This follows on from the topic:
Can Hedging help? (link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20445.0)
No matter how I play Roulette the long term result always seems the same: break even and lose 2.7% to the house advantage.
So why is it that stitching and parachuting has often times been promoted? What is it about these concepts that might help us with a break even game? Frankly, I can't get my head around it, but with some analysis perhaps we can get them to "speak to us" and tell us what it is we are meant to be doing to improve our game - since Priyanka has become introverted, reddwarf became avoidant, and Dyksexlic lost his tongue. Yes - this is beyond remote viewing! So let's begin the reverse-engineering process...
Let's say we want to play the game of 2 dozens. Our goal is to win on a 2 dozen bet (66%).
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but triple up on units
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +1
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 2 - win
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but add 0.5 units to each
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +2.5
Simply put: we either win the single-spin bet or we lose. Win or lose we have a choice of increasing our unit size = positive or negative progression.
But we also have a choice of parachuting, say, to lines:
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet lines 5+6
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +2
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 2 - win
Bet lines 5+6, but add 0.5 to each
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +6
In the first example we risked 2 units and were able to recover on a loss ending in +1 at the expense of a further 6 units!
In the second example we risked 2 units and were able to parlay/positively progress ending +2.5 - but we expect less chance to win both bets in a row = 44% instead of 66%. The total loss is only 2 units, but we would expect more losing games than winning games.
In the third example we risked 2 units and were able to recover on a loss ending in +2 at the expense of only a further 2 units - but we would usually expect such a recovery to take longer.
So what have we learnt here?
*Increasing units on a loss could recover our losses quickly - but break the bank just as quick in a single game
*Parachuting on a loss does not require an increase in units - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank
*Increasing units on a win can extend our profit - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank
*Parachuting on a win can extend our profit - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank
Besides the above we can go further and say:
*Parachuting on a win can result in more profit per game compared to parlaying/positive progression
*Parachuting and Parlaying can take longer to recovery on a loss - but if you are lucky it can also recover immediately on the next spin as per increasing units.
So what does that tell us about their usefulness in the break even game of Roulette....? Well, the above analysis shows that instead of losing all our money in the first game, we might have got the same profit (or more) at a cheaper price from parachuting. We expect to make profit over many games as opposed to one game in our life, so already we should be looking towards parachuting to avoid breaking the bank too soon.
Parachuting is also telling us something about the nature of recovery vs. profit acceleration. Which one might be our goal and why? A positive approach is shown to be better for short term games, but in the long term should we continue to fight positively to have the black cloth pulled over the table or should we fight for recovery through continuous parachuting? Are both long term goals created equally?
Up next: stitching.
Stitching is more commonly used over multiple spins (can also be used on a single spin).
When we switch from playing the single spin 66% double dozens to multi-spin dozen cycles (within a Non-Random repeats framework), each game "up-scaled" now occurs over X cycles instead of X spins. Therefore, our sessions can involve a lot more spins - but with the same type of fixed % ratio targets. And, once again, depending on whether we hit the target we can choose to recover our games or accelerate our profit (the jury is still out on which one is the best approach). To keep things simple let's just stick to "recovery" for now:
Let's now play the game of dozen repeats in 2 spins = 44% (CL2)
Spin 1: dozen 2
Bet dozen 1+3
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 3: dozen 1 - lose (CL3)
Above I lost at the first attempt to hit CL2 from stitching 2 bets together - but instead of losing money I broke even!
Let's try again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
Bet dozen 1+3
Spin 2: dozen 2 - lose (CL1)
Above I already lost on spin 2 and can't possibly achieve CL2 so must abort the attempt - though only lost 2 units in the process.
Let's try again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 2 (CL1)
Instead of betting twice to hit the target, I was able to reduce the number of bets down to one by missing out CL1 (a different kind of parachuting in it's own right). So am still at -2 in recovery mode unaffected by the previous CL1 outcome.
Again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 1
bet 1+2
Spin 3: dozen 1 - win
CL2
Now we are back at break even. Let's try to get another CL2 and turn that into profit.
Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 1
bet 1+2
Spin 3: dozen 3 - lose (CL3)
-2 again
Our tally so far: we had 2 x CL3s (22%) and 2 x CL1s (33%), but only 1 44% CL2 (below maths expectation). However, we have yet another way to play this target - the time now seems ripe to stitch AND parlay our bets:
Spin 1: dozen 1
Bet 2+3
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win
bet 1+3, but add 0.5 units to each dozen
Spin 3: dozen 3 - win +2.5
= 0.5 profit
Failing the above we could have parachuted to line cycles to aid us further with recovery.
So what did we learn?
*A target can be lost @ break even instead of minus.
*Regardless of what approach we take (recovery vs. profit acceleration) we can prolong our sessions further with less chance of breaking the bank through stitching, an additional type of parachuting, and the ability to combine stitching with parlaying.
Up next: stitching on the same spin = hedging
Correction: we didn't break even in the first game, but we only lost 1 unit. Perhaps a different kind of target, such as CL3, can be lost at break even instead:
Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet Dozens 2+3
Spin 2: Dozen 2 (win)
Bet Dozen 3
Spin 3: Dozen 2 (lose)
Above we broke even.
So what did we learn?
*A target can be lost @ break even instead of minus (or at least with reduced losses).
*Regardless of what approach we take (recovery vs. profit acceleration) we can prolong our sessions further with less chance of breaking the bank through stitching, an additional type of parachuting, and the ability to combine stitching with parlaying (or stitching with parachuting even?).
Before we get into the most difficult concept of same spin stitching/hedging, there's still a few more things to consider here:
What makes a good target? One that is easy to parachute from - say, High/Low (to Dozens and beyond)? One that can break even on a loss, such as Dozens CL3? One that is based on a more likely event or higher ratio (MLE)?
There are other kinds of multi-spin event targets too, such as defined by same:
Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet Dozen 1
Spin 2: Dozen 2
Bet Dozen 1
Spin 3: Dozen 1 - win (CL2o1)
Order 1 (63%) has a much higher ratio compared to CL2 (44%), but it's not possible to stitch and parlay it. However, you can still play such a target with both types of aforementioned parachuting.
a) 3-hit Order 1
b) 2-hit Order 1 (miss out CL3o1)
c) 1 hit Order 1 (miss out CL2o1)
d) Parachute to Lines
With Cycle Lengths - seem to be the better choice - we can also target more than one with just 1 bet initially:
Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet 2+3
Spin 2: Dozen 2 - win
We could essentially just stop there having hit a CL2+3 target, otherwise parachute to playing 2 hits per cycle - targeting CL2 specifically (MLE) as before. So our session progresses like this:
a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines
And when we choose to utilise parachuting we are actually changing our target in an attempt to recover our losses or accelerate our profits, but here we have parachuted in such a way that the new target partially covers the old overdue target in a bet that partially amalgamates both together:
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but triple up on units
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +1
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet lines 5+6
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +2
Perhaps such a well coordinated parachute - with or without parlaying - would offer an advantage towards completing our session at a new high (or with the profit margin expected from parlaying)
Addendum:
Let's say we were playing one of these and monitoring the other:
a) 3-hit Order 1
b) 2-hit Order 1 (miss out CL3o1)
c) 1 hit Order 1 (miss out CL2o1)
d) Parachute to Lines
a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines
Instead of parachuting to lines we could first parachute to an amalgamation of the above 2 games if, say, CL2 and Order 2 were below maths expectation:
a) 2 hits CL2o2 (stitched and parlayed)
b) Parachute to Lines
Also, if we were playing for accelerated profit instead of recovery, the main game may work better in reverse:
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
a) 1 hit CL2/3
e) Parachute to Lines
Not forgetting other ways to increase the span of a session through multiple repeats or outer cycles with higher MLE ratios instead of parachuting to lines:
1... 62% chance repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
11
121
1231
131, etc.
121... 71% chance 2nd repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
1 2 1 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 3 1
1... 44% chance repeat will be on Cycle Length 2, i.e.:
121
122
CL2... 76% chance repeating cycle length will be CL2, i.e.:
CL2 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL3 CL2
But then it becomes too complicated to play.
To reflect back: it seems our goal in Roulette is to be able to say at the end of our life:
"I only lost my entire savings because number 34 appeared 5 times in a row"
or
"Thanks to number 12 being thrown into the mix of 34,34,12,34,34 I was able to recover a few sessions later - overcoming other bad sessions along the way - and go on to make several grand"
or
"It took a few attempts, but I won at Roulette by parlaying up to 50K because I had a good run without anything too extreme happening"
Each spin in Roulette is independent, but to be able to come out and say one of the above statements would be nigh on impossible playing a spin-by-spin game. With a multi-spin repeats framework we are able to utilise additional concepts, such as stitching and parachuting, to be able to dodge extreme events by tracking and following the most likely events with extra chances, more leeway and additional protection against losing our entire BR during the process. It all begins with this:
"I only lost at Dozen Cycles because there was no CL2 or Order 1 in site, so I had no choice but to parachute to Lines"
I've swapped one around:
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines
Here's a practical demonstration prior to considering a parachute to Lines:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/dweilpn3v/trigger2.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/75y1cafdn/trigger4.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/3mc3mh4y3/trigger3.png)
This also works on 3 EC options albeit modified for CL2 specifically defined by option 1 - requires even less units for more spaced out sessions:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/yuygoslwb/otrigger2.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/y5focft2j/otrigger3.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/aegauc0l7/otrigger4.png)
Here's a comparison chart for the different dozen cycle bets:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/nbwonimvv/chart1.png)
Of course more bets exist, but they become increasingly lower in ratio - a bit like what would happen with a parachute to Lines. However, it might make more sense to parachute in the other direction when betting for uniques - hope to get definitive answers soon.
after all these years and you still have not figured out noone understands your 1980s level charts
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 16, 06:33 PM 2018
after all these years and you still have not figured out noone understands your 1980s level charts
People are too lazy to understand - but they won't be once I get a working method (if I get a working method)
No you won't, it loses or breaks even.
Quote from: junscissorhands on Jul 16, 07:09 PM 2018
No you won't, it loses or breaks even.
We know that - hence the new concepts being explored in this topic that might help us with a break even game.
Keep it simple. Play what's hitting
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 17, 09:11 AM 2018
Keep it simple. Play what's hitting
Are you missing something?
Well, I will share something, you might consider using positive progression in combination with parachute method.
For example, you will see one side getting very strong with EC where it can strike and go zig zag for several times in a row.
Regression Up & Pull kill such sequence and let you walk away with table limits, sometimes.
Another way is to use a three or four step Paroli and each time you lose your single unit without riding the wave you recoup using the parachute.
But the point it that does strikes with up as you win compensate any loss with the parachute method.
Cheers
Why would it help if provably you're just making larger independent bets with the same odds?
No, you don't make larger bets or change the odds, the parachute method stays the same with or without additional positive progression.
The return on investment is better than just playing the parachute by itself.
But my parachute uses binomial probability calculation and are queal 50% probability no matter you play Dozen or Split or any other location.
That is my opinion and you can agree or disagree.
Cheers
Can you explain the math that proves it's better? Math isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't know enough about what you suggested, which is why im asking.
I think this is the first time that Parachuting is really being properly analysed as a concept since the problem up until now has been understanding that Roulette is a break even game more so than a losing game, and having to accept that hot/cold cannot help bets of an independent nature. People need to move on from those concepts I feel. So we are left with trying to understand what positive effect, if any, parachuting, positive progression, stitching, and hedging has on a break even game. Rather than trying to gain direct edge we are considering whether it's actually possible to recover at a new high within a session (or within a finite set of spins as they say), but going beyond standard progression methodology used with sequences, and instead working through non-random combinations but with multiple targets in mind. My hope is that we may find a way to guarantee recovery against rare event combinations in a realm where the permutation from hell cannot find us (at least in this lifetime).
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/nbwonimvv/chart1.png)
Coming back to the above chart and exploring these concepts has resulted in new understandings for me in the short time since this topic began:
Spin 1: dozen 3
Spin 2: dozen 1+2
Spin 3: dozen 1+2
Spin 4: dozen 3
Spin 5: dozen 1+2
Game 1: CL2
Game 2: CL2
Game 3: CL1
Game 4: CL3
Game 5: CL2
Understand that with multiple games/multi-spin cycles we have more flexibility on how we play each game compared to single spin decisions.
The key learning here is with how to play CL2 and why it's usually 44% ratio (2 dozen bet stitched over 2 spins), but can be played as a reduced sequence @ 66% (1 spin). Why is one different to the other? Well, our decision on how to play CL2 affects how we let thru CL1 and CL3 in our sessions. So, by playing CL2 we have - indirectly - some control over CL1 and CL3 in terms of the distribution we are forging in a certain direction of extremity that we wish to recover from.
When you fail a 1-hit CL2 @ 66% instead of 44%, you are not failing on CL2 per se, but you are risking more CL1s and CL3s simply by playing it that way. And by using it at the start of a session you only risk CL3 since CL1 is missed out. You cannot do this with single spin targets. You cannot have indirect control over other outcomes except via hedging perhaps, but will come onto that in due course. Again, this is the first realisation of how multi-spin events coupled with concepts discussed herein may provide the tools for a different kind of game.
I think the secret being hidden from us with regards to roulette is not that there is edge, but that there might be a way to always recover a session; when I studied Priyanka's videos in more detail, he/she did not appear to be playing a fixed template that resulted in edge; but rather a combinatoric method of recovery.
Here you can see that Priyanka got quite desperate and needed to recover with a progression after losing so many bets (in red). This is not indicative of edge. He also stated that when playing Quads he could have used X strategy, but the session never demanded it - reminiscent of recovery tactics. Finally, Priyanka said that besides cycles, parachuting and stitching are equally important, hence these are the final concepts in need of a better understanding before we can altogether dismiss him as a potential cheater. reddwarf also spoke a lot about stitching and hedging, so a topic like this is long overdue despite many myths having already been dispelled.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/c5u5ln397/j1cycle4.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/4d3hto4zv/j1cycle4b.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/h4ho06u7f/j1cycle5.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/qc9wgwgp7/j1cycle5b.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/9br087gij/j1cycle6.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/qc9wgw8zf/j1cycle6b.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/776n75hgr/j1cycle7.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/8yzm228jf/j1cycle7b.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6hnuus97f/j1cycle8.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/52ma62v9n/j1cycle8b.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/i6ruirv17/j1cycle9.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/j9211blkb/j1cycle9b.png)
Those are not the only observations regarding Priyanka's playing style. Here you can see she employed a similar recovery method using parachuting and hedging:
35 H36
22 H24s
26 H35
35 H36 - High (lose)
18 L23 - Dozen 3 (lose)
12 L12 - Line 6 (lose)
13 L23D - Line 6 (lose)
19 H24 - Line 6 + Dozen 2 + High (win)
15 L23S - Low (win)
9 L12 - Low x 2 (win)
13 L23S - Low (win)
7 L12 - Low (lose)
20 H24 - Dozen 2 (win)
18 L23S
Let's say she never got 4/5 wins after the hedge she may well have gone back to using it again in the same session before considering it won, at a new high. Again, this is not edge.
I've updated/corrected the chart and put some of the main Line targets alongside:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/n8d0p3jez/chart2.png)
Let's say our main bet is Dozens CL2 then we have some control over winning on a choice of outcomes that are unequal, but I would say my understanding was a bit exaggerated before. Betting double dozens on a single-spin, likewise, has a choice of outcomes but they are equal. Therefore, with cycle outcomes that are not equally-likely, rare/extreme events will become more apparent.
Missing out CL1, also, was a bit exaggerated before. It could still let in CL1s or CL3s, so only seems useful at the start of a session in order to begin the combination with a restricted selection of outcomes. Once the non-random sequence has begun then there's no further restriction possible unless you take a risk to miss out further CL1s - but you could end a session early if the CL1 does hit. Therefore, there must exist some kind of strategy based around missing out CL1 - same with Lines where you can miss out further CLs.
Main observations in the chart above: Lines have the highest ratios over Dozens; but Dozens can achieve a better payout from stitching and parlaying most likely events: CL2 vs. CL3-6. With Lines and Streets you cannot target a specific CL and hope to maintain a good ratio since CL2 and CL3 are both 27.8%. A CL3-6 bet is a bet for 3 unique lines = 55%. Therefore, an effective strategy may begin with a parachute from Lines to Dozens to target uniques and then a parachute back to Lines to target repeats.
So what else have we learnt?
*When we parachute on the same group we do so to target one or more outcomes that are below maths expectation, i.e. against an extreme event, and at the same time we are attempting to recover our losses based more around better payouts and less on increasing the units - achieved through additional stitched spins and/or covering less of the board.
*When we parachute from one group to another we do so in either direction for better payouts when the opportunity arises** and to target one or more outcomes simultaneously on both groups that are below maths expectation.
**The opportunity depends on the sophistication of the repeats framework and where each cycle is in relation to each other. If Dozens CL2 and Lines CL2 are below expectation then we can target them both with a double line bet for 2:1 payout instead of a double dozen bet @ 0.5:1. If we are lucky then we will kill 2 birds with 1 stone - otherwise we keep trying to be lucky (and patient) as part of the recovery process.
So now feels the right time to talk about hedging.
Hedging is the most difficult concept to understand. When we parachute we expect to do so based on targeting separate unique/repeat events in separate groups (besides looking for better payouts of course). We could target Lines CL2 and Dozens CL2 using 2 lines (or just a single dozen) instead of 2 dozens. This is almost the same concept as hedging, but with parachuting we still only have 1 outcome based on ratios and payouts that we are familiar with from the separate stitching charts. With 1 such outcome based on simultaneous events that have been amalgamated into 1 bet we can either win or lose. However, hedging is different because the bet selection comprises, say, 2 overlapping groups with 2-3 outcomes typically, instead of just the 1:
1) Dozen wins
or
2) Lines wins
or
3) Dozen + Lines win
OR
1) Dozen wins
or
2) Dozens + Lines win
Therefore:
a) If all groups win at the same then I guess (without testing) that we can achieve higher payout odds than previously charted.
b) If one wins then we have reduced losses - or with the right balance of units we could still maybe reach a new high without breaking the bank - to be tested
c) If both lose, however, then we lose big, and recovery could take longer.
Above I have described only hedging/stitching on a single spin. The challenge is to understand hedging over multiple spins based on the shifting relationship between 2 cycles, such as Dozens + Lines:
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20445.0
Since we can sometimes lose a bet that prompts an advanced gradual recovery through stitching, parlaying and parachuting, and continue to lose bets throughout the recovery process, perhaps through the use of hedging - the final frontier - we may be able to eliminate losses through cancelling out bets, thereby aiding our recovery more effectively. There may even be some super advanced parachute option available within a hedged betting plan when things go wrong (to be explored).
Up next: the 2nd repeat + Outer cycles - can we further push the boundaries when it comes to ratios vs. payouts through a more sophisticated repeats framework?
In a few words, what is parachuting?
Please give a clear and simple example.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 17, 06:44 PM 2018
In a few words, what is parachuting?
Please give a clear and simple example.
We expect a dozen to repeat in 3/4 spins = CL2.
Ratio = 44%; Payout = 0.5:1
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
121 = win
Let's say we haven't had a dozen repeat in 3 spins for a while now,
Ratio = 44%; Payout = 1.25:1
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2 (let it ride)
121 = win
Let's say the above failed to happen that way on the first spin we can do the 2nd type of parachuting, to Lines:
1... bet 2+3
1 (line 2) 2 (line 3)... bet lines 2+3
121/232 = win!
The payout would then be higher than 0.5:1, and with let it ride (parlay) the payout would be even higher than 1.25:1
The first type of parachuting (unofficial) is going from 1 spin to 2 spins for increased payouts through stitching:
12... bet 1+2
123 = lose
becomes
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
121 = win
but see previous example for true parachuting (from dozens to Lines)
What exactly are you trying to tell people on this forum Falkor?
Do you like typing and making graphs?
You're good at that. Hands down.
Falknor, this is what you told me the other day
"The permutation from hell can hit you any time. Doesn't matter how much time or how many spins you delay between sessions - your luck will run out."
That applies to you too! The question is what are you going to do about it. Do you follow your simulations? Or do you make a change with your bet selection? Negative variance can hit us at anytime, but there are no rules we can't make changes how we play ;)
Oh, I forgot the other type of parachuting, making it (3):
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
121 = win
becomes
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1
121 = win
We do that because CL2 is below expectation and so is Order 1 (or specifically the option CL2o1).
QuoteWhat exactly are you trying to tell people on this forum Falkor?
Do you like typing and making graphs?
You're good at that. Hands down.
Trying to get a discussion going about these seldom mentioned concepts. Plenty of unanswered questions as I progress and try to answer them - single-handedly so far.
Quote"The permutation from hell can hit you any time. Doesn't matter how much time or how many spins you delay between sessions - your luck will run out."
That applies to you too! The question is what are you going to do about it. Do you follow your simulations? Or do you make a change with your bet selection? Negative variance can hit us at anytime, but there are no rules we can't make changes how we play
I already told you. I hope it can be avoided through combination bets since combinations are more limited than permutations. If we follow the advanced recovery methods discussed herein we should hopefully be able to avoid the combination from hell and find a winning combination before we get hit by a losing permutation.
The longer you run your simulations, you will eventually find it.
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 17, 09:47 PM 2018
The longer you run your simulations, you will eventually find it.
Meaning you haven't understood what I told you last comment regarding permutations vs. combinations. Here's one quote from rrbb, but I am trying to find a second one:
"because the number of numbers is limited (37), the number of combinations I can make are limited. It is impossible to to have a infinite set of combinations with a finite set of numbers... "
"Point is that if we look at roulette as game with limited number of combinations, it can be beaten"
There was one more quote I cannot find, but again, it was about there being less combinations than sequences/permutations.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 13, 08:18 PM 2018
Not forgetting other ways to increase the span of a session through multiple repeats or outer cycles with higher MLE ratios instead of parachuting to lines:
1... 62% chance repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
11
121
1231
131, etc.
121... 71% chance 2nd repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
1 2 1 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 3 1
1... 44% chance repeat will be on Cycle Length 2, i.e.:
121
122
CL2... 76% chance repeating cycle length will be CL2, i.e.:
CL2 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL3 CL2
But then it becomes too complicated to play.
Quite disappointed to discover that the 2nd repeat is a dead end in terms of Cycle Lengths - 66% for CL2+ with no point to really stitching multiple spins. 2nd repeats are not comfortable to track anyhow. However, there are the front runners as quoted above @ 71%, i.e. Order 1 (and to a lesser extent Order 2). Specifically the stats look like this depending on how long the first repeat took:
CL1…
21494 81%
5171 19%
26665
CL2…
25069 70%
10678 30%
35747
CL3…
11195 63%
6628 37%
17823
Of course, with a ratio as high as 80% we wouldn't expect expect the front runner to hit immediately, and it might not hit at all, as there's a danger of being overtaken by another front runner or taking increasingly longer to hit. This is the classic problem of playing hotties as was discussed in the Turbo topic. Such front runner bets, as discovered in this topic, cannot be stitched or parlayed. There's few ways of playing them in fact - the only options being 2 kinds of parachutes:
CL3... has the same options as a single repeat (3-hit Order 1; 2-hit Order 1; 1-hit Order 1)
CL2... and CL1... have up to 4 hits and 5 hits, respectively, that could be parachuted down to 1 hit.
I guess CL1 (first repeat) is a good entry point as it leads to the 80% ratio for the 2nd repeat that would be ideal to begin a new session. Likewise, CL1 > CL1 would benefit the 3rd repeat with an even higher ratio. As mentioned in this topic though, higher ratios are not better since the payouts are less - but they act as a good starting point to begin a parachute.
Finally, we have the true parachute to Lines Order 1 that was suggested by Priyanka a long time ago. The first repeat ratio starts at 46%, which is less than dozens (63%), but of course results in a better payout. What's interesting is that the 2nd repeat on dozens is 80% (following CL1) within 5 hits, but the first line repeat is 46% within 6 hits. Therefore, the parachute's recovery is based not only on the number of hits to potentially encapsulate an Order 1 front runner, but also on how many other sleepers could potentially overtake it (Orders 2+).
Let's say we could boost Dozens and Lines to 99% by following what I refer to as the "Non-Random singularity" of increasing ratios... prior to reducing spins or parachuting, would you start on Dozens or Lines? I guess we would start on dozens still, and we could use the lines to recover with better payouts, and the dozens would be expected to hit in the short-term. If an Order 1 is missed on Dozens then often it is also missed on Lines (take my word for it), so is perfect for parachuting in order to target both. Therefore, with Order 1 front runners we are looking to parachute in 1 direction only. Hedging is also applicable hereafter for advanced strategies.
So those are the only weapons for dealing with hot numbers. Anything else you might consider in Turbo's topic could potentially waste up to 3 years of your life as it did for me. Incidentally, most recovery techniques discussed here are based on below maths expectation events/cold, albeit within a repeats framework, but of course you could target hot as well. It really doesn't matter as, again, it's the repeats framework and when to retrack that counts - regardless of hot/cold. You may even have noticed that some of Priyanka's videos target cold, whereas other videos target hot. It's synonymous with the other opposites I mentioned at the start of this topic: recovery vs. accelerated profit - you can parachute on a win instead of a loss. So to reiterate yet again: this is about techniques to help us with a break even game.
One last thing about the front-runners: if you bring in Orders 2+, i.e. 2nd place front runners and beyond, the payouts will be reduced and may not compensate, but it might still be possible to balance it and bring in enough additional front-runners providing the payout retains enough for adequate recovery. So I guess that opens up the possibility of parachuting bi-directionally based on reducing front-runners first from lines to dozens before moving back to lines.
One thing I might attempt to measure is whether one particular recovery option is better than another besides what we already know in general: extra hits, stitching, parlaying, parachuting and hedging, etc.
Oh, one more thing:
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 04, 12:07 PM 2015The bigger the number of repeats you are tracking you will find that the number of unique dozens that you will track on an average will reduce.
Quote from: reddwarf on Dec 07, 04:50 AM 2010If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.
The only application for the above - now that we have a better understanding - is that we could increase the number of repeats whilst parachuting down on the number of front runners we cover. So that helps with putting each recovery option in the most appropriate order - but might restrict bi-directional play. I can already envisage that the best strategy would hedge both lines and dozens at the same time; each ascending repeat level and descending number of front runners would comprise a series of descending hits per target - a complicated parachute formation indeed.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 13, 08:18 PM 2018
Not forgetting other ways to increase the span of a session through multiple repeats or outer cycles with higher MLE ratios instead of parachuting to lines:
1... 62% chance repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
11
121
1231
131, etc.
121... 71% chance 2nd repeat will be on 1, i.e.:
1 2 1 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 3 1
1... 44% chance repeat will be on Cycle Length 2, i.e.:
121
122
CL2... 76% chance repeating cycle length will be CL2, i.e.:
CL2 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL3 CL2
But then it becomes too complicated to play.
Here are specific stats for the 2 main outer cycle constants, including the one above:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/4q0uz9h1n/outer.png)
The Outer CL ratios are quite similar to standard inner repeats on dozens, albeit comprising more spins. Therefore, they provide an opportunity to parachute to: inner > outer. However, stitching them often involves missing out spins or deadlocks, so any such attempts at stitching or parlaying may be futile:
11... bet 2+3
11 12... no bet or bet 1+2
11 121... no bet or bet 2+3
11 121 12... bet 1+2
11 121 122 = CL1, CL2, CL2 = Outer CL2
vs.
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
121 = Inner CL2
Both inner and outer have 2 definite bets, but the outer cycle has 2 optional bets, which I suppose could be used in succession to parachute the Outer CL2.
As for Outer Order that is sure complicated! Actually, it's kind of tied to the previous optional bets, which are expressing both Outer CL2 and Order 1. Something similar is happening with the most wackiest way of playing 3 options to date - covered on page 1:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/y5focft2j/otrigger3.png)
Note: this covers the same concept that Priyanka used with "ECs as Quads" and some other examples she gave.That needs further exploration to try to uncover potential new parachuting and hedging methods, which I'm sure must exist within those events spread out across so many extra spins.
Next I'll explore parachuting to positions before returning to hedging:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7whfrlr3v/pos.png)
Another look at the inner vs. outer cycle first - since outer CL targets are harder to play without combining with the Outer Order targets:
INNER
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/c5hr2ko7v/inner1.png)
OUTER
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/3zzp4f7or/outer1.png)
Some outer options are beginning to acquire higher ratios that are more playable - with stitching and parlaying - compared to 2nd+ repeats, and at the same time the spins are increasing. With traditional parachuting though, the ratios are always decreasing as the payouts increase. The outer cycle method would therefore seem to offer the most potential for guaranteeing recovery the longer you play, but unfortunately becomes increasingly complex to track.
Last thing about the outer cycles, including the wacky 3 option method (Inner High-Low; Outer 3 options), is that you can combine unofficial parachutes (increasing spins, stitching, parlaying) at both inner-outer levels to make the game different each time albeit based around the same targets.
Onto positions...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 18, 07:57 PM 2018
Next I'll explore parachuting to positions before returning to hedging:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7whfrlr3v/pos.png)
Dozen Cycles and their corresponding Position Cycles are created equally with the same ratios and payouts, so there's really no point in parachuting from one to the other since we require extra spins - not less. And both cycles often close at the same time. That only leaves a couple of remaining considerations. When we parachute to Lines we begin to target events that are common across both the dozen cycle and the line cycle. We could start out that way with dozens + positions bypassing parachuting altogether, providing they are in sync. Hedging is also applicable here - better suited when cycles are out of sync. One hedge method I already tried, but did not measure, was targeting change in states (open/closed) for both cycles simultaneously using a single bet (see above chart).
Positions are extremely overrated due to rrbb's "outside the box" topic. There really is only that single consideration (above) as far as I can tell - the targeting of common events (hedged or with equal overlapping) - discussed in private circles and commented on by Priyanka:
"line 1 - corresponding element in new set is 1.
Now on playing for repeat, you play line 1 and Pos 1 which is again line 1. Can you see that here instead of playing two
lines you are playing only one line as you are able to lose apples?"
Of course it breaks even during the long run, but we need to assess if this concept has any recovery potential in terms of combined ratios and payouts.
So we are almost reaching the end of this study. Stitching, parlaying captures more spins and increases payouts; hedging could potentially capture more wins by cancelling out wins and losses - converting them both to a win. Overlapped bets are still in need of testing across dozen + line cycles as well as dozen + position cycles.
In this topic every possibility of creating a strategy to combat a break even game has been explored. Besides what I've covered the only other things that exist are different Non-Random frameworks, such as Friends, VdW and Erdos; this whole topic has been about Pigeonhole Principle (PHP).
Before final testing and final strategy implementation, there is all but a single concept remaining. Priyanka addressed ratios as blue, green and red balls - each with a statistical quality (or irregularity) associated with them. However, some of her videos that target hot over cold, on the contrary, do not consider ratios whatsoever. Reddwarf doesn't seem to concentrate on ratios either, which he says is part of the prediction game, though he does kind of contradict himself at times. He seems to only consider stats that applies to all types of pigeons and repeats. In other words, he would play both inner cycles the same way as outer cycles. He would play dozen cycles the same way as line cycles. This is because the ratios are being ignored.
So what relevance does stitching, parachuting and hedging have in a PHP universe where ratios are not even considered?
Usually, Order 1 is favoured regardless of the pigeon ratios, and we can still reduce front runners without knowing their ratios. Uniques can still be stitched to repeats based on the number of pigeons and how we expect them to behave during a cycle. We can still target multiple pigeons with 1 bet - parachuted to 2 (stitched/parlayed) bets. And we can still parachute from anything with 3 options to something with 6 options.
So the recovery techniques are not confined to ratios like roulette is not confined to hot/cold. Perhaps we can begin to develop a strategy that totally ignores ratios and payout odds, but still ends up recovering based on concepts discussed herein.
Who is we ? You mean you.
Thanks for sharing your daily diary.
Quote from: junscissorhands on Jul 19, 07:13 AM 2018
Who is we ? You mean you.
Thanks for sharing your daily diary.
Any readers who may be following now or in 10 years time. Don't expect any other useful topics till then.
You are going to singlehandedly beat roulette! My man!
Do you actually play roulette falkor2k15
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 19, 10:04 AM 2018
Do you actually play roulette falkor2k15
No fool should play this game - unless they've found a way to overcome it. As discussed in this topic I am sure direct edge does not exist - only recovery methods based around combinations being more limited than sequences/permutations. So I hope to be able to play it soon after some final testing and strategy implementation that goes beyond the opening 4-stage recovery method I proposed - using all the concepts discussed on previous pages.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 19, 01:26 PM 2018
4-stage recovery method I proposed
Anyone who talks about recovery has lost the plot. There is only so much anyone could understand from what you post. You keep talking about cycles and buses and trucks. But IMHO your bets are very random and a summation of different sized bets as Steve puts it. You are stay put where you are as everyone of us is.
Tinsoldiers is right, but keep doing what you're doing Falkor. You're obviously enjoying the research, which is the most important part. It may all lead to nothing, but you never know. No hurt in trying.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 19, 03:36 PM 2018
Anyone who talks about recovery has lost the plot. There is only so much anyone could understand from what you post. You keep talking about cycles and buses and trucks. But IMHO your bets are very random and a summation of different sized bets as Steve puts it. You are stay put where you are as everyone of us is.
I've already explained the merits of the recovery methods posted here, which are totally original - based on multi-spin combinations - and never discussed before for the most part. Do you not understand what a cycle is yet? It just shows you haven't attempted to follow the topic properly. It's really not that complicated. I've even gone to the trouble of explaining all concepts step-by-step with examples, which saves up to 3 years of research for those unfamiliar with them. Cycles, hot/cold, stitching, parachuting, positions, hedging has been completely demystified in this one topic. Again, it's taken 3 years to reach this understanding and to be able to explain it as an idiot's guide because Priyanka, rrbb and Dyk spoke only in riddles.
I think it's pretty clear in order to beat this game we have two options, I endorse flatbetting.
BUT if there is one progression I do support then I would definitely pick the parachute, but that is to win ONE unit and one unit only.
Sorry to say I have to agree with the rest, you are stuck with the same ideas more or less. It's like you are in a loop, but you just try to make it look more fancy but it all comes down to the same thing.
Stuck with the same ideas? :lol: There's untold fresh perspectives in this topic...
Moving onto the positions test, which is horrible to play, like a thorn in my side...
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7whfrlr3v/pos.png)
As Priyanka said, some dozen + position uniques can be played with less bets as they represent the same pigeon, though there's more outcomes to consider, so achieving a double CL2 with a single dozen bet is certainly possible - but the ratio for CL2 has now dropped from 44% to 24%:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/yih80ddbv/pos.png)
Therefore, you could parachute to a double CL2 if failing to get a single CL2 as per, say, the 4-stage recovery example covered on page 1. The 24% gives you a 3:1 payout, which is equivalent to parachuting to a 2-hit CL3 in singular cycles:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/n8d0p3jez/chart2.png)
Again, positions is very tedious. On cycles beginning with Positions 2-3, a 3 dozen bet is required to open up both cycles - so is a deadlock - except when starting with pos 1:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/bwbwndcdn/pos2.png)
You don't want to have to parachute there only to find out you cannot play the first bet.
Play the first 4 or 5 bets on the ec to Doz/Col, then parachute to recover or to gain one unit.
Parachute is a good way to start. Play lots of numbers with low units. But if it goes south play less numbers. My advice is don't become dependent on 1 hit to get you back in profit. Variance will swing back your way. Play less numbers and rely on 2 or 3 hits to get you back, or else your progressions will get too steep.
Quote from: junscissorhands on Jul 19, 07:29 PM 2018
Play the first 4 or 5 bets on the ec to Doz/Col, then parachute to recover or to gain one unit.
Yeah, but this is a bit more sophisticated because we are looking to recover till reaching a new high, i.e. always being able to find a way out of being stuck in mud.
Back to Positions, I just discovered that some outcomes are locked out depending on the starting position of the cycle:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/h1hpj9wuz/pos3.png)
The Double CL2 closure is only playable over 2 spins beginning with pos 1 = 2/3 * 1/3 = 22% to match 2-hit CL3 (before I thought 24% was slightly too high!).
I know your focus is on dozen cycles. But you may want to consider repeaters. Probability shows that there is almost always a ratio of 9 to 1 when comparing hottest number to coldest. Bigroben posted some nice graphs on "repeaters and gaps" thread showing that, on average, you will play only about 2 or 3 numbers most of the time when playing hottest. You can reset at anytime.
Here one example of *parachute*
with certain conditions/triggers
I supose can hold long , but not long term of course.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/19/temp_754383.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2BEoH)
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 19, 08:05 PM 2018
I know your focus is on dozen cycles. But you may want to consider repeaters. Probability shows that there is almost always a ratio of 9 to 1 when comparing hottest number to coldest. Bigroben posted some nice graphs on "repeaters and gaps" thread showing that, on average, you will play only about 2 or 3 numbers most of the time when playing hottest. You can reset at anytime.
This topic has covered hot/cold within a repeats framework in great detail. The higher the ratio or number of dozens/lines (or from any group) to bet for a repeat, the less the payout. So please try to pay attention to the details in this topic.
Quote from: Kattila on Jul 19, 08:10 PM 2018
Here one example of *parachute*
with certain conditions/triggers
I supose can hold long , but not long term of course.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/19/temp_754383.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2BEoH)
Yeah, your example is basic parachuting on a spin-by-spin basis, but the recovery techniques outlined in this topic cover multi-spin parachuting within a repeats framework - maintaining a relationship between each successive parachute.
Not needed, basic parachute will work. Focus on the repeaters concept. You can recover and gain 1 or 2 units on a hit. Just don't play less than 6 numbers.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 19, 08:01 PM 2018
Yeah, but this is a bit more sophisticated because we are looking to recover till reaching a new high, i.e. always being able to find a way out of being stuck in mud.
Back to Positions, I just discovered that some outcomes are locked out depending on the starting position of the cycle:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/h1hpj9wuz/pos3.png)
The Double CL2 closure is only playable over 2 spins beginning with pos 1 = 2/3 * 1/3 = 22% to match 2-hit CL3 (before I thought 24% was slightly too high!).
Unfortunately, the double closure is not 3:1 payout nor 22%. It's only 33% as per the chart. The 22% is more for events starting on pos 2-3, so positions doesn't really offer much in the way of parachute potential.
Incidentally, after losing a CL2 (stitched & parlayed), you only have to double up instead of tripling up if you were to repeat the same bet. Of course a parachute would still be a better option.
I was testing a new concept of playing both dozen cycles and position cycles together. I made 1K then encountered this really rare event:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/hqjyi4pbv/rare.png)
Another example of a rare event:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/xsmho8u3f/rare2.png)
2 ways of playing the front runners:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/vtahairpn/front1.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6ai4xifvf/front2.png)
I doubt either could be recovered in 1 game, hence we need a gradual recovery using parachuting and other techniques discussed previously.
Positions seems more trouble than it's worth - doesn't seem to benefit us in the slightest. I'll look at hedging options (not really much room for overlap) and then call it quits.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 21, 09:36 AM 2018then call it quits.
There are multiple people here who are screaming systems don’t work to deaf ears. I am one who is looking for a mathematical model to work. That will be only possible if you know why all the systems fail. IMHO Until you grasp that basic on why systems fail, you will be wasting time that could be spent well somewhere else and calling it quits at every attempt.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 21, 09:46 AM 2018
There are multiple people here who are screaming systems don’t work to deaf ears. I am one who is looking for a mathematical model to work. That will be only possible if you know why all the systems fail. IMHO Until you grasp that basic on why systems fail, you will be wasting time that could be spent well somewhere else and calling it quits at every attempt.
We know why systems fail. People just keep repeating the same advice over and over again, and not realising it's a waste a time. This topic has shown that you can reach the table limits if you try to recover too quickly, though I still need to finish this investigation regarding parachuting and other types of gradual recovery (stitching, parlaying, outer cycles, etc). At this stage, we just want to make sure positions is totally exhausted before moving on to the planned tests for Dozens + Lines - not to mention hedging. At the end I will then try to put everything together and see if the final strategy is able to guarantee recovery (or not).
Falknor, I know you've did alot of testing with dozen cycles, using the dozen bets provided on the table. Have you ever tried changing the dozens you play? Dozen 1 could be the last 12 numbers hit. Or it could be based on the wheel and not the table. Or any numbers you choose to group together. Just throwing this out there.
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 21, 10:48 AM 2018
Falknor, I know you've did alot of testing with dozen cycles, using the dozen bets provided on the table. Have you ever tried changing the dozens you play? Dozen 1 could be the last 12 numbers hit. Or it could be based on the wheel and not the table. Or any numbers you choose to group together. Just throwing this out there.
Dozens is a convenient way to learn the concepts using only 3 outcomes/pigeons - and once we understand how smaller groups relate to larger groups we can then parachute from High/Low all the way to Numbers (or bidirectionally).
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 21, 11:05 AM 2018
Why?
1) All bets are a collection of static independent bets
2) Unfair payout odds, i.e. break even + house advantage
3) Table limits
So please go back to page 1 and re-read why this topic exists.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 21, 11:26 AM 2018So please go back to page 1 and re-read why this topic exists.
Tin. You ran into the forum expert. Haven't you learned?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 19, 05:19 PM 2018
I've already explained the merits of the recovery methods posted here, which are totally original - based on multi-spin combinations - and never discussed before for the most part. Do you not understand what a cycle is yet? It just shows you haven't attempted to follow the topic properly. It's really not that complicated. I've even gone to the trouble of explaining all concepts step-by-step with examples, which saves up to 3 years of research for those unfamiliar with them. Cycles, hot/cold, stitching, parachuting, positions, hedging has been completely demystified in this one topic. Again, it's taken 3 years to reach this understanding and to be able to explain it as an idiot's guide because Priyanka, rrbb and Dyk spoke only in riddles.
It's appreciated Falkor! :thumbsup: It takes a lot to stay motivated when ideas/concepts that appear original and interesting don't hold up after some research/testing.
Today, I had a deep think about why the concepts covered herein are guaranteed to work.
There must exist an event that is 99.9% guaranteed to recover your previous losses and make a 1 unit profit in itself, and loses only, say, a maximum of 2 units - keeping well within the house limits; however, the problem is that the event takes 1,000 spins to reach. That represents the most extreme case where each successive parachute has failed to satisfy a growing ratio. Contrary to that we can make 1 unit profit on dozens within the first 3 spins (CL2), so it's better to try to win in the short term first, otherwise we can rely on other events of increasing spin size more so than short term events of increasing unit size.
Parachuting on the same target event: if we fail to gain profit on CL2 as part of a 1-hit CL2/3 event we can recover our losses over 2-spins (stitched) at the same cost. You cannot do that with single-spin targets (notwithstanding hedging), as the cost will always grow. This is proof that we can beat roulette - but we must make sure we play each session until fully recovered otherwise we will lose any advantage that the parachute provided.
Parachuting from CL2 to Outer CL2 is, at a minimum, the same cost/payout as normal CL2. However, the ratio has grown from 44% to 48%. This is proof that roulette can be beaten - but we must ensure each session is played to full recovery. Incidentally, it may be possible to increase the payout on the Outer CL2 ever so slightly for that 48%.
I thought I would do a hedge test on positions. Hedging is essentially putting more chips on a particular part of the board, so that the unit sizes across the whole board is uneven.
Here we target a 2-hit CL2 on position cycles and a 1-hit CL1 (2nd place MLE) on dozen cycles. Can be vice versa. For this trigger the cycles must be shifted (or out of sync).
As we discussed previously, parallel positions are problematic when it comes to parachuting in terms of some bets needing 3 dozens instead of 2 - and trying to avoid them:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/n1ztsmlmj/problem.png)
So we can get 2 wins = 2:1 payout - same as a single dozen bet!
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/q4vyiptcb/hedge1.png)
Or CL2 can win but not CL1 - still profits! (0.5:1)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/xxmmaojvv/hedge2.png)
Both Lose = -2 (not bad)! Extra chips are brought in after the first win...
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/xkv84hm6j/hedge3.png)
Playing 2 hedges in a row: +5 with 3 wins and a break even:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/8rlo3uavv/doublehedge.png)
Playing CL2 x 2 in a row: +4 with 4 wins (less payout despite more wins)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/s9gbjsn97/doublehedgeb.png)
Playing just CL1 x 2 in a row: only +1 with 1 win and 1 loss (ignore the 0.1 bets)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/syz3w4sxn/doublehedgec.png)
Anyway, I think positions is a bad choice, but nevertheless has hedge potential as demonstrated. It shows how CL2 can be further parachuted on the same event without moving to Lines or Outer Cycles.
Dozen Cycles - Parachute Levels
1-hit CL2 = 0.5:1 - miss out CL1
1-hit CL2/3 = 0.5:1 - can win on CL2/3
2-hit CL2 (stitched) = 0.5:1 - reduced losses on CL3
2-hit CL2 (stitched & parlayed) = 1.25:1
2-hit CL2 (stitched) + Pos CL1 (hedged) = 2:1
2-hit CL2 (stitched & parlayed) + Pos CL1 (hedged) = at least 2:1
I'm going to look into lines next... I realised that although CL2 and CL3 are 28% - obviously it's better to go with CL3 due to the extra spin. Also, as we established before, CL3-6 is greater than CL1-2, confirming that CL3 is better than CL2 despite the same stats. Check out the updated chart...
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/lzcboh08r/updatedchart.png)
That payout seems quite high for 28%! :o
There's no mistake though...
5/6 * 4/6 * 3/6 = 5/18 = 0.2777
Cost: 5 units
Stitched profit: 1+2+3 = 6 units
Stitched payout: 6/5 = 1.2
Parlayed profit: 1+3+9 = 13 units
Parlayed payout: 13/5 = 2.6
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/dwe5cxi5n/cl3.png)
Here's a quote from Priyanka:
"Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa."
So far it's made 4K on 2 different datasets, but there's still more levels to add:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/9fzkjjkyj/latest.png)
I put Lines @ level 1, but it's going to be hard to add them at later levels, so outer cycles might work better.
BTW, I am still planning to test front-runner parachuting as well!
An interesting fact: I was wondering which kind of extreme event is more rare:
Quick repeats, such as 27 27 27 27 27....
Or all uniques showing to the point of deadlock, such as 37 unique numbers before a repeat...
Which event should we try to avoid the most?
Well, since we are never likely to encounter 37 unique numbers in several lifetimes then that is the answer! And at a dozen cycle level we are constantly trying to get CL2 and avoid CL1 and CL3. Of course, CL3 is more rarer (22%) than CL1 (33%) - even though both break even or can reach table limits when playing them long-term.
So we know that Line cycles is an even split between CL2-CL3, but CL3 is kind of favoured because CL3-6 has more chance than CL1-2, so we expect a cycle to go to CL3-6 and then repeat on CL3 for the most part. Regardless, any option is break even... just we don't want to be waiting around for too long choosing lower ratio options.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/m3sp5ck4b/lcycles.png)
Now, the interesting thing is that Dozens CL2 is dependent on Lines CL2 more than any other outcome, so when we parachute we need to bet Lines CL2 instead of CL3. However, there are 2 types of CL2 on the lines - open or closed:
154
or
144
etc.
Unfortunately, it's an equal split between the two - but for CL3+ it sides more on closed; CL1 sides more on open.
Just to make sure I will need to re-test those stats later after completing the parachute plan on the dozens - in case it pushes towards CL1 or CL3 in more extreme situations (doubtful).
This is ingenious... won one out of two LCL2 attempts in-between DCL2 opportunities, thereby extending level 2 parachute and only having to spend 4 units instead of 6 to win the level. So we have to keep both CL2s at bay in case we have to move away from dozens completely - we want less of a distribution of LCL2s in the long run. Later, there should be an opportunity to go back a recovery level depending on early LCL2 successes during the level 3-5 Dozen stages.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/xf94zekzf/level2ext.png)
Even better... just 2 units!
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/oms6bhmx7/level2ext2.png)
And I love it when this happens:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/z9lzh8ngb/love.png)
Here I switched event target on level 4 and parachuted to lines (instead of stitching dozens) then went back to level 3 after winning:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6b1iumonf/level4switch2.png)
Dozen cycles has to be on spin 1 and Lines and to be on spin 2, otherwise majority of time will stick to normal level 4 where both dozens and lines are on spin 1.
Here we got a level 5 back to level 4:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/s2pchzqff/level5.png)
I risked too many units on the last scenario - it should have recovered with less than 10 units:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/g23whmlp7/level5b.png)
Oh my dayz.... check out this level 7 parachute - half dozens and half lines! :twisted:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/4fjsgavrf/level7.png)
This level 9 parachute is the wrong bet because it's a repeat of level 8 requiring more units than necessary. So now I need to reflect back and look for a proper level 9 parachute that uses somewhere around 35 units - might need to bring in the streets. There was also one DCL2 earlier in the session that was unable to be taken advantage of.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/bnvf5x0vv/level9.png)
Incidentally, that level 9 managed to recover by itself through identical bets:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/d6veoec6z/level9r.png)
Following that it then went up to 9K by the end of the 10K spins dataset:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/51dcq8g8b/level9s.png)
Pretty impressive!!
to answer the question....yes....shortly after this picture. It will help a great deal.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/26/temp_924701.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2hhHa)
Quote from: Turner on Jul 26, 08:17 PM 2018
to answer the question....yes....shortly after this picture. It will help a great deal.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/26/temp_924701.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2hhHa)
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 02:06 PM 2018
So we know that Line cycles is an even split between CL2-CL3, but CL3 is kind of favoured because CL3-6 has more chance than CL1-2, so we expect a cycle to go to CL3-6 and then repeat on CL3 for the most part. Regardless, any option is break even... just we don't want to be waiting around for too long choosing lower ratio options.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/m3sp5ck4b/lcycles.png)
Now, the interesting thing is that Dozens CL2 is dependent on Lines CL2 more than any other outcome, so when we parachute we need to bet Lines CL2 instead of CL3. However, there are 2 types of CL2 on the lines - open or closed:
154
or
144
etc.
Unfortunately, it's an equal split between the two - but for CL3+ it sides more on closed; CL1 sides more on open.
Just to make sure I will need to re-test those stats later after completing the parachute plan on the dozens - in case it pushes towards CL1 or CL3 in more extreme situations (doubtful).
I'm pretty sure that's the HG, folks! Hence columns or red/black is not going to help us much - and why "modular" is such a revered concept. Finally... after 3 years... :yawn:
So the dependency is not based on time - but on the same spin only!
Soon I am going to bring in High-Low, Quads, Streets and Numbers to continue this project - currently analysing stats based on the above:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6vmix3m23/streams.png)
I'll leave you with some nice quotes:
"The dependency is not related to individual spins however."
"So further streams are necessary in order for a dependency to be involved such that a bias can manifest."
"The dependency comes from the fact that dozens are related to lines, lines are related to streets and streets being related to numbers. Taking birthday paradox, if we say we had two unique dozens in two spins, it also means we had two unique streets or lines or numbers in two spins."
"It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation."
Yes it’s obvious and you don’t need to look at all of those streams to see it.
Also you’ve posted enough info with that image.... stop trying to ruin the game for everyone!
Go make your money and stop telling everyone in an open forum :thumbsup:
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 27, 04:41 PM 2018
Yes it’s obvious and you don’t need to look at all of those streams to see it.
Also you’ve posted enough info with that image.... stop trying to ruin the game for everyone!
Go make your money and stop telling everyone in an open forum :thumbsup:
Lol. As if he has a clue. He can’t even follow his own nonsense.
Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 27, 06:28 PM 2018
Lol. As if he has a clue. He can’t even follow his own nonsense.
Send me a message!
Btw I hope everyone thinks this way when they read it.
Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 27, 06:28 PM 2018
Lol. As if he has a clue. He can’t even follow his own nonsense.
Jon, what are you on!?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 27, 04:41 PM 2018
Yes it’s obvious and you don’t need to look at all of those streams to see it.
Also you’ve posted enough info with that image.... stop trying to ruin the game for everyone!
Go make your money and stop telling everyone in an open forum :thumbsup:
The best place to hide the truth is in plain site! 99.9% of passers-by would never even believe that this was all related to the HG...
OK, I've corrected some payout odds in the charts and added new ones:
Light Green - used in the previous parachute simulation
Dark Green - planned for the next parachute sim (there's also one hedge bet between High-Low and Dozens still to be added to the chart)
Orange - possible exclusions from the next parachute sim
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7j8ejbepn/corrected.png)
If you'd like to have a play around with the streams dependency then I've uploaded the spreadsheet, which is based on 1 million spins (can take a while to filter):
Download spreadsheet... (link:://rarekungfumovies.com/parachuting.xlsx)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 27, 08:16 PM 2018
If you'd like to have a play around with the streams dependency then I've uploaded the spreadsheet, which is based on 1 million spins (can take a while to filter):
Download spreadsheet... (link:://rarekungfumovies.com/parachuting.xlsx)
Are you stupid?
No seriously! Are you stupid? I get sharing that with someone you worked with on this but you’re a 'xxxxxxxxxxxx
I feel your frustration but dont use name calling as a counter argument
Turner
You still don’t have the right game and honestly I hope you don’t find it cause you have no appreciation for hard work!
Ii
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 27, 08:43 PM 2018
Are you stupid?
No seriously! Are you stupid? I get sharing that with someone you worked with on this but you’re a dumbass.
You still don’t have the right game and honestly I hope you don’t find it cause you have no appreciation for hard work!
Nope - I'm not stupid for sharing things - it's the people I share things with who are stupid:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6e3qcmeej/jews.png)
They've got no appreciation for truth and reality.
"There is one consistent theme, and that is simplicity. I have the ability to simplify a problem and identify a solution."
Sam Zell
That won't be found on this thread or any of yours - guaranteed.
When a solution is found for something, it does always look very simple in hindsight. Like, why did it take someone so long to figure this out
These parachute levels with reduced losses are quite useful for being able to target an event - and at the same time soften the recovery further when missed. Some can even take you back to the previous level. Therefore, in this strategy they are quite important despite not being able to fully recover like a double stitched or parlayed win.
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/h6hf9d2mj/reduced.png)
This is an interesting comparison...
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/72spdbgrv/interesting.png)
The 2-hit LCL2 appears to benefit from having High-Low hedged with it! I'm wondering if that one bet might even be edge?
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/8hua28zx7/edge.png)
Same here... this bet looks like edge:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/f9paiu6kr/edge2.png)
Those ratios were not quite right, as there's still a chance that on the first bet you won't hit both but only 1 (with reduced losses). Therefore, I've updated the charts with *rough* ratios, as I don't know how to calculate hedged bets.
I've also dropped Quads from the strategy because they are too difficult to play, so now am getting ready to devise a final set of parachute levels based on all these:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/3quv325uz/image.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/k1uyzdamz/image.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/tmelmdaaj/image.png)
This triple hedge can go up to 2.75:1 - but is still not as good as the double hedges:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/y75df3w97/image.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/jb6u7iskb/image.png)
The only advantage is reduced losses on 3 outcomes instead of 2 outcomes.
Have been having a deep think for most of the day on how to devise this strategy exactly. I've dropped number cycles for now since events such as CL2 have only 7% chance - may never encounter during a session.
I was thinking of playing all groups simultaneously then I realised that not only does this break the bank quite quickly (opposite to what this topic is trying to achieve), but the direction of one group has an effect on the direction of another group (so we only need to bet one at a time unless recovering) - something we can measure and decide weather to parachute or not. First test:
HL CL1 x 5+ in a row
Dozen Cycles - normal stats
33%
44%
22%
Dozen Cycles - HL CL1 x 5
55%
39%
6%
Line Cycles - normal stats
16.7%
27.8%
27.7%
18.6%
7.7%
1.5%
Line Cycles - HL CL1 x 5
31%
38%
21%
7%
3%
0%
Street Cycles - normal stats
8.30%
15.36%
19.08%
19.08%
15.91%
11.00%
6.59%
3.11%
1.18%
0.32%
0.06%
0.01%
Street Cycles - HL CL1 x 5
14%
23%
23%
17%
11%
6%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
This shows that while Dozens CL2 remains below expectation to match High-Low, Lines and Streets CL2-3 have increased! This is what I expected for Dozens - but NOT what I expected for Lines and Streets.
Strange...
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/qvwjhad9n/strange.png)
Oops... correction:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7n4253xyj/correction.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7lyppd8mz/dozens.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/nj6odpsp7/dozenshalves.png)
WHAT THE FU CK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Don't be so fucking rude RG.
Still desillusional thinking I'm Caleb. You think you're oh-so-smart, but you are wrong.
IP check tells I'm from Holland, idiot.
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/HPkDJm4TdLg5i/giphy.gif)
First test is to use the following parachute levels (on the left) assisted by the ones on the right when the opportunity arises:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6p1zkx9or/stage1.png)
Before I bring in the lines I just want to see with my own eyes exactly how they behave during the longest High-Low+Dozens sessions that fail to recover.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 30, 03:48 PM 2018
First test is to use the following parachute levels (on the left) assisted by the ones on the right when the opportunity arises:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/6p1zkx9or/stage1.png)
Before I bring in the lines I just want to see with my own eyes exactly how they behave during the longest High-Low+Dozens sessions that fail to recover.
Everyone understands completely
Go on.
This is what I'm talking about: the art of recovery!
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/9n8lpcv0b/art.png)
Yes we did understand everything... ::)
Guys, you're lucky I'm just sticking to Cycle Lengths - otherwise with Ordinality it would seem even more difficult to understand - and yes when the Order 1 front runner wins on Dozen Cycles there is a dependency for other streams to also win on Order 1.
Anyway, you only need to understand what a cycle length is to understand this strategy. And since you all attended the Turbo topic for months on end - a sell out success - this should be like learning the alphabet and as easy as 123! Why do you think I try to explain everything with dozens!?
Did explaining how something works before posting these charts ever cross your mind
Or is that just a silly thought
Last one.... >:D :wink:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/30/temp_241616.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2cgGx)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 05:41 PM 2018
Did explaining how something works before posting these charts ever cross your mind
Or is that just a silly thought
You've joined the topic a bit late, so I suggest re-reading from page 1 to get up to scratch.
This recovery is masterful:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/eaj94lzyj/masteful.png)
The session ended:
HCL2 vs. HCL1 = 4/5
DCL2 vs. DCL1/3 = 1/5
So it recovered the losses without the HCL2 recovering and especially without the DCL2 recovering! So it's those kinds of sets where I need to analyse the lines behaviour before we start to incorporate them as additional levels.
Above there was no LCL2s, which is nice, but the previous stats showed that the opposite might be true in the long run (will analyse more actual sessions to find out)
Tomorrow I am also going to look at an alternative form parachute extension - just using dozen cycles - by increasing the spins to 3 and 4 per event target.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 30, 05:00 PM 2018
This is what I'm talking about: the art of recovery!
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/9n8lpcv0b/art.png)
Just to recap and reflect back. This example proves how Roulette might end up being beaten through an effective parachute method. Imagine each cycle is like a 50% EC bet - which is what it actually is - albeit over 2-3 spins instead of 1 spin.
If we doubled up then it would have looked like this:
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
However, we ended up with:
2
4
2
4
7
14
7
Why is that? Well. we lost 6 EC bets in a row - but by playing the 50% event over multiple spins with multiple hedges we was able to win on a few dozen event targets to help out with the EC cycle recovery. So, although one may get 19 heads in a row with a silver dollar - you'll be cashing in on the loose bank notes instead.
You are deep entrenched in gamblers fallacy. Complicating the thoughts is not necessarily going to give an edge. They are all still individual and independent groups of putting money on the table.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 21, 11:26 AM 20181) All bets are a collection of static independent bets
2) Unfair payout odds, i.e. break even + house advantage
3) Table limits
Point number one from your above response is not addressed in your methods. Until you address that, I don’t think we are going anywhere.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 30, 06:33 PM 2018
Tomorrow I am also going to look at an alternative form parachute extension - just using dozen cycles -
JOY
can't wait to see an overly complicated chart depicting a 1, 3, 9 on double dozens
maybe we will use the saxon house
(link:://%5Burl=link:://:.pichost.org/image/2HTnK%5D%5Bimg%5Dlink:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/31/temp_682535.png)[/url][/img]
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 31, 07:40 PM 2018
You are deep entrenched in gamblers fallacy. Complicating the thoughts is not necessarily going to give an edge. They are all still individual and independent groups of putting money on the table.
Point number one from your above response is not addressed in your methods. Until you address that, I don’t think we are going anywhere.
That's what this method is trying to overcome... it's a gradual recovery against independent results that can can produce a permutation from hell - we might lose on 19 ECs in a row - but hedging and parachuting might help get us through the worst that random can throw at us during a lifetime, hence what is being explored here.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 31, 08:04 PM 2018but hedging and parachuting
What makes you think so. The sole reason we are discussing is because somewhere you wrote you are looking for a long term method. But if you are looking at hedging and parachuting, all these are individual cases of doing different methods. How is the sequence of placing methods matter? It is as if placing varied bets on dozen, varied bets on lines etc either one after other or mingled with each other. Outcome is house edge. You keep talking about big picture, why are you lost in details not able to see the big picture?
I told you before: I'm fully aware of the house edge and the difficult challenge we face trying to beat a seemingly unbeatable game, but all these ideas are original and untested - so without gaining new perspectives from on-going experimentation/evidence - we cannot claim to understand the bigger picture. It's like ignoring everything the flat-earthers highlight and assuming the earth is a globe. We have to go through a process to discover the truth - analysing both sides of the story. Others who came before me put forward these ideas and stressed the importance of stitching, parachuting and hedging; I even provided transcripts for some of Priyanka's videos where she clearly demonstrated such concepts, so until they've been exhausted we cannot be sure of the bigger picture. In addition to the initial suggestions coming from priyanka and rrbb as the basis for the topic, I have also gone through a process of reverse engineering, which in turn has indicated certain merits with these concepts - thus justifying the continuation of this project. Again, you need to read the topic from the beginning to understand how we have progressed to where we are now.
Today I had another eureka moment based on previous testing, where you may recall: the risk of full recovery was relieved through opting for partial recovery to a previous level? Well, I now realise that the ultimate application of this recovery technique happens to be through flat-betting, which is therefore the next logical step in the process:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/cgv7phk0r/flat.png)
Will sum it up for you - you don’t know. The end.
Quote from: Blueprint on Aug 01, 07:08 PM 2018
Will sum it up for you - you don’t know. The end.
If you don't know something then you keep looking at the evidence more and more till it tells you the truth.
you have a lot of free time
it is amazing actually
You want to have fun in the casino, right? Well, this flat-betting method has so far made +184:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/i17p008kb/fun.png)
unfortunately you do not post a strategy with rules/how to play
we bust your chops because no one understands the charts you post
what program is that by the way?
your flat bet method you posted above this post....WHAT IS IT?
The program hasn't been used for 20 years - almost extinct - I'm the only one in the world who still uses it.
If you read the entire topic then you would understand the rules up till now, but I'll go over it again in more detail once the strategy is complete.
eh...when you go over something in detail its CERTAIN i wont understand it
clear and concise rules, or all we see is a 20 year old program
Falknor, it would greatly help if you explain in simple terms. Maybe try explaining it in steps, that even a child would understand. Keep it simple :)
Noticed you often call out "gamblers fallacy" when it come to strategies based on repeaters or GUT. What's different about your strategy that doesn't make it a fallacy?
Quote from: Scarface on Aug 01, 10:20 PM 2018
Falknor, it would greatly help if you explain in simple terms. Maybe try explaining it in steps, that even a child would understand. Keep it simple :)
Noticed you often call out "gamblers fallacy" when it come to strategies based on repeaters or GUT. What's different about your strategy that doesn't make it a fallacy?
As I keep saying to everyone: read the topic from the beginning, which amounts to an essay explaining why this strategy is different, original, and previously untested.
If it's working good for you, keep it up. Any strategy that gets good results without the use of steep progressions sounds good to me.
I am still working on this strategy, but haven't had much time lately since starting a new job. This link is quite useful to read as a background to understanding why sleeping CL2s are primarily the basis for this parachute strategy as opposed to repeats (used here only to form unequal event targets based around the cycle length):
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20693.0
Lately, flat-betting has been helpful in understanding things better... When we hedge and parlay, if we get a break even on the first spin then we can still play the 2nd spin like a normal stitched bet (without the additional "let it ride" units). Before, I was completely omitting the 2nd bet upon not winning - outright - the first bet.
Another key finding is that we should parachute first to targets that offer "reduced losses" despite being a similar ratio, before we look for a proper decreased ratio/increased payout target. This is because Hedged bets, in particular, often break even, thereby allowing a free reattempt at the same parachute level.
Here's a demonstration of the break even and "free" reattempt at parachute level 3:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/t7pspe7xh/breakeven.png)
All these hedge bets have the same payout, but offer more reductions on losses, i.e. more free "break even" reattempts:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/jd38wj3j9/image.png)
So I am looking at combining them all into a single level 4, depending on what's opportunistic at the time following level 3.
These are virtually the same too:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/7b7v2suf9/image.png)
Not sure how to treat them yet - maybe combine again into a single level. Later, you will see these have an additional layer of security in terms of a reduced follow up bet on a break even as mentioned previously - an extra attempt before a reattempt so to speak.
This is SICK! >:D Already seems like it can't lose... And the dynamic level 4 always seems to recover in a very short time... invincible with only 4 levels?
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/txmd6lf2t/sick.png)
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/54ct65e4l/dynamic.png)
Death came in a flash of blows! >:D
MAJOR breakthrough - I believe the grail has been found with only 3 parachute levels!!! :ooh: :ooh: :ooh:
This is all you need:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/zexyxv0t1/image.png)
Further deep thinking and problem solving has led to this new radical view of parachuting! I will try to explain how I got to this new understanding...
OK, so when I was playing the last strategy, I noticed it let slip the HCL2s quite early on - a short-lived event target indeed in terms of the greater scheme of things. I then played without missing out any DCL2s or LCL2s - but this needed some "interruption bets" in-between (or instead of) normal parachute level bets.
Re-evaluating the streams dependency as part of a hedge bet:
HCL2 <> DCL2 <> LCL2
--If the LCL2 hits then we win the game at a new high.
--If the HCL2 or DCL2 win then if we don't win at a new high we at least get reduced losses (can be adjusted for break even)
It then occurred to me that we need to start from the left-side first and try to exhaust the HCL2s (stream 1) as higher priority over streams 2+. Rather than trying to cover DCL2 and LCL2 at the same time with interruption bets - too much to deal with - we should indirectly bet them in support of recovering the HCL2s first and foremost. And should we be unlucky and let slip some DCL2s or LCL2s then we can use that to influence our decision on whether to abort the current game or to continue and decide how far to parachute beyond the HCL2s.
The other revelation I had: by drawing on a selection of parachute levels catered to EC stream 1 we end up omitting several stream 2-only (dozen) based parachute levels, but perhaps through reduced losses during the stitched, hedged & parlayed levels we could maybe "jump back" (if the BR recovered enough) to a previous unused DCL2-based parachute level - since we would have moved on from EC HCL2s as the primary focus. You could look at this as like a "hidden level" upgrade, hence we still get to use most CL2-based parachute levels even though we don't start off with them.
However, this betting plan had hardly got off the ground when I noticed how solid the first 3 EC parachute levels perform in terms of break even, free re-attempts, and perfectly utilizing the other streams in the right order. There is something magical about this. It has already made 1K without ever failing to recover. This is serious - with previously untapped extremes!
This has to be the most powerful system I have ever seen... I'll put up some screen captures to demonstrate the absolute power! Manz ain't ready for this... you get me? >:D
Here's a level 3 with 3 x break evens followed by a win and recovery:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/tyjwh1p1h/level3.png)
Here's a level 1 with 5 x break evens followed by a win and recovery:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/agp913kdx/level1.png)
This means that the concept of the Holy Grail is simply being able to, say, bet for a 50% EC with the option of breaking even instead of losing - so that we can always recover a losing session.
Care to explain in plain English and easy to follow steps, eh?
this has been falkors thing since the beginning
post things people do not understand
he will never explain when you ask him to
he is a very very bad forum member
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Aug 20, 07:45 PM 2018
Care to explain in plain English and easy to follow steps, eh?
There's only 3 levels, and all bets (hedged) are in the 2 screen captures above - totally transparent. It couldn't be more simple. The 4th level was set to be an isolated bet on High or Low, but in the end it wasn't even needed:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/jd014uvit/ec2.png)
you are naive in assuming people can decode your chart
the time it takes you to make the chart you can explain it in a quarter of the time
this is why you are seen as a scammer
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 20, 07:57 PM 2018
you are naive in assuming people can decode your chart
the time it takes you to make the chart you can explain it in a quarter of the time
this is why you are seen as a scammer
You just have to read the topic. Let me know if you get stuck or if there's something you don't understand or I never explained properly. This system is much more simple than I envisaged in terms of being a winner. There's no complex money management or rules. We now need to follow up and try to understand why recovery is guaranteed. You can see in the 2nd screenshot that there was 5 EC equivalents (HCL1 losers) in a row with a maximum of 6 units wagered. If this was Martingale then it would have been:
1 - lose
2 - lose
4 - lose
8 - lose
16 - lose
32 - win
6 vs. 32 = Holy Grail!
Falkor your explanations are quite unclear, or more overly complex. You put a lot of work into your posts, but you really need to simplify things and put it into plain language. Remember people are lazy and short on time, and dont want to sort though lots of information.
Quote from: Steve on Aug 20, 08:17 PM 2018
Falkor your explanations are quite unclear, or more overly complex. You put a lot of work into your posts, but you really need to simplify things and put it into plain language. Remember people are lazy and short on time, and dont want to sort though lots of information.
I tried my best by being over-explicit, and it's not fair that RG has come in right at the end of the topic demanding a simple explanation. This whole topic has been a long journey with daily despair. It's only right that RG starts from the beginning and quotes anything in particular that doesn't sound clear; in other words, some effort is needed on the part of the reader IMO starting from page 1. However, if I get time I will try to write an article that summarises the highlights from all previous pages on top of all the re-iterations I've already made, as it's been very exciting for me. Again, it's up to the students in the class to ask questions about bits they don't understand - not the teacher to simply broadcast everything over the air waves and expect everyone to understand instantly.
Falkor,
The type of charts and bets you share are probably something anyone can understand if they just concentrate reading from page 1, which I haven,'t done yet.
When I do take the time to dive into the topic, I'll just print the msny pages and write notes as the reading goes. So much easier to read paper and concentrate than reading on a screen
Will for sure comment once it's read.
Hang on!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 20, 08:28 PM 2018Again, it's up to the students in the class to ask questions about bits they don't understand - not the teacher to simply broadcast everything over the air waves and expect everyone to understand instantly.
You put a lot of time into sharing things, but again keep in mind simple and clear is better than long and complicated. Nobody can force you to make things simple and clear, but you're just going to annoy people if you make things long and complicated. And they are much less likely to pay attention.
If you want people's attention, which you obviously do because you're posting, you need to consider their position too. If you have the attitude "its up to them to read, complicated or not", thats fine but you have to accept most people wont bother.
Steve, it's not intentional. As I said I've tried my best to make it clear in my own explicit way with many reiterations - but that doesn't mean others are going to magically "get it" without making some effort to read something. The fact that he hasn't quoted anything or said "I understand that bit, but I don't get what that bit is" shows that he's not even providing constructive criticism. He's simply insulting the entire topic without having read a thing. How easy is that? To go to any topic, not read it, and say "I don't understand anything!"? Would an audio book make any difference I wonder...? To be honest, I think we are dealing more with trolling here than someone who genuinely can't understand a word I am saying. So that then comes to the next dilemma... why defend trolls? Do you sense emotional wounds in RG that might be similar to your own?
To be honest, RG has never really been the sharpest knife in the drawer.
But the utter nonsense of the DaVinci code being put up by Falkor is unacceptable either. Why don't you post all this junk on your own website and forum (with only two active members) you and Atlantis.
I'm sure those two members appreciate this HG of yours :wink:
Well, i read the topic. Still hocus pocus for me.
Quote from: junscissorhands on Aug 21, 03:20 AM 2018
To be honest, RG has never really been the sharpest knife in the drawer.
But the utter nonsense of the DaVinci code being put up by Falkor is unacceptable either. Why don't you post all this junk on your own website and forum (with only two active members) you and Atlantis.
I'm sure those two members appreciate this HG of yours :wink:
That wasnt called for
Falkor is posting rubbish that no one understands on charts from the 1980s
I call a scammer a scammer
Read his past threads claiming HG, private messages, and going to his private forum.
Always claims with no explanation
These charts shouldn’t be so hard to read. And if they are, he should explain them.
Otherwise, he is what he’s always been, a carrot on a stick scammer. (Who thinks an ice wall surrounds flat earth)
Falkor’s entire forum presence can be summed up as a carrot in a stick.
Anyway , scissorhands, going to tell us what other forum names you’ve had in the past?
Guys, I disagree. Tell me which part(s) you understand and which part(s) don't seem clear. The "quote" button is there for a reason!
BTW, here's some quotes from reddwarf/rrbb:
Quote1. We have to ENSURE that we capture enough winning spins during a play cycle so that at the end of the spin cycle we are in the plus, or break even.
2. Also, we have to ENSURE that EVERY spin cycle can finish in a plus or break even.
Quote1. A cycle starts with a repeat and ends with a repeat.
2. You have to find a way to minimally break even WITHIN a cycle.
QuoteA. -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, +30
B. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, -30
A is a loosing proposition, B is a loosing proposition. However, combined they give a winning system (when we have a repeat we break even at least).
So you see how the HG works - based on hedging and taking advantage of break even situations? I've practically given it to ya'll on a plate by revealing every bet I place based on only 3 parachute levels starting with level 1:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/agp913kdx/level1.png)
Anyone ever think of a reverse parachute?
Start small then work your way up?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 21, 01:52 PM 2018
Anyone ever think of a reverse parachute?
Start small then work your way up?
If you dig a hole and reverse parachute then the payout will continue to decrease - less chance of getting out of the hole - so you would need to bet more on each level each time it increased. Remember, this topic is a bit more sophisticated then previous parachute attempts for the simple reason: if EC outcomes go down then dozen and line outcomes have to go down with it! What's the chances of getting below expectation on EC, dozens AND lines simultaneously? So we have to work on all 3 at the same time from left to right - indirectly to directly - aided immensely by break even outcomes and free re-attempts at the same bet. Dunno about you guys, but I love freeness, and the strength of freedom this system brings.
This system is ripped - proper! It's beyond invincible...
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/yiavxxvol/ripped.png)
Why has it taken 3 years to find!? I'm telling you it cannot be beaten... Recently, I finally witnessed how the law of large numbers can take hold like a black hole, but here it has absolutely no chance whatsoever. This system will destroy any casino - I cannot wait to test it at the end of the year with real money! I am not even considered a professional player... best gift I ever presented to myself. (link:s://s8.postimg.cc/buvmrrsz9/kiss.png)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 21, 07:07 PM 2018
This system is ripped - proper! It's beyond invincible...
I'm telling you it cannot be beaten... This system will destroy any casino - I cannot wait to test it at the end of the year with real money! I am not even considered a professional player... best gift I ever presented to myself.
good
so there is literally ZERO reason why you should not goto the casino and make a lot of money
report back with the winnings
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 21, 07:07 PM 2018
This system is ripped - proper! It's beyond invincible...
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/yiavxxvol/ripped.png)
Why has it taken 3 years to find!? I'm telling you it cannot be beaten... Recently, I finally witnessed how the law of large numbers can take hold like a black hole, but here it has absolutely no chance whatsoever. This system will destroy any casino - I cannot wait to test it at the end of the year with real money! I am not even considered a professional player... best gift I ever presented to myself. (link:s://s8.postimg.cc/buvmrrsz9/kiss.png)
Thanks Falkor for efforts.
donik?
still going to resorts
how are you doing?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 21, 07:13 PM 2018
good
so there is literally ZERO reason why you should not goto the casino and make a lot of money
report back with the winnings
I don't care too much about making money. I already have savings of £6,000 in my bank account, and my day job is the easiest I've ever done with the highest salary I've ever had, and with less hours. I even got to splash out a bit yesterday at a brasserie with blue cheese. As you know, I only care about finding the truth - whether roulette can be beaten or not. So once I'm done with this I'm returning to the 2023 project because that's more important than making money because money won't be of any use soon as you know.
is 6,000 a lot of money?
Falkor,
Is this method used as recovery only or is your level1 your basic play?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 21, 07:39 PM 2018
is 6,000 a lot of money?
For me it is.... because I've got everything I ever wanted. I even sold my 2018 smartphone for 200 bucks so I could get one from 2015 with an Intel processor inside.
QuoteFalkor,
Is this method used as recovery only or is your level1 your basic play?
Yeah, start with level 1 and play till <0 then switch to level 2. Play level 2 till <-6 then switch to level 3. Upon reaching a new high go back to level 1.
@Roulette Ghost
please, can you shut up your stupid mouth !!!
it is really boring to have you around in this forum !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Gilius
CONGRATULATION for all your effort to beat the wheel, of course, people want simple solution 1+1equal 2
this doesn't work in roulette
they must learn the basics of pigeonhole, parachute already explain in this forum and your personal website etc etc
there are some others here that also have the solution and believe me they are very bad people they will recognize themselves
I'm in roulette for more than 35 years roulette can be beaten by
1/cheating with computer
2/by visual balistic
3/with pigeonhole and non-random
4/and also with special magic software
that what I see with my eyes
Quote from: roulettefan on Aug 21, 07:58 PM 2018
@Roulette Ghost
please, can you shut up your stupid mouth !!!
I guess technically I could
but I won't
I must point out a scammer when I see it
This man Falkor has produced "holy grails" for years....
it is nothing more than bait and a carrot on a stick
the cute charts are to confuse people
now I am open to being proven wrong...show me :)
there is no holy grail in roulette
you can do all the cute bets and charts you want to...the house edge remains the same
NOW dont get me wrong...there are crafty ways to play to help, like repeaters........and playing a ton of numbers with a progression hit and run
reducing your exposure and playing for a statistically insignificant number of spins helps
but this is crazy
you are crazy....falkor is crazy
I'd ask for membership to King Falkor's forum
but I would rather not be in a cult with primitive spreadsheets and searching for the glass dome around earth
this is enough already......
look no further than his previous posts
look at posts from his banned name
look at the millionaires system
this is nothing new...this is his game....alawys claiming HG but nothing to show for it
these charts fool NO ONE...well actually they do fool some, like roulettefan...sorry for that
parachute does nothing to overcome house edge
want to make a method and explain it and say it wins? fine...fine by me....but post rubbish and claim it crushes casinos and noone understands it? thats something a scammer does and to that i said fook off
Falkor and gizmotron can both crush and Wipeout all the casino games in one mighty blow. They are like Thor and hulk.
I'm just a farmer, milking the cows. Smash and crush nothing.
(link:://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9NMasQ2UWFQ/TrB50bnkTCI/AAAAAAAAACI/y3rTCxusG5M/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Carrot%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bstick.gif)
(link:://:.milliondollardestiny.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_7330.png)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 21, 07:23 PM 2018
I don't care too much about making money. I already have savings of £6,000 in my bank account, and my day job is the easiest I've ever done with the highest salary I've ever had, and with less hours. I even got to splash out a bit yesterday at a brasserie with blue cheese. As you know, I only care about finding the truth - whether roulette can be beaten or not. So once I'm done with this I'm returning to the 2023 project because that's more important than making money because money won't be of any use soon as you know.
What job is that, if I may ask?
Is Europe such a different place that saying “I already have 6,000 saved†is a good thing? How much do they tax you over there?
It's always relative, but 6k is not much imo.
I would say a good number would be 500k . With that I would leave my current work and live the rest of my life confortably (I'm 36), assuming a very controlled budget on expenses all the time.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 21, 07:23 PM 2018
I already have savings of £6,000 in my bank account, and my day job is the easiest I've ever done with the highest salary I've ever had, and with less hours.
that is something a troll would say since 6,000 is nothing for savings....
noone has caught on that this guy is a forum troll?
The first 3 levels are very tight in this strategy, but I decided to add in some extra levels just out of curiosity - reduces the stranglehold we had on the law of large numbers prior. I then encountered this set from hell after nearly +4,000:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/vwobkktnp/hell.png)
NOTE: EC, Dozens, AND Line cycles were all at multiple CL1s in a row simultaneously!
Nevertheless, if I had hedged in the Streets then that would have won on 2 occasions. That got me thinking about the reverse game - not parachuting from small to large ala RG - but playing the front runners instead.
The front runners were put aside earlier on in this strategy to concentrate on the stitching and parlaying potential that CL2 offers us across dependent streams as opposed to single hits on the front runners. For example:
Stitching/Parlaying
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
Stitching/Parlaying/Hedging
1L... bet 2+3+H
1L 2H... bet 1+2
Front runners
1... bet 1
12... bet 1+2
Front runners/Hedging
1L... bet 1+L
1L 2L... bet 1+2
So there's no stitching/parlaying possible with front runners. Something then occurred to me regarding an old quote "riding on the imbalances". If an EC cycle closes, but a dozen cycle remains open then we should be able to stitch and parlay multiple front runners together from different groups as part of a parachute progression.
1L... bet L
1L 2L... bet 1+2
1 2 1... bet lines 1+2+4
1 4 2 4... win!
Hedging can also be added to the mix as in the CL2 game. So lot's still to be tested...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 27, 08:11 PM 2018
That got me thinking about the reverse game - not parachuting from small to large ala RG -
difference between you and I is that when I make a system (no matter how stupid it is) i EXPLAIN it thoroughly and give examples
noone knows what you just said
scammer
show me with a betting example with real spins what stitching is and how you do it....
did you fail school presentations for not explaining things?
RG, I'm not your enemy - you've got the wrong guy! And it ain't Donald Trump either:
Please put a sock in it or change the record?
WTF is STICHING?
Quote from: vladir on Aug 28, 05:59 AM 2018
WTF is STICHING?
EC is 50% and 1:1 payout. You can stitch 2 ECs for 25% and 3:1 payout.
Spin 1: Bet High (1 unit)
Spin 2: if win then parlay the winnings on High again (2 units in total) otherwise don't bet
If win: +3
If lose: -1
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 27, 08:11 PM 2018
The first 3 levels are very tight in this strategy, but I decided to add in some extra levels just out of curiosity - reduces the stranglehold we had on the law of large numbers prior. I then encountered this set from hell after nearly +4,000:
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/vwobkktnp/hell.png)
NOTE: EC, Dozens, AND Line cycles were all at multiple CL1s in a row simultaneously!
Nevertheless, if I had hedged in the Streets then that would have won on 2 occasions. That got me thinking about the reverse game - not parachuting from small to large ala RG - but playing the front runners instead.
The front runners were put aside earlier on in this strategy to concentrate on the stitching and parlaying potential that CL2 offers us across dependent streams as opposed to single hits on the front runners. For example:
Stitching/Parlaying
1... bet 2+3
12... bet 1+2
Stitching/Parlaying/Hedging
1L... bet 2+3+H
1L 2H... bet 1+2
Front runners
1... bet 1
12... bet 1+2
Front runners/Hedging
1L... bet 1+L
1L 2L... bet 1+2
So there's no stitching/parlaying possible with front runners. Something then occurred to me regarding an old quote "riding on the imbalances". If an EC cycle closes, but a dozen cycle remains open then we should be able to stitch and parlay multiple front runners together from different groups as part of a parachute progression.
1L... bet L
1L 2L... bet 1+2
1 2 1... bet lines 1+2+4
1 4 2 4... win!
Hedging can also be added to the mix as in the CL2 game. So lot's still to be tested...
So, a -729u on a failure of all 7 levels at spin 3700 or so. What was the br up to before this event?
Did you calculate the odds of this happening?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 28, 04:38 PM 2018
EC is 50% and 1:1 payout. You can stitch 2 ECs for 25% and 3:1 payout.
Spin 1: Bet High (1 unit)
Spin 2: if win then parlay the winnings on High again (2 units in total) otherwise don't bet
If win: +3
If lose: -1
takes a mathematician to figure that out
good work
solid
Quote from: Bigbroben on Aug 28, 08:14 PM 2018
So, a -729u on a failure of all 7 levels at spin 3700 or so. What was the br up to before this event?
Did you calculate the odds of this happening?
few days ago this was the holy grail
beats me
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 28, 08:27 PM 2018
few days ago this was the holy grail
beats me
Just read the topic over and over until you understand. Then comment.
Maybe this run from hell got the br from 3000 down to 2250. Who knows?
Overall, probably safer than playing 5 DS with neg progs...
touche
to be fair i did write it was not safe and not recommended...AT LEAST i explain it in detail :)
Parachuting doesn't help in roulette. You'll still hit the ground hard.
Quote from: The General on Aug 28, 08:39 PM 2018
Parachuting doesn't help in roulette. You'll still hit the ground hard.
Haha! at least you know exactly where you'll crash!
Falkor,
if I understand correctly:
Level 1: lose if hit on line 6 or zero
Level 2: lose if hit on line 6 or zero
Level 3: lose if hit on dozen 3 or zero
Level 4: lose if hit on line 6 or zero
Level 5: lose if hit on High or zero
Level 6: lose if hit on line 6 or zero
Level 7: lose if hit on dozen 3 or zero.
Right?
If so, level 7 will fail once every 22 thousand spins:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/08/28/source.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/txxes)
Correct me if wrong.
Reminds me of myself when I was still a matozoid looking for that HG called Ovula...
Just shows if you got a big enough net to catch you, you don't need a parachute in the first place.
This strategy has now evolved further just using hedging without any parachuting. Here I was able to evade a deadlock on Lines (LCL6) and still come out a winner - using only hedging:
(link:s://s22.postimg.cc/gibmem3j5/new.png)
The above is based on concepts from "Permutation of Desolation", which translates to: in order to get a deadlock on Lines depends on having some break evens during the early part of the cycle. The concept of hedging is that when we win we expect to win on 2-3 cycles at the same time instead of just a single cycle. Therefore, the amount of chips required to recover - providing we get a double/triple win - is less than putting equal chips across the entire net.