 L-2
12 L-3
6 w+4 +207
4
13 w+3 +210
31
15 w+1 +211
9
29 L-1
19 w+2 +212
36
27 w+1 +213
25
18 w+1 +214
17
12 w+1 +215
4
19 L-1
13 w+2 +216
8
21 w+1 +217
20
2 w+1 +218
22
2 w+1 +219
28
26 L-1
6 L-2
0 L-4
35 L-5 +207
2
26 w+6 +213
0
36
19 w+6 +219
36
32 w+1 +220
32
13 w+1 +221
28
13 L-1
12 w+2 +222
33
21 L-1
4 w+2 +223
22
33 w+1 +224
22
10 w+1 +225
12
12 w+1 +226
2
2 w+1 +227
35
18 w+1 +228
35
21 w+1 +229
9
23 w+1 +230
35
31 L-1
13 L-2
28 L-4
13 L-5 +218
12
23 w+6 +224
27
28 L-6
8 L-7
23 w+8 +219
7
9 w+9 +228
1
13 w+2 +230
27
1 w+1 +231
36
11 L-1
36 w+2 +232
17
8 L-1
6 L-2
6 L-4
23 w+5 +230
33
19 L-2
19 L-3
11 w+4 +229
33
18 L-3
33 w+4 +230
21
30 L-2
24 w+3 +231
27
27 w+1 +232
24
2 w+1 +233
35
19 w+1 +234
33
26 w+1 +235
21
21 L-1
8 w+2 +236
31
13 w+1 +237
27
3 w+1 +238
7
7 w+1 +239
25
16 w+1 +240
24
8 w+1 +241
30
10 L-1
26 L-2
0 L-4
21 w+5 +239
19
27 L-2
5 L-3
28 w+4 +238
21
8 w+3 +241
14
36 L-1
0 L-2
9 L-4
26 w+5 +239
18
28 L-2
36 w+3 +240
20
0 L-1
14 L-2
13 w+3 +240
35
6 L-1
20 L-2
34 w+3 +240
10
21 w+1 +241
19
5 L-1
13 w+2 +242
5
18 L-1
0 L-2
10 w+4 +243
33
32 L-1
20 w+2 +244
8
34 w+1 +245
22
19 L-1
30 L-2
35 w+4 +246
11
12 w+1 +247
29
29 L-1
34 w+2 +248
18
8 L-1
15 L-2
32 w+4 +249
30
1 w+1 +250
30
2 L-1
23 L-2
23 L-4
24 w+5 +248
20
32 L-2
36 L-3
36 L-4
27 L-5 +234
10
7 w+6 +240
27
0 L-7
25 w+8 +241
18
16 w+9 +250
25
20 L-1
1 w+2 +251
3
26 w+1 +252
9
2 L-1
30 w+2 +253
29
28 L-1
21 w+2 +254
20
10 w+1 +255
36
27 w+1 +256
9
11 L-1
28 L-2
8 L-4
36 w+5 +254
8
24 L-2
2 L-3
21 w+4 +253
10
29 L-3
10 L-4
24 L-5
20 L-6 +235
19
15 w+7 +242
23
6 w+8 +250
12
28 L-6
16 w+7 +251
19
15 w+5 +256
23
26 w+1 +257
11
5 w+1 +258
23
7 L-1
6 w+2 +259
6
15 w+1 +260
27
28 L-1
7 w+2 +261
0
32
26 w+1 +262
3
1 L-1
25 L-2
10 w+4 +263
15
31 w+1 +264
23
23 L-1
29 w+2 +265
22
11 w+1 +266
16
27 w+1 +267
13
3 L-1
6 w+2 +268
23
13 w+1 +269
19
11 w+1 +270
25
21 w+1 +271
9
8 L-1
20 L-2
35 L-4
21 w+5 +269
27
34 w+2 +271
33
9 L-1
15 w+2 +272
35
4 L-1
26 L-2
32 w+4 +273
7
4 L-1
0 L-2
36 w+4 +274
19
25 L-1
32 L-2
8 w+4 +275
6
14 L-1
19 L-2
3 L-4
25 L-5 +263
16
15 L-6
24 L-7
31 L-8
36 w+9 +251
7
12 w+10 +261
0
10
12 w+11 +272
31
15 w+3 +275
18
13 L-1
7 w+1 +276
27
3 w+1 +277
13
30 L-1
32 L-2
31 w+4 +278
20
24 w+1 +279
17
25 w+1 +280
3
19 L-1
0 L-2
3 L-4
29 w+5 +278
35
33 L-2
18 w+3 +279
30
20 L-1
11 L-2
16 w+3 +279
9
34 w+1 +280
31
2 w+1 +281
8
24 L-1
19 w+2 +282
29
34 w+1 +283
36
3 w+1 +284
11
34 w+1 +285
0
10
16 w+1 +286
26
36 w+1 +287
27
19 w+1 +288
22
19 L-1
34 L-2
11 w+4 +289
23
34 L-1
6 w+2 +290
9
29 L-1
36 w+2 +291
22
16 L-1
14 L-2
31 w+4 +292
35
10 L-1
8 L-2
8 L-4
15 L-5 +280
5
7 L-6
25 L-7
18 L-8
7 L-9 +250
11
5 w+10 +260
3
14 L-11
4 w+12 +261
14
30 L-13
10 w+14 +262
32
4 w+15 +277
5
13 w+15 +292
30
14 w+1 +293
0
29
9 w+1 +294
29
27 w+1 +295
32
31 w+1 +296
20
0 L-1
35 w+2 +297
0
24
18 L-1
8 w+2 +298
11
11 L-1
15 L-2
4 L-4
36 w+5 +296
15
25 L-2
33 w+3 +297
20
13 w+1 +298
9
31 L-1
35 L-2
13 L-4
25 w+5 +296
19
17 w+2 +298
11
13 L-1
0 L-2
28 L-4
6 L-5 +286
18
16 w+6 +292
17
0 L-6
27 w+7 +293
2
24 w+5 +298
12
4 L-1
31 L-2
10 L-4
8 L-5 +286
5
5 L-6
32 L-7
21 L-8
2 w+9 +274
22
1 L-10
35 w+11 +275
7
10 L-12
11 L-13
17 L-14
12 w+15 +251
10
19 w+16 +267
19
33 w+17 +284
31
35 w+14 +298
7
21 w+1 +299
7
2 L-1
36 w+2 +300
[/reveal]
How does it work?
It is by the union of Compa's Red and Black selection method derived from the STREETS coupled with the "maxsim" progression for EC's
Compa's Table
============
street sum play
1.2.3 = 1+3 = 4 = BLACK
4.5.6 = 4+6 = 10 = BLACK
7.8.9 = 7+9 = 16 = RED
10.11.12 = 10+11= 21 = RED
13.14.15 = 13+15= 28 = BLACK
16.17.18 = 16+18= 34 = RED
19.20.21 = 19+21= 40 = 4+0 = 4 = BLACK
22.23.24 = 22+24= 46 = 4+6 = 10 = BLACK
25.26.27 = 25+27= 52 = 5+2 = 7= RED
28.29.30 = 28+29= 57 = 5+7 = 12 = RED
31.32.33 = 31+33= 64 = 6+4 = 10 = BLACK
34.35.36 = 34+36= 70 = 7+0 = 7 = RED
You can find more info on this table and compa's findings at:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=613.msg28610#msg28610
To begin check the last hit result (trigger) and get the colour selection to bet from the above table.
EG: If the last number is 32, I check the table and see it says to bet B(lack)
So now I begin betting on Black - but only for a maximum of 4 spins only.
If a win occurs within the four spins cycle or if no win has occurred after the 4 bet spin cycle is over then in either case the betting is stopped until the next number is spun - which then becomes the new trigger to refer to the table for the colour to be backed for the next cycle...
When level or ahead the progression ALWAYS starts with a 3 spin marty (1-2-4) then if no win has been achieved the bets rise by +1 unit each successive bet.
Example 1
========
32R trigger to bet B
16R L-1
23R L-2
24B w+4 +1
Example 2
========
32R trigger to bet B
16R L-1
23R L-2
14R L-4
2B w+5 -2 (2 behind so next bet cycle will be 2-3-4-5)
18R trigger to bet R
14R w+2 +0 (level so next bet cycle will be 1-2-4-5)
Example 3
========
32R trigger to bet B
16R L-1
23R L-2
14R L-4
5R L-5 -12 (so next bet cycle will be 6-7-8-9)
24B trigger to bet B
13B w+6 -6 (still behind so next cycle will be 6-7-8-9)
22B trigger to bet B
0G L-6
21R L-7
33B w+8 -11 (still behind so next cycle will be 9-10-11-12)
1R trigger to bet B
22B w+9 -2 (only 2 behind so next cycle bet 2-3-4-5)
6B trigger to bet B
6B w+2 +0 (level so restart for next cycle 1-2-4-5)
When behind I always try and bet the exact number of units to get level providing it is less or equal to the current stage of the progression if I can, as was the case with the bet after 13B in the last example - otherwise I increase the bet by +1 as usual, as was the case with the bet right after the 1R trigger in the last example.
Atlantis.
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 06, 10:28 PM 2013
Ok GARNabby, Where do I sign, and can I read the small print first?
Okay, thank you, Skakus.
What makes this solution so simple is that it is part of broader, generalized gambling theory.
I will give only the relevant part at hand here for now, and allow others to try to build onto that. This quickly becomes more difficult, so I'll likely show up later to help out. (I was posting for fun at the BetSelection site last month, when I had some time off, and was on my way out for another year, but Kav's question caught my eye.)
To do this, observe that the cancelation or Labby betting system is the most versatile, and hence susceptible to generalization. And, that it's that very versatility which is to blame for it's being commonly misunderstood with regard to its simplest, logical form. We must rework it's arbitrary betting to begin, and then get a handle on its broader application to the different L:W ratios.
Let's bet one unit under the pretend assumption that we lost our last bet, however. Upon a win, we stroke that bet out, and start over. There is not a matter of how many bets to cross out, because we had only one. So, let's consider a series of losses to have the "modified", nay, actually regular, cancelation betting system grow. We'll do it for a mid-range L:W ratio of two to one, in which case it's logical that we stroke off (up to) two thus previously recorded losses for each successive win. Now, we'll have to do one other thing as each new loss is recorded to the end of the previous sequence of lost bets. To not merely have the wins account for or balance out the losses (by strokes), let's add an additional one onto each new amount of the bet. When the wins even out the losses, we'll be left with the "additional" unit ones which we added on at each new bet stage. Of course, and there are a lot of other specifics which come into play, the L-W ratio may be reassessed and adjusted for for continued accuracy as go along. But degrees of those specifics aren't important to the system, itself, for short-run considerations to do with its illustration, e.g..
Start at 1 unit, and upon a loss, go to 1 + 1 unit. There were no losses before the 1 unit, so we add only the "additional" one unit which is done in general. The sequence of losses, or in other words new bets, has been recorded as 1, 2. Upon another loss, this time of 2 units, the next bet becomes 1 + 2 + 1 "additional" = 4. Upon another loss, this time of 4 units, the sequence of bets has become 1, 2, 4, and 6. Here, 6 = 1 + 4 + "1". We took the last lost bet, and added that to the number of bets from the front end of the sequence which make a total of two bets. The two was from the L of the L:W ratio, in this case, two to one. Upon yet another loss, the bet becomes 6 + 1 + "1" = 8. Lose the 8, and the next bet will become 10. And so on, until a win.
Suppose that we win that bet of 10. Well, we don't add that to the sequence of lost bets, but instead stroke out two bets from the previous sequence of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8. Namely, stroke out the last bet, 8, and the first bet, 1. Then, we are left with lost bets of 2, 4, 6. The next bet becomes 6 + 2 + "1" = 9. Upon a loss, we record the 9, and so have 2, 4, 6, 9. Next bet, 12. Win, so stroke out the 9, and the 2. Next bet, 4 + 6 + "1" = 11. Win, so stroke out the 4, and 6. Notice that we are set to begin again with another pretend loss of one unit, but with a profit of three units from the above three wins.
It's note worthy at this time to point out a couple of items, at least in principle. This regular "Labby" reduces to the D'Alembert at the one to one L:W ratio. But it expands to the full-blown Martingale as the L:W becomes much worse and/or the number of trials becomes much smaller.
The more intuitive reader may be left to wonder, how is this regular "Labby" generalized to the favorable L:W ratios (beyond one to one from the worse ratios)? Say, one loss to two wins? A trivial way may be to show, with particular other restrictions, how it is possible to lose with the better ratios.
We must express this ratio in terms of integers because it's not possible stroke out, or add, a fractional number of lost bets. For simplicity, we take one side of the ratio as one. However, there are a few techniques around this integer limitation as an issue, or the betting inaccuracies which might accrue from it. Incidentally, the bet amount is subject to also other sorts of criteria. (Interesting stuff for the new people who will take the time and make the effort to purse this.)
Hope that I haven't made any errors so far. Bear with me. It's one thing to know this stuff on the fly, but tedious to have to go through the small steps across the linear written page. And, to keep of which I write here consistent with the stuff from further down the road. (A lot of cross referencing.)
Another ex, while I leave this to others for now. Set the L:W ratio at three to one.
Lose the first four bets, to arrive at a the lost sequence of bets, 1, 2, 4, and 8. The 8 comes from adding the two front-end bets with the last bet. The next bet is 8 + 1 + 2 +"1" = 12. Win that, then stroke out the 8, and the 1, 2, (but keep the "1"). This leaves this ratio's regular "Labby" sequence at 4, and with the next bet at 4 + 0 up front + "1" = 5. Lose that, then the sequence is 4, 5. Next bet, 10 units. Lose that, then we have 4, 5, 10. Win the next bet of 20, and we are left to begin again, but with a profit of two units, one for each possible win within the allowed for number of trials at the given L:W ratio.
P. S. Better use of my time can be made by allowing some of my proofreading to the other members. Thanks.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 11, 02:03 PM 2013
B=(LU/(33-WS)) +1 (we always round up)
B=bet in units
LU= Lost units so far
WS= Won spins so fa
........The progression always won. With bets lower than 500 units and never exceeding our bankroll. Kav
-------------
Kav, what do you exactly mean by that statement...what conditions did you use for testing?
Theoretically, red and black are 50/50 % chance minus zeros appeared. Why bet stubbornly on red when black was coming more often. Be flexible and take advantage of the disproportions of the games. Bet that one which is coming more often.
You would beat the game with 1-1-2 progression (similar to Labourchere progression).
When you lose you bet the top number on the list.
When you win you bet the total of the top and bottom numbers remaining on the list.
Similar to the WL strategy.
Other possibility to beat the game: Bet the winner only, more often coming with WL strategy! If red is coming more often wait for red to appear and bet red until black shows up and wait for red to appear again (WL strategy). With D' Alembert or Labourchere progression.
Always take advantage of the imbalanced game. Bet on the winner not on the loser.
I am planning to go in September or October to Las Vegas to take some money they owe me! Ha, ha, ha...
Cheers Hermes
Other possibility to beat the game: Bet the winner only, more often coming with WL strategy! If red is coming more often wait for red to appear and bet red until black shows up and wait for red to appear again (WL strategy). With D' Alembert or Labourchere progression.
Pure genius!!
I can't wait to try it!
GLC
vundarosa,
Read page 3 of this thread. The excel from Nickmsi, tests the progression.
Hermes, Glc,
No matter how you choose your bet, whatever strategy, trigger, bet selection etc.., you cannot avoid losses. Then your only weapon is a good bet progression. This is a pure money management challenge on even chances. If you think you found a bet selection method that offers you more than 50/50 chance or that it loses less often than others good for you, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
Kav,
Your hastily contrived fantasy formula "B=(LU/(33-WS)) +1 (we always round up)" changes little until after most of the W's have occurred, at which point it fast degrades to the Martingale. So, why bet anything until most of the W's have past, at which point you can apply the Martingale from scratch to limit the bets in the worst cases. You still have to be able to cover those sets of outcomes at some point, so work with the worst possible set every time.
Forget about all the other cases in which your formula might put you in a worse spot then before by betting a string of two units, three units, etc, upon the usual case of the W's slowly falling behind the L's. You wrote, "... after 40 spins we are down 100 units and we have won 10 spins." What when that's after 14 or more W's, and so you're in a worse spot then before with the 100... with 41 L's, and 19 W's left. (No longer 1/3 rd of the 60 remaining events can be W's.) Bet from the outset, you might get lucky, and win one unit, and then "head for the hills". Big waste of time, and all the money you'll have to keep on hand to keep that setup rolling. It's funny that you mention this single problem as some sort of bug in YOUR (one and only winning) system, one which happens to pop up on the end of it in all places. But that's the only real gist of it. You went on to write, "The simple solution would be to increase the divider by 1 or 2, like the "safety break on the divisor system." Classic system seller/web guy talk. Sounds like, back to the (fourth grader's) drawing board? No, nobody discovered perpetual motion yet either.
My solution is based on first principles, a method which not only directly works to a maximum guaranteed return over each and every set of outcomes, or indirectly to a guaranteed maximum return averaged over all outcomes for any outcome, but also tends to lead to broader implications in the gambling theory, both in general and specific. Specifically, a known gain of at least so much for each and every W surely beats out a tentative gain of only one unit for all, and W's left on the table. Can't properly develop that which wasn't properly defined and governed to begin with.
"Test for yourself and share your comments." - People like you are the main reason that I don't post even my significant work on the internet. Takes too much time to find out that ALL problem gamblers - all gamblers have a growing problem with the beast - want only to continue to delude themselves until they are so "far gone" that they take up some other type of "religion" on one of the anti-gambling psychology boards, e.g.. "No skin off my back", I've taken as many "funky" ideas from others here and there as possible, and made the most of a select few of those (along with a couple of my own). If they're not interested... let's me off easy.
People wonder about the reasons that I criticize a lot of the internet stuff. NONE of it is completely correct; but far and away, MOST of it is garbage, baby talk. What else is there to do then? I don't work for anybody, let alone a bunch of crazy-dumb internet people. However, I do like to post for myself for my own motivation about something which I have just noticed, and probably criticized. And, occasionally after seeing something so dumb that it just begs for some sort of correction, knowing full well in advance that it will be either completely ignored, misunderstood or trashed. Almost perfect record there, I have to delight. So each gets what each deserves. That my friends is gambling as it was meant to be. (A beauteous thing to behold even close up!)
__________________________________________________
That dispensed with one final time, please allow me to finish off an other of my own posts/replies for completeness, and of course the record. This time, I think that I'll cut to the chase w/o a lot of explanation. Well, that's the natural luxury of having took the time and made the effort to properly set the thing up right.
I believe that there was a question of how to proceed from the L>1:1 ratios to those of 1:W>1. I corrected the "Labby" progression, and then, at least in concept, extended that business to the then also consequently properly redefined D'Alembert (for the ratios of 1:W>1, specifically for 1<W<2,) and then in the other direction for L to the Martingale for the worst ratios of L:W. The incorrect "Labby" is discussed here, link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouch%C3%A8re_system . I point this out to only not have to explain also its (for all legitimate purposes) incorrect inverse.
The answer is that the L of the L:W ratio stands for the number of losses to be stroked out after a win; and that the W stands for the number of prebets before, during, or after a loss, as recorded in the sequence of losses up to a given time in play. The pre-bets are given by the sequence (1), 1, 2, 4, 8, and so on. Those fit in with the manner in which the unfavorable ratios' sequences of losses are recorded so that the Parlay betting system may be logically approached with the same corrected "Labby". (Imagine those sequences of losses in a stepwise progression to the right of where those were in the vertical list of corresponding unfavorable ratios.)
Example for an L:W at 2:1. Two losses are stroked off after each win; but there will be only one pre-bet, the "pretend assumption that we lost our last bet" one. No matter which L>1:W=1 ratio, we begin with the pre-bet as in the two examples from my first reply.
Example for an L:W at 1:3. One loss is stroked off after each win; but there will be three pre-bets, the "pretend assumption that we lost our last bet" one (1) , 1, and 2. The next, in this case the first actual, bet would be 4, corresponding to the L:W sequence of recorded losses of 3:1. Lose, and go to 8. Lose again, and go to 12. Stroke of one of the losses for each win. In this case, each W will amount to four units gained upon the "Labby's" resolution. Restart things the same way. Note that this is the correct manner by which to not-so "arbitrarily resolve" also the L-terms before the front end of a sequence of losses for a given unfavorable ratio. Those pre-bets, however many, are considered resolved after the last actual recorded loss has been stroked off.
What else to say?
I should re-emphasize that if the "Labby" isn't properly constructed from the get go, then not only it is unworkable in practice, there will be catastrophe in theory. As we can now conclude, the only time to flat bet is when the "pretend assumption that we lost our last bet", it was zero. Ie, flat betting never had a future in higher level research/context. Same for the "in betweeners", the ones which call for an increase after a win but no change in bet after a loss, e.g.. Even the stepped positive progressive betting is left behind in its native sense. Sure, that progression may have ad hoc usages, but those are somewhat esoteric and rare applications. More standard is its mitigated application by Kelly to positive expectation. (The positive nature is retained by the mid-range criterion compromise of whole steps to very small changes in bet with regard to the available perceived and/or actual edge.) So what of the ridiculous fantasy betting systems which magically spring from everywhere but nowhere (of substance) on the internet? Ever stupidly transforming until being reinvented again, or involuntarily "put out to pasture" as those posters literally die off.
Guaranteed maximum math doesn't really apply here. Can't really have both that, and the maximum guaranteed math. And, can't recover from having gone broke, at least not in any meaningful sense (, not able to go broke on a salary, e.g.. That rules out the former. Game theory talk. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Some of the hardest math on the horizon, what with quantum mechanics drawing a big breath, hence there being fewer places to hide, specifically with regard to to where to cheat.)
I suppose that no one was applying the Martingale correctly either when it comes to the unit's size. Have to find a manner of play, whichever, by which to limit your L:W ratios in either direction. By that, the unit's size follows easily given a BR, though not quite so clearly from within the favorable practical ratio's boundary. We needed to work our new negative progression up into the favorable ratios anyway, to make the most of those instead of the one unit for each W which we would have had by it unimproved before. There are a lot of outright advantages with the knowledge of exactly where you are at each time, if only for an indication to start/stop at those boundary ratio's. Specifically, with variance, e.g., later on, if you don't get greedy.
In closing, maybe there is a practical way to beat also plain, old randomness. I think that it was the Wizard of Vegas/Odds who first publically realized after a number of years that the loser math has no value at all, and then went on to sell out every one he could by that very math instead of try to work in some corrections - at least, eh - and, more importantly, a couple of new ideas here and there. (A couple is all anyone can hope for in this life.)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
MAY YOU LEARN THE FOLLIES OF MONEY AND POWER WHILE YOU ARE YOUNG ENOUGH TO BEST ENJOY WHAT REMAINS OF EITHER. (TO ACTUALLY BE FAMOUS AND PROSPEROUS UNTO YOURSELF.)
Quote from: Kav on Sep 12, 01:11 AM 2013No matter how you choose your bet, whatever strategy, trigger, bet selection etc.., you cannot avoid losses.
There are only winning bets versus losing bets... no better/worse bets. But, if you didn't win, you made a mistake.
And, don't sweat the small stuff. Bettors can't be choosers.
Yes GLC, I bet the strategy once in Niagara Falls old casino for 3 hours and the black was coming and coming. It came 10 times in row and I catch 9 of them. Dealer was just holding his head and could do nothing about it. I gave him a tip after the game and he smiled. He was on my side.
More work but more secure wins if you check all 3 chances for the biggest disproportion in game: red/black, even/odd, small/big.
One of them will be very messy. When one pair does even game (around 50/50) the other 2 get wild. Play with the wildest.
The 1-1-2 progression holds a lot. Money management is very important! Bring only so much money how much the bank machine can give you! Ha, ha, ha...
Cheers Hermes
Hey, only now had a thought about a name for my corrected "Labby": the GARNabby betting system. (GARN-abby.)
GARNabby,
Three words: Illusions of grandeur
I'm too lazy to read your long post.
Apparently you are talking too much without even having tested the system. Otherwise you'd know that 400 continuous won sessions are not the same as Martingale. If you don't get it, I'm sorry, but it is your problem, not mine.
Try to make peace with yourself. Or try to learn.
But I forgot: you know everything already.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 15, 10:45 PM 2013
GARNabby,
Three words: Illusions of grandeur
I'm too lazy to read your long post.
Apparently you are talking too much without even having tested the system. Otherwise you'd know that 400 continuous won sessions are not the same as Martingale. If you don't get it, I'm sorry, but it is your problem, not mine.
Try to make peace with yourself. Or try to learn.
But I forgot: you know everything already.
that's a big relief Kav
I thought I was the only one who could see GARBabys posts....with no one ever replying.
I read it all just to see if quantum physics raised its ugly head.
I wasn't dissapointed
Quote from: Turner on Sep 16, 10:48 AM 2013
that's a big relief Kav
I thought I was the only one who could see GARBabys posts....with no one ever replying.
I read it all just to see if quantum physics raised its ugly head.
I wasn't dissapointed
LOL ;)
Quote from: Kav on Sep 15, 10:45 PM 2013
I'm too lazy to read your long post.
Same as Turner. (I doubt that youze read the previous one either.)
Quote from: Kav on Sep 15, 10:45 PM 2013
But I forgot: you know everything already.
Common misconception.
No, just a lot more than you.
Hey, this should be fun.
Bayes isn't here to clean up Turner's nonsense, or to delete my (always) good posts because of "passive aggressive incoherence". Bayes has to be bigger boss, but maybe Kav should become a mod like him over there with beggar Vic, and his new "elite group of players"? He could follow suit. LoL.
Say, while I'm at it, note that Bayes (the guy with the funny made-up avatar) cleared out of here after Steve refused to ban me. (Not that there were any reasons, just that Bayes suddenly couldn't come up with any upon request.) Maybe Kav, and mouth-piece Turner, should follow suit? Big brains Vic, and little rear Bayes, need thumbs, and a mouth-piece, respectively. LoL.
GARBaby...The desired effect. Hook, line and sinker
Too easy lol.
Can you please stop? Useless arguing about this nonsense and being rude. :/
Quote from: Turner on Sep 16, 01:38 PM 2013
GARBaby...The desired effect. Hook, line and sinker
Too easy LoL.
I'll say.
P.S. Just wondering, can someone who actually does great work have "delusions of grandeur"?
(I'll bet that Turner has been here all day waiting for my response? Sorry, got some work done today.)
Quote from: GARNabby on Sep 16, 05:54 PM 2013
I'll say.
P.S. Just wondering, can someone who actually does great work have "delusions of grandeur"?
(I'll bet that Turner has been here all day waiting for my response? Sorry, got some work done today.)
You typed first....lol...
too easy
Quote from: Turner on Sep 16, 06:00 PM 2013
You typed first....LoL...
too easy
If that's the best you can do, and we know it is, we'll have to let it at that. But you may have the last words again if you please.