I have tested every Even Chance bet selection method known to man and extra-terrestrials. As of right now, I can unequivocally say that the following bet selection method is either the best or as good as the best. I have played a lot of different sequences with different EC selection methods and this one does well except on the sequences that have an inordinate number of doubles, i.e. RRBBRRBB etc... As the author states, if it enters this pattern on the right step it wins every spin, but if on the wrong step, it loses every spin.
link:://:.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala#page/80/mode/1up (link:://:.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala#page/80/mode/1up)
The author suggests that if you lose 4 bets in a row it will be because you have entered the double pattern on the wrong step so you need to play the same pattern 2 times in a row with will put you on the right step with doubles. I prefer to stop betting after 4 losses until I would have had a virtual win and then I begin real betting again. This isn't absolutely failsafe, but most of the time it will get you back on a winning sequence.
The author suggests a certain 4 step progression for bets, but you can use any favorite bet progression. I think a 3 step progression is almost as effective as the 4 step and with half the unit investment.
It's an oldie but goodie and still holds up quite well if your money management is good.
Only one thing really beats it and that can be overcome with a skip or a stop until win.
Thanks for bringing it back up.
I've got that in my bag of tricks, but under a different name but it still works!
With all the people around here who are fond of huge progressions and the like, this should be a no-brainer to run with.
AD
No question it's a great one ..... use it for Baccarat and try this staking plan ... 1,3,2,6,10 always going back to 1 on a win. If you lose the 5 step either take the loss for that shoe or go to 3,9,6,18,30. Never had it come close to that, but as we all know it could happen and probably has.
Missing 4 in a row happens often, but 5 not so much so .....
Thanks for sharing ....
Quote from: GLC on Feb 13, 11:17 PM 2011
I have made a tweak to the author's bet selection method that has been working a little bit better than the author's. He says to start by betting for the Same and the last spun color and the bet for the change and keep alternating between Same and Opposite.
I have been playing for Same as last until I get a loss. Then I go to betting the opposite, same, opposite etc... until a win. After the win, I return to 1 unit and bet for the same until I have another loss. This catches the streaks and rides them for some pretty good wins. I suppose if there are a lot of chops and few streaks we could go with opposite until a loss then start our alternating.
Another option is to stay with Same if the win was on a Same or stay with opposite if the win was on an opposite.
Play around with these options and see if you like them or you feel like the author's method is superior. You decide.
G
going crazy switching same /opposite testing this in zumma-lol
Quote from: Tomla021 on Feb 14, 03:53 PM 2011
Going crazy switching same /opposite testing this in zumma-LoL
I use the marshmallow method. I write at S and about 2 inches below it I write O. I cover the one I'm on with a mini-marshmallow moving it back and forth so as not to lose my place. Every now and then I eat it and get out a new one.
Quote from: Tomla021 on Feb 14, 03:53 PM 2011
going crazy switching same /opposite testing this in zumma-lol
Easiest way to figure out where you are is to remember that the ODD lines are always Opposites. The even lines are always Repeats.
Made a cool +25 (baccarat) just screwing around with it today. Haven't used it in a while but I'm glad somebody brought it back up.
AD
thanks that helps
If you want to cut'n'paste use this site instead:
link:://:.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala/montecarloanecdo00bethiala_djvu.txt (link:://:.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala/montecarloanecdo00bethiala_djvu.txt)
(The other site is images...)
Thanks Esoito, this will be useful.
Hi All,
So let me see if I have got this right, it seems to me that this bet selections is just Follow, Opposit, Follow, Opposit.
Is that correct?
Also has anyone ever tride this with the 6 point divisor progression?
I have attached the excel tool incase someone has not seen it.
Thanks
malcop
Here's a very abbreviated version of the author's system.
Quote from: esoito on Feb 27, 04:51 AM 2011
Here's a very abbreviated version of the author's system.
Hi esoito,
Thanks for the abbreviated version, it makes everything clear.
Good to have another method to use as a backup, the bonus for me is that you do not need any form of tracking, appart from rememebering whether your last bet was Follow or Opposit.
Thanks
Malcop
I was playing around with Hermes' suggestion to just relax and let your mind go where it will and this is where it went.
It went to the Author's system. I realized that we can play his system as effectively, almost, as he does but with only a 3 step bet rather than a 4 step bet. We can use Proofreader's even chance, breadwinner, 3-step, martingale.
Look at the examples in his chapter in the book and you'll see what I mean. He shows how he wins once in 4 spins, but all his examples actually win in either the 1st or the 2nd spin except for the example that losses.
You might say, why not use a 2 step marty. I tested it and a 3 step is safer. Even though all his examples win on the 1st 2 bets, for some reason the 3 step seems to work better. Yes, the 2 step does work, but not as stable as the 3 step. This opens up a new approach to playing the game.
Here's how were going to play. We don't start betting until there's a change of color. Once we have a change of color, we start betting with (S)ame then (O)pposite then (S)ame. Once we win a bet, we stop betting until there's a color change then we start betting for (S) again. If we lose all 3 bets, we stop betting until there's a color change and then we start betting the second level of bets. Anytime we win or when we lose all 3 bets, we wait for a color change.
Bet progression is 1-2-4; 2-4-8; 4-8-16; 7-14-28; 13-26-52; 23-46-92. I stop here because of my limited bet range on my airball machine. You can go further if you choose.
We don't bet exactly like Proofreader recommends because I really like my "Clean up before Move up" system under Money Management. So, we're going to bet according to that idea. That means that when we lose our 1st 3 bets we will have lost 7 units. We write down a 1 and three 2's. We move to our 2nd level of bets, 2-4-8. Every time we win, we cross off the appropriate number of lost units. If we lose at the 2nd level, we lose 14 units and we write a 2 and four 3's to the right of any 1's we haven't recovered. As soon as we recover all the 1's, we start betting at the 3rd level to recover all losses from the 2nd level etc...
Remember, if we lose while betting at a level before recovering all losses from the previous level, we write down the units we just lost and we stay at that level. The only time we move up a bet level is when we have recovered all the losses at the previous level.
Give this a try and see how you like it. It's very easy to test and even though it may sound complicated, it's really very simple. I know we lose a lot of betting opportunities by waiting for a color change, but I think it gives us a little edge. Please, don't anybody ask me why, I don't know. It just feels like it does.
Good Luck,
George
A few more comments about the last post. When we bet a 2 step marty we have 3 color combinations that we win on and 1 that we lose on. When we bet a 3 step marty, we have 7 color combinations that we win on and 1 that we lose on.
I am working on a tracking method that indicates to us whether we should start with (S), (O), (S), (O) or whether we should start with (O), (S), (O), (S). If we can pick one or the other, we can add a small level of advantage.
I have been testing this flat betting a 1-2-4 with pretty good results. If we can develop this so that we win with a 7 unit 3 part flat bet, it will give us much more stability.
This method looks pretty good. and guess what? I think it can be used with flat bets. Aiming for
10% of your bankroll. You come with 10 units u bet till u win 1 unit and get out.
Quote from: GLC on Apr 19, 11:13 AM 2011
When we bet a 2 step marty we have 3 color combinations that we win on and 1 that we lose on. When we bet a 3 step marty, we have 7 color combinations that we win on and 1 that we lose on.
My reasoning for waiting until a color change to start betting is because RBBR is the color sequence that can kill us. So, if we wait until a color change and we bet for (S)ame, we will be on the right step if the terrible twos show.
The following is all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (S)ame.
r rrr We win our 1st bet (S)
r rrb We win 1st bet (S)
r rbb W 1st (S)
r rbr W 1st (S)
r bbb Win 3rd bet S O S
r brr Win 2nd bet S O
r brb Win 2nd bet S O
r brb Lose on all 3 bets
These are all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (O)pposite.
r rrr W on 2nd bet O S
r rrb W on 3rd bet O S O
r rbb L on all 3 bets
r rbr W on 3rd bet (O) (S) (O)
r bbb W on 2nd bet (S)
r brr W on 1st bet (O)
r brb W on 1st bet (O)
r brb W on 1st bet (O)
Can you see something that can help increase our odds?
Geo
The problem I see with all these is that the 1 loss loses units equal to the number of wins. If you are betting a 2 step progression, there are 3 winners and 1 loser. The 3 wins net +3 and the 1 loss is -3. The zero kills.
If you are betting a 3 step progression, there are 7 winners for +7 and 1 loser for -7. Net balance is zero. The zero's kill you profits.
G
what about playing this on BV no zero wheel ?
its that damn green goblin
GLC, progressions won't help u with EC, i think. u need to fight for 1 unit flat, sometimes it takes time, but u can usually get it. Well, so far i did. and u can't dream for more than 10%
profit with EC system.
but generally this mehtod is not bad at all. my guess.
Attached is a tracking chart presented by Twocando a while back. I have been testing it and it seems to be holding up pretty well.
He's tracking if a spin result (R)epeats or (C)hanges.
I've been testing for a while with good results.
He suggests betting for a change after you get 3 of the same in a row.
In other words, RRR now we bet for (C)hange. Or, CCC now we bet for (R)epeat.
I have been betting 2 times with a 1-2 martingale and a progression.
My progression is a 2 step fibonacci/martingale. 1-2; 2-4; 3-6; 5-10; 8-16; 13-26; 21-42; 34-68; etc...
Since I'm so fond of my money management system "Clean up before Move up". I am using that method here also.
If you lose at the 1-2 level, you will write 3 1's on your paper.
You will go to level 2. This is our 2-4 bets to recover the 3 1's we just lost.
Just to be clear, we bet 1 unit for a 3-in-a-row to change and if we lose that bet, we bet 2 units next for it to change. If it doesn't change, we stop betting on that series of repeats or changes and the next time we have 3-in-a-row of (R) or (C) we bet 2 units that it will change and if it doesn't, we next bet 4 units.
Twocando's chart is very favorable to this method. I haven't had anywhere near that good a run, but I have been able to pull out a small win of 5 units for 10 sessions. My highest bets have been 5-10.
I use 1 bankroll for all bets. I play all three (R/B, O/E and H/L) of the even chance bets at once. I don't play the half wheel bet for obvious reasons.
If you wanted, you could have a separate bankroll for each e.c.
Test it and I think you'll like it.
George
I wasn't too clear about the last post. It is a totally different method introduced by Twocando some time ago. I have had good results with it. Even better than the author's method, although that could just be the luck of the spins for now.
G
I’ve had some success flat betting all three EC’s. This way you don’t get stuck on that RR-BB-RR- killer sequence. Free spin and then start by betting low or high same as last spin and follow that up by betting low or high opposite of last spin. Do the same with even /odd and red/ black. Start over with low/high. End the session at + 2 units or â€"10 units.
Quote from: crownroyal on May 10, 01:43 PM 2011
I’ve had some success flat betting all three EC’s. This way you don’t get stuck on that RR-BB-RR- killer sequence. Free spin and then start by betting low or high same as last spin and follow that up by betting low or high opposite of last spin. Do the same with even /odd and red/ black. Start over with low/high. End the session at + 2 units or â€"10 units.
If I understand you, you're betting Same then Opposite on H/L, 2 bets, then you move to even/odd and bet Same then Opposite, 2 bets, then you move to B/R and bet Same then Opposite, 2 bets.
That's 6 bets to bet all three even chances 2 times and then repeat that procedure. Very clever. I like it.
Do you have a number of units per spin amount. On a flat bet, anything over 1 unit for every 10 spins is excellent in my opinion.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on May 10, 03:14 PM 2011
If I understand you, you're betting Same then Opposite on H/L, 2 bets, then you move to even/odd and bet Same then Opposite, 2 bets, then you move to B/R and bet Same then Opposite, 2 bets.
That's 6 bets to bet all three even chances 2 times and then repeat that procedure. Very clever. I like it.
Do you have a number of units per spin amount. On a flat bet, anything over 1 unit for every 10 spins is excellent in my opinion.
GLC
Yes, that's correct George and I'm betting 1 unit per spin.
I have played something similar and keep separate br for each of the six , egz I leave black as a separate br vs red and wait for changes that way
Crown, Thanks.
I worded it poorly, but I was wanting to know if you have determined a number of units won per spin. Just a rough estimate would be appreciated.
Tom, How are you doing with it? Winning more than losing?
G
Quote from: GLC on May 10, 04:37 PM 2011
Crown, Thanks.
I worded it poorly, but I was wanting to know if you have determined a number of units won per spin. Just a rough estimate would be appreciated.
Tom, How are you doing with it? Winning more than losing?
G
Hey George,
Sorry for being such a pea brain, but I don’t understand your question. I either win or lose 1 unit on every spin. When playing this strategy at Bet Voyager my bet is 20 cents on every spin. I’ve also been playing those double zero, video roulette machines manufactured by Bally, at the local B&M casino. My bet is $1.00 on every spin.
My goal is to win 2 units on each session. I'll then end the session and start a new one. My stop-loss is -10 units per session.
I’m sure that this strategy will eventually crash and burn, but for now, I’m ahead at both places. If it keeps winning, I’d like to try it on a live wheel.
Hope all is well with you
Crown
CR, Thanks for explaining how you play. My only observation is that you must have a very good hit rate to be able to stay ahead of a 10 unit loss with 2 unit win target. I will start testing this with you.
Let me explain what I was trying to determine with my question. And, by the way, it would be almost impossible for you to determine this unless you wrote down all the spins you played and kept track of all the losses vs wins.
If you were to play a system, for example Flatino's Constant Winning Bet and after 3,000 spins you were up 1,000 units, then your units won per spin would be 0.33 units. That means that it would take 3 spins to win a unit. That would be a good rate for a system using a progression.
For flat betting, I wouldn't expect you to win more than 300 units in 3,000 spins. That would be 0.10 units per spin or 1 unit every 10 spins. This would be difficult to determine with your system unless you're keeping really detailed notes which is a lot of work, but also it's a good habit to get into so you can study your sessions. You never know when you might see something that will help you improve your win rate.
Some of my posts tend to get long, so I'll say more in my next post.
LOL,
G
As long as we are winning with a flat bet, then I'll stay with it. If we discover that we aren't winning, but are staying pretty close to even, then I think a mild progression may help some.
Here's how I am going to play. I will use your same formula. 2 unit win target and -10 unit stop loss. As long as I am winning my 2 units, I will add them to my profit total. The 1st time I lose 10 units, I will write them down as five 2's:
2 2 2 2 2
I now play for 2 unit bets instead of 1 unit bets. I set my new win target at 4 units and my stop loss at 20 units. Every time I win a session, I will have won 4 units and I will cross off two of the 2's. If I win 3 times without losing, I will have recovered all 10 lost units plus I'll be up 2 units. I will then drop back down to my 1 unit flat bet until I lose another 10 unit session again.
If I reach -20 while betting 2 units per bet, I'll write down five 4's to the right of any remaining 2's.
2 2 4 4 4 4 4
I will continue to bet 2 units per spin until I have crossed off all five 2's. The extra 2 units will go into my profit total. I will then start betting at 3 units per bet.
4 4 4 4 4
My new win target will be 6 units and my stop loss will be 30 units. Every time I reach a 6 unit win target, I will cross off 1 1/2 4's. I will continue to do this for 4 wins of 6 units at which time I will have recovered all 20 lost units and be 4 units to the good.
If I lose while betting 3 units, I will write down five 6's to the right of any 4's not yet recovered.
4 6 6 6 6 6
I will continue to bet 3 units per bet until I have recovered all lost 4's and then I will start betting 5 units per bet to recover the 6's. Etc...
With as good a hit rate as we need to win 6 times for every loss, (this is our win rate to stay ahead with a flat bet) this mild progression should never get out of control. Testing will tell us how much reserve capital we need to weather a losing spell.
My progression will be 1-2-3-5-7-9-11. This is based on my idea of playing mini-games under a global game umbrella. You could use the Alembert progression of +1 unit larger bet size on a loss. Minus 1 unit bet size on a win. Remember this win is actually five 2 unit wins which balance 1 loss. Do this until you reach a new high bank balance and then revert to 1 unit bets or our base bet level until another session loss.
Hope this makes sense. I'd test it before I tried it for real money but I think it should work to increase our units-won-per-spin ratio.
Cheers,
GLC
Sounds like a very good plan, George.
CR,
I've been testing this method and I think I'm going to drop by session down to win target=+1 and stop loss=-5. It's basically the same thing just cut in half. Makes tracking my mini-games a little cleaner.
Cheers
Would you say that different bet selections, eg. this Authors System, bring the wins & losses differently than other selections, ie. just betting red or black?
I read in another thread, & I think it was actually GLC that wrote it, that the thing to aim for is marry the right bet selection to the right mm for best results, suggesting that different bet selections can affect the way results come.
It seems to me that this Authors System delivers a fairly even distribution of wins with losses, ie. not too streaky, as opposed to betting say just for reds, where you could get a string of 8 blacks, followed by a single red, followed by another 5 blacks, followed by 2 reds, followed by 6 blacks.. in my experience of using this system, I have not encountered such long losing streaks (that is to say, the losses, albeit probably the same amount in total, are distributed more evenly)
I think what I am asking :question: is (after having read Bayes brilliant thread on standard deviation) â€" does bet selection conclusively affect the z score?? Although I could be wrong…
I specifically ask, because if yes, then this method wouldn’t be the best for something like say the 6 point divisor, as mentioned earlier in this thread, as to really win from that, clusters of wins are better than even distribution (the same would also apply to my EC Method posted in the Testing Zone, which would really benefit from clusters of wins as the flat betting could handle clusters of losses).
For a simple mid-length Martingale however, an even sprinkling of wins & losses is exactly what we want. No long losing streaks..
So possibly a thought was to try the Authors Method applied to a 6 stage martingale 1-2-4-8-16-32… if losing 63units down. (I’ve been doing this the last couple of days, & haven’t actually got to the 32 yet, while being up 80 units.)
When it does lose though, to recover, I’ve thought about splitting this drawdown in to 6 groups of 10, & using Hermes 4x4 Drive with the Leveller to get them back 1 group at a time, beginning on 10-20-40-40 etc..
I know, you thought this baby was dead, but good systems never die they just take a nap. In this case a pretty long nap.
We will be using the same selections of Same as Last vs Opposite the Last.
Our new progression will be 1-2-2-3-5 instead of 1-2-3-6 or 1-2-4-8 or 1-3-7-15 or whatever.
If lose Bet If Win
-1 1 +1
-3 2 +1
-5 2 -1
-8 3 -2
-13 5 -3
We start with Same then Opposite then Same then Opposite then Same. This gives us 5 shots at winning instead of 4. If you want, you can stay with 4 shots and just eliminate the 5 unit bet.
We start with Same and every time we win we start over with 1 unit. Since most of our wins will be on one of the first two bets, we should still stay ahead of the losses on the 3rd, 4th and 5th bets.
If we lose 5 bets in a row, we move to the next level. Our level line looks like this: 1-2-3-5-7-10-15-22 etc... We stay at a level until we fully recover all losses or we reach a new high bank and reset back to the 1 unit level. We multiply our unit size at each level by the 5 steps in our bet progression. So, if we're at the 5 unit level our 5 bets will be 5-10-10-15-25.
In Same mode, we always play Same after a win. That means we will always start a new 5 bet attack betting for Same as Last. So, if we win and we were betting Red, we bet for Red to start the next 5 bet attack.
We always start a 5 bet attack playing for Same until we lose 5 bets in a row. We then increase our level and switch to starting our attack with Opposite. Always start with Opposite until you lose 5 bets in a row. Then switch back to Same, etc... This helps us catch the current trend for a win if it lasts long enough.
This one's coming in under the radar. Don't miss out. :thumbsup:
GLC
@monaco.....excellent question. I wouldnt paint a door with a 1" brush.
Then theres the flatino approach where you can use the same bet selection with a humungous BR
Quote from: monaco on Jul 01, 09:28 AM 2011
Would you say that different bet selections, e.g.. this Authors System, bring the wins & losses differently than other selections, ie. just betting red or black?
I read in another thread, & I think it was actually GLC that wrote it, that the thing to aim for is marry the right bet selection to the right mm for best results, suggesting that different bet selections can affect the way results come.
It seems to me that this Authors System delivers a fairly even distribution of wins with losses, ie. not too streaky, as opposed to betting say just for reds, where you could get a string of 8 blacks, followed by a single red, followed by another 5 blacks, followed by 2 reds, followed by 6 blacks.. in my experience of using this system, I have not encountered such long losing streaks (that is to say, the losses, albeit probably the same amount in total, are distributed more evenly)
I think what I am asking :question: is (after having read Bayes brilliant thread on standard deviation) â€" does bet selection conclusively affect the z score?? Although I could be wrong…
I specifically ask, because if yes, then this method wouldn’t be the best for something like say the 6 point divisor, as mentioned earlier in this thread, as to really win from that, clusters of wins are better than even distribution (the same would also apply to my EC Method posted in the Testing Zone, which would really benefit from clusters of wins as the flat betting could handle clusters of losses).
For a simple mid-length Martingale however, an even sprinkling of wins & losses is exactly what we want. No long losing streaks..
So possibly a thought was to try the Authors Method applied to a 6 stage martingale 1-2-4-8-16-32… if losing 63units down. (I’ve been doing this the last couple of days, & haven’t actually got to the 32 yet, while being up 80 units.)
When it does lose though, to recover, I’ve thought about splitting this drawdown in to 6 groups of 10, & using Hermes 4x4 Drive with the Leveller to get them back 1 group at a time, beginning on 10-20-40-40 etc..
Monaco, I'm sorry that I never responded to your question. Although, I notice that nobody else did either.
The author's bet selection method is quit simple and as good as any. Even though it does seem to distribute the wins vs losses evenly most of the time, I have had a couple of 10 and 11 losses in a row.
My comment about using the leveler to recover losses is, why not use it all the time if you have that much confidence in it?
A comment on my last bet post is that it's somewhat of a grind and I don't know if it's much of an improvement over a flat bet. Given the lower risk of a flat bet, that may be preferable.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Apr 19, 05:39 PM 2011
My reasoning for waiting until a color change to start betting is because RBBR is the color sequence that can kill us. So, if we wait until a color change and we bet for (S)ame, we will be on the right step if the terrible twos show.
The following is all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (S)ame.
r rrr We win our 1st bet (S)
r rrb We win 1st bet (S)
r rbb W 1st (S)
r rbr W 1st (S)
r bbb Win 3rd bet S O S
r bbr Lose on all 3 bets S O S
r brr Win 2nd bet S O S
r brb Win 2nd bet S O
These are all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (O)pposite.
r rrr W on 2nd bet O S
r rrb W on 2nd bet O S
r rbb L on all 3 bets
r rbr W on 3rd bet (O) (S) (O)
r bbb W on 1st bet (S)
r brr W on 1st bet (O)
r brb W on 1st bet (O)
r brb W on 1st bet (O)
Can you see something that can help increase our odds?
Geo
Please note that the Red words are corrections to the original post.
Sorry that I didn't correct this much earlier.
GLC