I mentioned an idea that I had in a post just as a comment a few days ago and I have given it enough thought that I think it has some merit to add to the discussion. This is nothing more than a twist on an old idea, but it eases the risk profile of a popular progression idea that I am a big fan of already, the D'Alembert (+1 on a loss, -1 on a win).
Rather than increasing every loss and dropping every win, I am waiting for a two-in-a-row win or loss to increase or decrease. We know that a string of losses can jump up the betting fairly quickly on a traditional D'Alembert, requiring a larger bankroll and max bet/max drawdown tolerance. For instance, losing 8 straight would take your next bet to 9 and your cumulative loss to -36 (-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7,-8). By waiting for the double losses, our next bet would be only 5 and our cumulative loss would be -20 (-1,-1,-2,-2,-3,-3,-4,-4).
However, if we were to win each of the next 8 to get back to the starting 1 unit bet, we would still have the same net result of +8. Our double wins will always be +2 units, compared to the +1 for every single win on the traditional method.
I ran a quick 200-spin series just for comparison and they compare nicely. I won 103 and lost 97 playing Evens. Flat betting, we are +6 units. Playing the traditional D'Alembert, we ended at +83 with a max bet of 13 and a maximum drawdown of 67 (We didn't finish the series - I am currently at a bet of 7 units after 200 spins). With my variation, we are up a very respectable +64 with a max bet of only 9 and a max drawdown of 48 (Ended with a next bet of 6).
This seems like a safer alternative with the same desirable expectations of wins with normal distribution, just without the higher risks associated with a large string of losses.
Like I said, nothing really excitingly new here, just a slight change up to ease the downside of a solid progression method.
To explain how this works, I just had one of THOSE sessions. 200 spins - 111 Losses, 89 Wins. Flat betting = -22 units.
Original D'Alembert: -164 unit loss but a maximum drawdown of 512 units at one point, max bet of 34 units
My variation: -116 unit loss, max drawdown of 333 units, max bet of 21 units
Clearly there are times when this is very dangerous to play, as any progression can be. However, it keeps the risk much more tolerable and offers comparable returns to the typical D'Alembert.
Colbster, Have you looked at triples?
If doubles make it safer, triples should carry it even further in that direction. I know that we can accumulate some losses if we get more double losses and a win than we get double wins and a loss, whereas with doubles, we either have a break even or a double loss. With triples we can actually gain units if we have more wins than losses between triple losses and, of course, the reverse, we could lose extra units, but in the long run they should break about even.
What do you think?
Maybe you could run it through your spins mentioned above and see how it compares.
what we do if: we lost 2 times on 3u bet and betting 4u first win, second loose? Stay and wait 2 in row win/lose?
@GLC: George, I did consider triples. I dismissed it because you could get the series of LLWLLWLLW that lose units without moving up to cover them by increasing the bet. Of course, you could also have WWLWWLWWL, but those would be at the lower levels anyway and I would take that series all day long. The time we spent at a level waiting for a triple could be substantially longer than with singles and doubles and there is a lot of volatility that could happen in the meantime. I didn't save the spins, but I can add a triple formula to the spreadsheet I'm testing with and see where it takes us.
@Biagle: Yes, chops don't have any impact on the game. We bet every spin so we are in place to get the double wins which come about every 1 spin in 4 but we stay put on betting when we don't have back to back wins or losses.
I added in triples to see how they would fare and, at least during the disastrous series described previously, it was much safer.
Triples ended with a -57 unit loss (compared to -116 and -164).
The max drawdown was 137 (vs. 333 and 512).
The maximum bet during the session was 9 (against 21 and 34).
Now, the question becomes how profitable can it be in a winning set. Results to follow.
The next 200-spin session is completed with 103 wins, 97 losses.
Single D'Alembert
End +75 (Off of max 92)
Max Bet 16
Max Drawdown 105
Double D'Alembert
End +62 (Max was 67)
Max Bet 10
Max Drawdown 67
Triple D'Alembert
End -5 (Max was only 18)
Max Bet 6
Max Drawdown 60
I think that the poor performance on the triple is enough for me to write it off. It underperformed flat betting with a large drawdown relative to the maximum profit point. The double pleased me this session, as the max and end figures were very competitive with the original D'Alembert without quite as much risk.
Just to validate those results, I ran the same numbers H/L. Here are those results
Single
End 47 (Max was 70)
Max Bet 18
Max Drawdown 143
Double
End 24 (Max was 37)
Max Bet 9
Max Drawdown 71
Triple
End 24 (Max had been 49)
Max Bet 7
Max Drawdown 70
Again, the single had the best return but carried the greatest risk and bankroll requirements. Double and triple were very comparable, although triple had given back more of the max by the end of the session. With no major advantage to the triple over the double, and coupled with the poor performance I listed in the previous post, I think that skipping the triple in favor of the double is justifiable.
Just as a note, betting High during these spins won 102 and lost 98.
Colbster, As I think about it, the more wins/losses we use, the closer we get to the "bread winner" method as outlined in the "Monte Carlo Anecdotes" book. It was obvious that triples would be safer. Not so obvious whether they would return enough units to justify either the time or the risk.
Also, I have a progression posted on the forum based on winning 2 or losing 3 (also, winning 3 or losing 2) that I like quite a bit.
Another question I have is if a bet line of 112233445566778899 etc... has enough recovery power after the 5 or 6 or larger levels to keep from getting bogged down in the hole.
Maybe a line like 11 22 33 44 66 88 11 11 14 14 18 18 etc... would have a better risk/reward ratio. The equalizer is hitting stop losses or table limits which can't be avoided in the long run.
As with all these progression ideas, the more we're willing to risk, the more we win per spin. The balancing act we face is how much risk do we want take?
Quote from: Colbster on Sep 20, 08:55 PM 2013This is nothing more than a twist on an old idea, but it eases the risk profile of a popular progression idea that I am a big fan of already, the D'Alembert (+1 on a loss, -1 on a win).
Why not raise/lower it on every other loss/win respectively? Better still, have a useful trigger for that, if only to mix it up so that the house won't know what to expect next. For example, poker players sometimes bluff (after drawing one card) only on the red Q-high busted four-flush draws.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 21, 01:04 PM 2013As with all these progression ideas, the more we're willing to risk, the more we win per spin. The balancing act we face is how much risk do we want take?
That's where THEY get you. The progression bet's force can go as low as the actual house edge (HE), to make the most of it by "treading water". But you aren't going to come out ahead in the short run, which is the purpose of a progression bet.
Has anyone noticed, but this method has a few tricks "up its sleeve"?
Here's another 200-spin set:
96 wins, 104 losses
Original D'Alembert
Ending -9
Max Bet 17
Max Drawdown 119
Doubles
Ending -2
Max Bet 8
Max Drawdown 58
Triples
Ending -34
Max Bet 8
Max Drawdown 71
I only mentioned the triples because I was too lazy to remove the cells from the spreadsheet but I thought that the results just underline what I stated on the topic earlier.
Regarding the Single/Double D'Alembert, I think it was interesting that the Doubles beet flat betting and the Single D'Alembert. Max bet and max drawdown were about half that of the original and essentially broke even on a losing session.
This works very nice on my 10 line EC patterns. Thanks Colbster. I havn't considered stretching a D'Alambert.
I think what the results are demonstrating for us is that no matter what bet method we use there's a certain sequence that will give a loss and others that will give a win. Different sequences will affect singles different than doubles different than triples etc...
It's like the sequence many hucksters use where they front load the beginning with losses and back load the ending with wins to show that with 20 losses and only 15 wins, their system will produce a win.
I'm not necessarily trying to make a case for triples, just pointing out that none of these methods are necessarily better than the others. It depends on the how the spins are coming at the time you're playing.
Though it sounds like I'm being negative about this idea, nothing can be further from the truth. I'm a total "gambler's fallacy" zombie and have been for years.
As a matter of fact, my favorite double dozen method of late is based on a double loss. I play the last 2 dozens to hit. I don't increase my bet size unless I lose 2 times in a row. Then I add 1 unit to both dozens. If I lose 3 times in a row, I add 2 more units to both dozens. I never reduce my unit size until I reach a new profit.
Quote from: GLC on Sep 21, 10:28 PM 2013
I think what the results are demonstrating for us is that no matter what bet method we use there's a certain sequence that will give a loss and others that will give a win. Different sequences will affect singles different than doubles different than triples etc...
Not true.
If you bet a set fraction < 1 of your BR (, and as the BR changes,) and losses and wins even out, then your BR will shrink regardless the order of the L/W outcomes.
So, naturally, the game is to find how that simple observation, itself, is evened out in the grand scheme of things. Surely, the house does not have a God-given edge in every way (in practice and/or theory)?
Quote from: GLC on Sep 21, 10:28 PM 2013It's like the sequence many hucksters use where they front load the beginning with losses and back load the ending with wins to show that with 20 losses and only 15 wins, their system will produce a win.
Turn 'er around is fair play. (Hint.)
@GLC
George, like so many other methods, there is always a sequence that will upend the winning, be it chops, streaks, doublets, etc. I agree that we can artificially alter the spins to maximize or minimize the strength of each. I feel confident that triples is not the way to go because there is too much movement between shifts, too many chances for a sub-trend of doubles to move against the larger movement and us not have a way of identifying it or responding.
I do think now that there is real merit to playing the doubles relative to playing the original D'Alembert that can be found in the bankroll protection end of the discussion. They both were up together, down together, or flat together. Single D'Alembert both won and lost more in each instance, but the maximum bets and the maximum drawdowns were easily won by the double. A guy like Ken laughs at the risks in favor of the potential profits, but there are a lot of us here who are more conservative. I think this has a lot of potential staying power, not instead of the D'Alembert, but alongside it for those with less risk appetite.
ok and now maybe you have good bet selection idea on top of this:)
@Biagle
Of the several methods that I have posted in the past few years, this has been the one with the most solid record and exciting profits. I am going to be trying to get a spreadsheet finalized today that will implement the Double D'Alembert into the concept of dynamic differential betting. I think there is going to be a very nice fit between the two, but we will see (as always :question:)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9054.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9054.0)
Quote from: Colbster on Sep 22, 10:07 AM 2013
George, like so many other methods, there is always a sequence that will upend the winning, be it chops, streaks, doublets, etc.
W/o an edge, risk (of ruin) is 100% in every case that the losses will "catch up" to you. You're just not simulating this properly, in the sense that taking longer to lose is actually a worse proposition.
The rest is goobledegook, but carry on anyway... it beats medication.
I slapped together an Excel spreadsheet and ran 200 spins (Actually 199 - Lost a spin somewhere :sad2:) with the Double D'Alembert combined with the Dynamic Differential betting methods.
Even/Odd
Spins 199
Bets made 172
Ending balance +71 (Which was the session maximum)
Max Drawdown 65
Max Bet 10
Evens 108
Odds 91
High/Low
Spins 199
Bets made 168
Ending balance +79 (1 unit off the session max)
Max Drawdown 32
Max Bet 9
Highs 101
Lows 98
For those of you who have read the Dynamic Differential post I linked to earlier, you would be interested to know that I did swap the progressions on the Even/Odd spreadsheet one time once the bet level indicated 11 on Even and 1 on Odd. As expected, this disparity quickly remedied itself for nice profits.
Another 200 spins from a very tiresome session. It took every single one of the 200 spins to recover to a positive +1 on the Even/Odds. Following the rules for the Dynamic Differential, I had to swap twice on the High/Lows. I swapped progressions once on the Even/Odds at nearly the exact moment the imbalance shifted. I hope to not see that again for a while :o.
Even/Odds
Spins 200
Bets Made 190
Ending balance +1
Max Drawdown 111
Max Bet 15
Evens 97
Odds 103
High/Low
Spins 200
Bets Made 181
Ending balance +36 (Just 4 shy of the session max)
Max Drawdown 63
Max Bet 12
Highs 79
Lows 121
Clearly on the High/Low results, this was an extremely imbalanced session. If you had picked correctly, you would have done well. If not, you could have lost a bunch of money. With the Dynamic Differential betting, you don't have too choose - the system adjusts for you and gives a positive result.
Nope - the two systems I mentioned have absolutely no business being tried together. I just played another rotten session with both of the ECs that should have been very manageable. The two staking methods both took turns sabotaging each other and it was a bloodbath!
colbster,
It's an honest guy who can come on and say something isn't working as well as he thought!
Fair play to you. :thumbsup:
You are hopefully a step closer to something that does work!
I know some of you will think this is crazy, but my experience has shown me that moving a bet method toward smaller and smaller units or progression does well most of the time, but it always gets bogged down and winds up frustrating us to death.
I have actually had excellent results on a modified D'Alembert by making it more aggressive rather than less. We play +1 -1 until we are betting 5 units. Once we are bettng 5 or more units, we add 2 units after each loss and reduce 3 units after 1 win and another 2 units after a 2nd win in a row, and 1 unit after 3 or more wins in a row. It's rare to get into a long drawn out draw down. It does take a larger starting bank roll. It just depends on your risk tolerance.
Quote from: Colbster on Sep 22, 06:12 PM 2013
Nope - the two systems I mentioned have absolutely no business being tried together. I just played another rotten session with both of the ECs that should have been very manageable. The two staking methods both took turns sabotaging each other and it was a bloodbath!
If you try all mentioned but chosing some other EC/suggest last 3 lines versus further 3 lines/you might find it far more balanced then clasic outside EC bets.No sabotaging here,
especially using Ibobas staking plan/larger BR/with quick returns and win goal approach.
Who's Iboba?
I think Iboba = FLAT_INO
Iboba is FLATman!!
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 23, 12:32 PM 2013
Iboba is FLATman!!
And about 6 others.
All great blokes ;D
Quote from: Turner on Sep 23, 12:47 PM 2013
And about 6 others.
All great blokes ;D
Ah, I see... ^-^
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 23, 09:20 PM 2013
Ah, I see... ^-^
Said the good doctor.
He could have a poker game w/o leaving home. But, imagine the I.O.U.'s.
A new twist on, "Can't win for losing."
But then again, we all hear at least one voice in our heads.
And, it's that voice which fragments or shatters into many in the random and isolated environment?
Quote from: GARNabby on Sep 25, 02:39 PM 2013
And, it's that voice which fragments or shatters into many in the random and isolated environment?
but.... the Lithium is helping isnt it ?
^-^
(joke)
To finish my thoughts....8 names/Cia after my HG/......LOL
Since no more challenge in roulette playing/easy to beat/am swapping to poker and bacc....
you can continue and attached excel how to do it.....good luck.
Quote from: teo on Sep 25, 04:41 PM 2013
To finish my thoughts....8 names/Cia after my holy grail/......LoL
Time to break out the tinfoil hats...
link:://:.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tinfoil%20hat
Of course, erecting barriers might as well keep out the help.
Pink Floyd's, "... another brick in the wall."
Quote from: teo on Sep 25, 04:41 PM 2013
To finish my thoughts....8 names/Cia after my holy grail/......LoL
Since no more challenge in roulette playing/easy to beat/am swapping to poker and bacc....
you can continue and attached excel how to do it.....good luck.
Ivo, It's simple and powerful. The 3 wins in a row on the losing side to shorten the cycle is the ace in the hole.
It's a little harder to win on a double zero wheel, but for quarters it's not such a big risk and so far it's staying ahead of the game. I'm back to winning enough for smokes and bread. Oh yeah, I don't smoke. Okay, a bottle of wine and a steak.
On double zero, you still have to have a decent bankroll, but what system doesn't require it?
Thanks for being willing to share your systems with us.
Good luck with poker and baccarat.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Oct 01, 11:51 PM 2013
Ivo, It's simple and powerful. The 3 wins in a row on the losing side to shorten the cycle is the ace in the hole.
It's a little harder to win on a double zero wheel, but for quarters it's not such a big risk and so far it's staying ahead of the game. I'm back to winning enough for smokes and bread. Oh yeah, I don't smoke. Okay, a bottle of wine and a steak.
On double zero, you still have to have a decent bankroll, but what system doesn't require it?
Thanks for being willing to share your systems with us.
Good luck with poker and baccarat.
GLC
glc check from this post down link:://betselection.cc/even-chance/lines-as-ecs/msg20601/#msg20601
Biagle, Thanks for the heads-up. I know trying to beat zeros is an added challenge and the difficulty has not gone unnoticed here in Tucson. But, I don't use the exact bet scheme that IBOBA recommends. Mine is a little less aggressive and even though there are considerable draw downs, with patience I have been able to pull out to plus each time.
I use conscious decision making while I'm playing. Sometimes I reset on the losing side after only 2 wins in a row to keep the bet size from escalating. Some times I stop betting all together until things settle down.
I'll do some more testing on my quarter machine before I play for "REAL" money.
GLC