And you thought you knew about Oscar!

[GLC]

Hi George


Just to clarify my bet .... it's not an ec bet ...


I play on BV no zero .... I play inside numbers, but it works out to an on average ec bet.


Thanks


TTT

It makes no difference Triple T.  An e.c. bet is an e.c. bet.  Of course when you have to start out betting 18 units and work up from there, things could get a little steep.  I hope your bet selection method has a really high hit rate.


GLC

[GLC]

Another potential improvement.


If you reach a situation like this.  You are down say 41 units and your next bet is 30 units.  Under existing rules, you would bet 30 units and if you win, your next bet would be 12 units.  41-30 =11 and 12-11 = +1.  Now if you lose the 30 unit bet your next bet is 30 units.  What if in the name of keeping our bets as low as possible, we reasoned that we're going to have to win 2 bets to clear the 41 units so let's divide it in half and bet 21 and 21.  That way if we lose the 1st bet, we will have dropped our bet size from 30 to 21.


If we win them both, it doesn't matter.  Either way nets us +1.


What are the negatives.  Well, if we had won the 30 unit bet and lost the 12 unit bet, we would be at the 12 unit bet size instead of 21 unit bet size.  Maybe it doesn't make that much difference in the long run.  But it is an option that could be used to keep our bets as low as possible.


GLC

[GLC]

Oh! By the way.  I've been testing it a little on BJ.  So far it's working great.  It's really nice to  be at the end of a recovery period and divide the remaining bet into 2 equal bets since you have to bet twice to clear anyway and bingo, you win a double down; +1 and re-set city.


by the way, with BJ, when playing these progressions, I don't double down and split as much as the books say.  I find I win more hands that way which aids my progression.


Sorry to mention Blackjack, Chris.  As punishment, I'm going to start writing 1,000 times, "I will never mention blackjack on this forum again.  I will never mention blackjack on this forum again.  I will never mention ...  


Just having a little fun. :LoL:   Don't be such a stranger on my posts!


GLC and beyond!

How come I got the 1st smiley face but not the 2nd?

[Wally Gator]

George, I think a possibility on this is to use a modified Marty.  1-2-4-8, which is where the majority of our hits are going to come, then start this prog on 8.  Just a quick thought.  Got alot of testing to do on it.

[GLC]

George, I think a possibility on this is to use a modified Marty.  1-2-4-8, which is where the majority of our hits are going to come, then start this prog on 8.  Just a quick thought.  Got a lot of testing to do on it.

You could be right Wally.  But I don't think we have to start at 8 on our Oscar's progression.  According to my check line we are at -15 when we lose our 1st 4 unit bet.  That means we could bet 1-2-4-8 and then start our recovery line at 4 units and 10 losses.  That will help keep our progression a little lower.  Of course, if you want to play more aggressively, you can start at 8 and hope the negative series turns around to wins quickly.  You're right we have a lot of testing to do.


I think I'll look at the series Gordon gave us and see how your tweak works on those spins.


Thanks for the observation.


GLC

[Smee]

Hi GLC - nice system! It seemed to be doing pretty well - I was betting on red every spin till I hit my 100 unit stop loss. Im not sure im doing it right.....could you go over these spins for me please?

Win/Loss     Bet     Losses     Running Total

     L              1           1                  -1
     L              1           2                  -2
     L              1           3                  -3
     L              1           4                  -4
     L              1           5                  -5
     L              1           6                  -6
     L              1           7                  -7
     W             1           7                  -6
     W             2           7                  -4
     L              3            8                 -7
     W             3           8                  -4
     L              4            9                 -8
     W             4           9                  -4
     L              5           10                -9
     W             5           10               -4
     L              6           11                -10
     L              6           12                -16
     W             6           12               -10
     L              8           13                -18
     L              8           14                -26
     L              8           15                -34
     L              8           16                -42
     L              8           17                -50
     L              8           18                -58
     L              8           19                -66
     W             8           19                -58
     L              10         20                 -68
     L              10         21                 -78
     W            10          21                -68
     W            12          21                -56
     W            14          21                -42
     W            16          21                -26
     L             18          22                -44
     W            18          22                -26
     L             20          23                -46
     L             20          24                -66
     W            20          24                -46
     L             23          25                -69
     W            23          25                -46
     L             26          26                -72
     W            26          26                -46
     L             29          27                -75
     W            29          27                -46
     L             32          28                -78
     W            32          28                -46
     L             35          29                -81
     L             35          30                -116

It didnt win enough times in a row....too much WLWLWLWLWL i think unless I played it wrong.....

Cheers GLC!     

[Smee]

If you reach a situation like this.  You are down say 41 units and your next bet is 30 units.  Under existing rules, you would bet 30 units and if you win, your next bet would be 12 units.  41-30 =11 and 12-11 = +1. 

I went thru your example on the first page and I dont see where you did this...You always increased your bet by the amount you should do IAW the amount of losses in the first post rules. Shouldnt your next bet be 32 or 33 depending on the amount of losses?

Is this perhaps where I went wrong?

Thanks.

[Smee]

Actually on closer inspection I see you did it once....and I can see where I should have done it once  but I still dont think my session would have won before the 100 unit stop loss.

[GLC]

Actually on closer inspection I see you did it once....and I can see where I should have done it once  but I still don't think my session would have won before the 100 unit stop-loss.

Smee, you did your session correctly as far as I can see. 


My idea of betting equal amounts when down to 2 bets to recover is a new thought.  I haven't given any examples where I did that.


You definitely have a very bad run there.  17 wins vs 30 losses.  36% win rate. 


You're right you never had enough wins to pull you up out of the hole.  I personally think that 100 units as a stop loss is too small for this system.  I feel that to give it a good chance to have a bad stretch and then recover you need to shoot for at least 100 spins.  To do that, a 300 unit stop loss is probably more reasonable.


Nevertheless, you could divide your 116 units into two 58 unit games and play them separately.  According to my check series you could start at 8 units and 17 losses to recover the 58 units.


I can't imagine that 17 wins vs 30 losses will continue much longer.  A decent cluster of wins will resolve a 58 unit deficit pretty quickly.


This is kind of like Atlantis testing the MV6 and busting on his very first attempt.  Everything is possible.  17 vs 30 won't happen very often.


Don't give up the ghost on this progression yet.  A few more tests should show you its value.


George

[Smee]

Thanks for verifying that....Im not giving up, I really like your idea and hope it can be tweaked.

I read the post on the 65 loses to 135 wins in 200 spins.....maybe I just got in to the 200 spin cycle at the wrong time and didnt give it enough time to pull out. But if that was the case at least I had been thru 30 losses before the wins would get heaped on!

I was also waiting for 2 blacks in a row before betting on red....didnt help much.

Cheers fellas!

[Smee]

Hmm....I re-read the post. Fripper said "in any 200 spins there are no fewer than 65 reds or blacks" or near enough to it.

Maybe we could wait 100 spins noting the blacks, reds, odds, evens, hi's and lows and bet on whatever showed the least? Or against whatever showed the most?

In 100 spins if red showed 30 times and black showed 70....its kinda reasonable to assume there must be a heap more reds to show in the next 100 spins....

It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....

[catalyst]

Sorry to mention Blackjack, Chris.  As punishment, I'm going to start writing 1,000 times, "I will never mention blackjack on this forum again.  I will never mention blackjack on this forum again.  I will never mention ...    

you are bacaretting roulette--not only making chris angry - also me! you do one more time, I will report to moderator to stripe off your posting status and downgrade to reader status--ha ha ha   

needed few giggles

Maybe we could wait 100 spins noting the blacks, reds, odds, evens, hi's and lows and bet on whatever showed the least? Or against whatever showed the most?
It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....

we will be shaken by too much grinding and not by the progression to get few units and by that time we will be all dead!

needed few giggles

[Smee]

Hey Catalyst.....that was exactly my thoughts when I posted it! Good call.

[GLC]

In 100 spins if red showed 30 times and black showed 70....its kinda reasonable to assume there must be a heap more reds to show in the next 100 spins....

It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....

I agree with your tracking for a 100 spin cycle.  I think it would give us a better shot.  But like you said, it will take a huge amount of time.


If Red started showing more, I think we'd make better than a couple of units.  Just think if you had been betting on Black for the previous 100 spins.  You might have won 20 or 30 units.


I've been testing Wally's idea of starting with a 1-2-4-8 marty and if I lose the 1st four bets, I go to betting 4 units with 11 losses which means I'm increasing bet by 2 after each win.  It's been working well.  Many times I can win 15-25 units before losing 4 in a row and so far I've been able to recover my -15 units within 10-25 bets.


GLC

[GLC]

Catalyst PM'd me with this idea.  When we reach our stop loss we can divide in into 2 or 3 and play each part on different even chance bets simultaneously.  That way we can speed up the process.


Definitely something worth looking at.


I have been doing a little analyzing.  This can be dangerous but here goes.  The number of wins has a relationship to the amount we are down.  So if we are down 50, it will only take about 3 or 4 wins to recover.  If we're down 150 it will take 5 or 6.   250 =6 or 7.  500 = 7 or 8.  Here's what I realized.  We don't need to recover them in a row, just within a high win vs loss stretch.  So if we need 7 wins to fully recover we can get them like this WWWWWWW or this WWWLWWWWW or even this WWLWLWWWLWWWLWLWW or any such combination.  The point being, we don't have to get them in a row.  A LW cancels each other out so all we have to get is 7 (or whatever depending on how deep in the hole we are) wins plus a win for every L during that series.


What this means to me is if we can stay in the game long enough to get a good win series, we'll recover.  This means the higher our stop loss, obviously, the better chance we have to hang in there until we get the winning stretch.  This is why I always think of Winkel's system that requires you have 5000 units to play.  What if we had that many?  Would we ever lose?


I know, that's true of every progression.  But when I was down on the horror session I posted above, I had a stretch of 7 wins and 47 losses (how many systems can survive a stretch like that?) and then recovered in 14 spins of 10 wins and 4 losses.  Now granted the first 21 losses were only at 1 unit each and when I was recovering I was betting in the 20's and 30's, but that's the power of this progression.  When the wins finally come, we're betting more and increasing with each win thus recovering quickly.


Like I said before.  We have a skeleton system and we have many options.  It takes a lot of time and effort to adequately explore all of them to determine if some are better than others or if they all are equal.  It depends on the w/l series you're in at the time which option is doing the best.


I still like the system.  I have never lost with it in any test and I've played it a couple times on my local airball double zero game and won both times quite easily.  I know there are losses coming, there always are.  Hopefully, the wins will run ahead of the losses.


I still am going to start through the other horror sessions Bayes blessed us with.  I'll keep you posted.  It'll be slow going because I don't have enough time each day to get everything done that's on my plate.


Cheers,


GLC