The Hard To Lose Bet Selection Method

[GLC]

I have been trying a new even chances march that has been doing exceptionally well.  It is based on betting for streaks or threes.

Start by betting on the last spun color.  As long as the color wins, continue to bet on it.
Once it has hit 3 times, you can change to the other color when you lose.  If the color immediately immediately turns back to the one you were betting, you bet the new color for another time.  Once you have bet on a color two times, you can then switch to the other color when it hits and play it for streaks.

This is a little difficult to explain, but it will be clear with an example.

Red                        1st spin.  No bet
Red                        Bet Red and win
Red                        Continuing to bet Red until we lose because it has hit 3 times.
Red                        Continuing to bet Red
Black                      Was betting Red but now switch to Black
Black                      Continuing to bet Black
Black                      Continuing to bet Black as long as it is winning
Black                      Ditto
Red                        Was betting Black but lost to Red.  Switch to betting on Red
Black                      Haven't bet Red twice so don't switch back to Black yet.  Bet Red
Black                      Now we have bet Red twice so we can switch to Black
Black                      Win on Black.  Keep betting Black
Red                        Since there were 3 Blacks we can switch to Red
Red                        Win on Red.  Keep betting Red.
Red                        Ditto
Red                        Ditto
Black                      Since we have more than 3 Reds we can switch
Red                        We have only bet 1 time on B so we continue to bet Black.
Black                      Win.  continue to bet Black
Black                      Win.  Continue to be Black
Red                        Switch to Red
Black                      Only 1 bet on Red, so must bet Red again
Red                        Win on Red, Continue to bet Red
Red                        Ditto
etc...

I play this with a 6 step martingale 1-2-4-8-16-32.  If I lose a 32 unit bet, I go to the next level to recover 2-4-8-16-32-64.  If I lose a 64 unit bet, I go to the next level to recover 4-8-16-32-64-128.  If I lose a 128 unit bet, I take whatever loss it results in.  This is a maximum of 441 units.  But, in reality it's never that much because you will have won units prior to that loss.

If you have enough bankroll and you didn't lose an excessive number of units, you can consider playing the 4-8-16-32-64-128 series again until you recover. 

It is very unusual to lose 4 each 6 step martingales before winning enough times to recover all your losses.

Test this out, especially the march.  You can use it with any bet method you like, it just seems to work hand in hand with the marty.

Cheers,

George

[7]

I like the idea of streak hunting though what happens when you get a very common run of RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB ? If this happens the progression bet might become your worst enemy?

[GLC]

I like the idea of streak hunting though what happens when you get a very common run of RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB ? If this happens the progression bet might become your worst enemy?

7,

I think that this bet handles the RBRBRBRB series.  It is a rare sequence that doesn't present us with a win within 6 steps.  That's the strength of a martingale.  It will outperform all other bet methods when there are the fewest number of wins vs losses.  It's nemesis, of course, is to have a length of losses without a win that goes beyond the number of steps of the martingale.

Unfortunately, every progression has this Achilles heel of a similar type.  For Alembert it's having too many losses vs wins over a long stretch of spins.

If we have the following LLLLLWLLLLLWLLLLLWLLLLLWLLLLLWetc...
This will kill any progression except of 6 or larger martingale.

If we have the following WLLLWLLWLLLWLLWLWLWLLWLWLLLWLLLWLLLW... this will kill the alembert.  It will also kill the pluscoup.

With any progression, we have to take a loss sooner or later.  Hopefully, it will be much later.

For all considering this method.  I think it is as strong as any other one.  Be aware of the risks involved before playing this with real money.

Here's a thought, if we had a table that we could play on and it had a min vs max bet that was large enough to accommodate a 15 step martingale, 15 losses in a row come up so rarely, that we might be able to play the rest of our lives without ever having even 1 loss.  Or, we might have 15 losses in a row starting with the very 1st bet.
If we are playing a 3 step marty, we will have numerous losses and many back to back.  In all of this, there's always an element of luck.  Even if they changed the payout on roulette to give the player a 5% advantage, most would still lose either because of a lack of funds to weather the downswings or just bad luck.

George

[GLC]

I just did an analysis of this bet method to find out what sequence kills it. 

BRRBBRR is the sequence that kills it. 

I don't like that since 3 doubles in a row come up maybe too often to be able to stay ahead for the long run. 

Makes this bet selection the same as the penultimate. 

Sometimes we get too clever for our own good, thinking we've come up with something new when in fact we just put it together from a different perspective.

I think the method "Author's System" is still the best bet selection method.  Maybe there's nothing new under the sun.

It loses to the doubles too, but you have to enter the double on the wrong bet, otherwise it wins every spin which is better than my way.

Cheers,

George

[GLC]

Okay, here's my last one on this thread.

Always play for a color to hit 2 times in a row.  If it does, play for the other color to hit 2 times in a row.

If a color hits 2 times in a row and you bet on the other color and the 1st color hits for a 3rd time, then you must play that color to hit 4 times in a row or you can think of it as hitting a 2nd 2 times in a row.

The nemesis to this method is the sequence 7 presented above RBRBRBRBRB.  Since we are trying to get just 1 hit in 6 bets, and 6 chops are pretty common, I usually stop betting after 4 chops and wait until the chop sequence breaks then start back at the 5th bet in the sequence and hope I don't jump back in when 2 more chops are coming.

All mechanical bet selection methods have at least 1 sequence that will kill them.  We just have to hope that we can avoid them with little tricks like I just recounted.  The odds are probably that they won't make that much difference over a million spins, but over 10,000 you might be lucky enough to be a winner.

George

[Tomla021]

couldnt you wait for 5 or 6 virtual losses, with 3 ec's you should always have something to bet on?

[albalaha]

Brother George,
      I do not think u can create any advantage out of it. Martingale just looks good but statistically it will take away more than that given. not good with martingale in long run. better play standard labouchere with this bet selection.

[catalyst]

hi GLC
your above bet selection could be played in mr J method for flat betting in which he goes for only 3 units of higher value. what is your commmmments on this?
thanks
catalyst

[GLC]

Hi GLC
your above bet selection could be played in mr J method for flat betting in which he goes for only 3 units of higher value. what is your commmmments on this?
thanks
catalyst

I think you are probably right.

I think we must set a low stop loss to reflect our low win target otherwise we can't afford to have very large units to make 3 units worthwhile.

[Tomla021]

how about betting it till you hit a parlay? win 3 units and out w a light progression--im doing something similiar in bacarrat

[GLC]

How about betting it till you hit a parlay? win 3 units and out w a light progression--I'm doing something similiar in bacarrat

I seems hard to get hurt too much with that approach.

What I'm trying to avoid is the very small wins vs 1 really big loss.

[Tomla021]

well of course we want to avoid the big loss ,, i guess the trick is to have more than enough small wins that your covered on inevitable blowouts---geez i think im stating the obvious:)))