Bet selection is any you choose for a single dozen. For this example, I am taking the hot dozen as defined as whichever most recently hit 2 out of 3 spins.
Sets come in groups of 3 spins with a 1-1-2 proportion
Bet 1-1-2 until a loss of all 3 bets. Any win will be a profit this far.
After your first loss, you are -4 units. Increase the drawdown by 1 and divide by 4. In the first loss, it will always be 4+1 (5), divided by 4 (1.25) and rounded up to 2.
Each next level of the progressions will be 2 sets of 3. In this case, it would be 2-2-4, 2-2-4. We are expecting a single win in each set of 3 (normal distribution). As soon as you get a win, that set of 3 is over and you move to the next set. If you win the first or third bet in each set of 3, you are at a new high and return to 1-1-2 betting. If you lose either or both, or just win the second bet of any 3, you still have a drawdown from the session high. Whatever the current drawdown is, you increase again by 1, divide by 4 and round up.
In this example, if we get a L and then a W in the first set of 3, we move to the next 2-2-4 that is the second set of 3. If we lose all 3 of the second set, we are down the original 4 + 2 units won in the first set - 8 units lost in the second set, netting us a drawdown currently of -10. We would then add 1 (11), divide by 4 (2.75), and round up to 3. This would set us up for the next round of 3-3-6, 3-3-6.
We continue this pattern until we get 2 wins that take us to a new session high where we return to 1-1-2 betting.
Another session - Very comparable (in a good way) to the first!
Round 3 :D
Round 4 :D
Extended session 5 ;D
Shut the front door! :o
What does it take to get some interest around here?? :question:
This looks like a pretty darn solid method.
Nice one Colbster.
Nate
One more comment on this system.
It is really a three step martingale for the dozens. The repeat of the 3 bet cycle at levels 2 and up give it some staying power. The adding a unit and dividing by 4 is a unique twist.
You could even add more repeat cycles if the bet sizes start getting too large. Or, you could divide by a larger number than 4. This would slow down the bet size increases. It would also limit the recovery strength.
Also, this can be played on other bet locations. The added amount and divisor would have to be worked out but like George has said, if it works on any bet location it should work on any/all bet locations.
Nate
You are totally right about dividing by a higher number than 4 to act as a safety brake if it goes squirrely but I haven't reached that point yet. I think my biggest drawdown has been 36 so far. The bet selection is decent as it avoids sleepers automatically. It is proving robust to me. I don't see a lot of lost sessions coming from this.
For the next session, rather than playing BV NZ, I ventured out onto a European board at one of the various BitCoin casinos I saw mentioned on another forum just to see how it held up.
Total spins: 96
Total bets: 91
Ending balance: +50 units
Lowest balance: -6 units
Biggest drawdown: 26 units
Highest bet made: 10 (for 1 spin)
Net profit per spin: +0.55 units per spin ;D
Colbster
Well, I don't say this too often, but, HG comes to mind on this method.
Thanks :thumbsup:
B
Nope.
At least with this bet selection, it appears to have an Achilles heel like all others. I just complete a session that had a rotten drawdown that I tested long enough for it to have wiped out all the wins from all my previous sessions. I think this has some merit but I now have to include the usual caveats of Stop Loss and adequate money management. The damaging series I was getting was along the lines of 3-1-3-1-2-2-1-3-1-3-2-2. The chops weren't getting the wins and then the pairs of 2s had nothing to back them up. I like the progression aspect of this but the bet selection is flawed like all the others. :-\
We could cut out the danger of chops by extending the criteria to 3 of 5 or whatever but that would just be curve fitting and would have us missing key profit opportunities that the 3-spin qualifiers identify. Glad I kept it in the Notepad. I was really feeling this one and was about to move it to the main board.
The answer was right there and I missed it. Nathanael had the key. Also, I named this a grind but hadn't fully embraced the concept. Grinds can take some time and I wasn't giving this thing the time it needed to recover.
After the 1-1-2 loss initially, we add 1, divide by 4 and round up. Then we play 2-2-4-2-2-4.
If this doesn't take us to a new high (or at least equal to the previous high), add 2, divide by 5 and round up. Lets say we were down 11 at this point. Our new base would be 3 but we play 3 sets at this level 3-3-6-3-3-6-3-3-6.
If we still don't make a high, add 3, divide by 6 and round up. Now spread it out for 4 trios, continuing to use the 1-1-2 ratio with the 1 being whatever our base bet this round is.
In the first 2-2-4-2-2-4, we only make a new high if we get both hits in either the first of three or third of three. In the second 3-3-6-3-3-6-3-3-6, we can afford to have one in the middle spin of a trio and still reach the new high.
As we continue increasing our add number by 1, our divide number by one, and our number of trios, our hits don't have to be as frequent to end up winning. For instance, when we are dividing by 6 and playing 4 trios, we only need 3 hits out of 12 spins (and only 1 in the first 6) to make a profit.
We are keeping the bet amounts smaller by using an increasingly high divisor and giving ourselves longer for random to come back our way.
Here is another session using the suggested changes from the previous post. It doesn't seem to really interrupt the strengths we previously saw but does flatten out the risk. Despite a pretty atrocious beginning, this thing recovered and I only bet a maximum of 8 units for a single spin.
Spins: 153
Bets: 150
Ending balance: 48 (off a high of 51 just because I ended the session after the 150 spins)
Profit per spin 0.33 units
Max drawdown: 20 (twice)
Lowest balance: -20
Colbster
Like I said ... HG comes to mind ... now more than ever.
B
Hi Colbster,
This is indeed interesting. Please keep us posted of your progress/results. Fingers crossed.
A.
Here is a reality-check session. It took some real work to get back after a significant drawdown of 107 units. The lowest point of the session was -46 units. Max bet was 22 units and I had to bet those 22 units a total of 4 spins.
Spins: 210
Net profit: 61 units
Profit per spin: 0.29 units per spin
Here's the problem with this session - I reached that max profit at spin 99. I then fought with random for a total of 111 spins to get back even. It did recover as expected and considering I was betting 22 units at one point, the max drawdown of 107 isn't that steep. The safety brake did exactly what it was supposed to do, spreading out the losses and keeping the bets way down in comparison to the previous iteration of this method which would have gotten completely out of control if I had played it prior to the changes. As I stated earlier, this does put this method back into the "grind" category, which many players do not have the interest in playing.
I like the idea behind it Colbster :thumbsup:
The strike rate was 35% in your 211 spin sample above.
So your bet selection is holding out as well which means it's all good.
I suppose the only downside is when you hit a long run from hell which maybe only returns a 20% S/R.
BUT....put a stop-loss in there which you might only hit every so often and it looks sweet!!
As with all negative expectation games, we must have parameters to guard against really bad win/loss series. They are possible and can happen any time. We must be prepared for one at all times. The critical factor is a stop loss. The consideration with a stop loss is how big. Big ones happen rarely, but when they do, ouch! Smaller ones happen more frequently and if they come in clusters, ouch!
Quote from: Nathanael on Jan 26, 11:30 AM 2014
As with all negative expectation games, we must have parameters to guard against really bad win/loss series. They are possible and can happen any time. We must be prepared for one at all times. The critical factor is a stop-loss. The consideration with a stop-loss is how big. Big ones happen rarely, but when they do, ouch! Smaller ones happen more frequently and if they come in clusters, ouch!
It's a good point!
The STAR progression that I have been looking at again lately runs a couple of recovery sessions after a loss by upping the ante each time in an effort to recoup the losses and show a profit.
So you could start a recovery session by just doubling the base unit and work from there. (same idea really as in Silverthorne's Neural Strategy 2)
But any consecutive cluster of losses like Nathanael says could end in a wipe out.
My personal preference would be to use a kind of positive progression if you are getting enough back to back winning sessions and then revert back to base on a loss and try and build up again.
Hi colbster,
How about GRINDING with safety GLAT progression below...?
Quote
The GLAT system single doz
=============
Each line I will call a set of W/L's.
1. W Ends set. If at a new profit, reset to 1 unit else stay at same bet size and start a new set.
2. LW Ends Set. If at a new profit, reset to 1 unit else stay at same bet size and start a new set.
3. LLW Ends set. Neutral set. No bet size change. Start a new set.
4. LLLW Ends set. -1 Very small loss, so start a new set at same bet size.
5. LLLLW Ends set. -2 Getting into losses, so play next set at +1 unit added to bet size.
6. LLLLL...W The 1st W ends set. Number of L's = 5 or more. This will keep bet sizes from escalating when we hit our sleeping dozen. As soon as we have a Win it ends this set and we increase our bet size by +1 unit for next set.
These 6 sets should cover every possibility. Sets 1 & 2 are our winning sets.
If you find yourself betting a large bet size and you have a few wins in a row, you might consider decreasing your bet size but not all the way back to 1 rather than staying at the same level just in case you're about to go into another losing series.
Regards,
A.
Atlantis,
I enjoyed your idea and re-ran the 210 spins to see how it fared. I never adjusted my betting, as I couldn't come up with a fast rule about when it might be appropriate to regress and how much. As I got losses of 4 or more before a win, a grew my bets by 1 unit. Any 3 losses or less before a win would stay at the same level.
Max betting level: 9
Largest drawdown: 85
Lowest balance: -47
Ending balance: 14
Highest balance: 38 (at spin #99, exactly as in my original method).
In comparison, without firm rules on how to decrease bets (which also reduces speed of recovery), the methods are fairly similar in results. Your greatest drawdown of 85 was just a little off my 107. Your max bet was considerably smaller (9 vs. 22), but the recovery wasn't complete at the end of the 111 spins after the high. Additionally, the high came in about half of my 61 and the 14 ending balance after 210 spins wasn't as compelling.
This is where we get to the nuances of how much safety do we want vs. how much potential profit is enough to justify the risk. Maybe you can point me in a direction on dropping the bets that might juice your idea a little. I would love to keep max drawdowns at a minimum! Love the feedback on this, btw! :thumbsup:
Here are your spins playing GLAT.
Here is another dozen bet selection idea that you could try with this MM plan.
It tracks dozens and columns at the same time.
Have a look at the dozens first!
5 doz 1
9 doz 1
27 doz 3 (dozen 2 is missing)
That means we work with the 1+3 as long as the 2 stays missing.
If the next dozen out is dozen 3..it has repeated = SAME.
If the next dozen out is dozen 1..it has went opposite = OPP.
We always back for a repeat of either SAME or OPP depending on what's trending.
The missing dozen appearing would of course = a loss.
I notice the losing strings are not so severe if you use both dozens and columns and look for the strongest trend.
Hi guys , I enjoy at this party with my own way to play this, a real grinder but maybe more safer.
The reset option ( reset to 1 unit) is your own decision also target to win and stop lose.
I don t bet every spin, i use triggers, possitive progression (see excel )
I'll add another session to the mix, this one was very pretty until BetVoyager crapped out on me >:(
Total spins: 135
Total bets: 132
Ending balance: +44 units
Profit per spin: 0.3333 units per spin
Max drawdown: 20
Lowest bankroll: -5
Highest bet made: 6 units (twice)
Average bet made: 1.94
Hi!
Just a thought.
same betselecton ,then use 1 unit until win lock if you are up or down in units.
If you are down add 1 unit and play 2 units until win, again lock if you are up or down.
if you are same or in + reduce to 1 unit or down play with 3 units until win and so on
In test i have reached 30 units in about 60 spins with max 6 units in play.
As i said just a thought.
agesta
Quote from: agesta on Jan 27, 04:09 AM 2014
Hi!
Just a thought.
same betselecton ,then use 1 unit until win lock if you are up or down in units.
If you are down add 1 unit and play 2 units until win, again lock if you are up or down.
if you are same or in + reduce to 1 unit or down play with 3 units until win and so on
In test i have reached 30 units in about 60 spins with max 6 units in play.
As i said just a thought.
agesta
I just did a few more tests.
4 sessions with 50 spins each,
1. +13
2.+14
3.+24
4+13
up 6 units in progression a couple of times
agesta
Quote from: agesta on Jan 27, 04:09 AM 2014
Hi!
Just a thought.
same betselecton ,then use 1 unit until win lock if you are up or down in units.
If you are down add 1 unit and play 2 units until win, again lock if you are up or down.
if you are same or in + reduce to 1 unit or down play with 3 units until win and so on
In test i have reached 30 units in about 60 spins with max 6 units in play.
As i said just a thought.
agesta
Agesta, This is Oscar's Grind applied to dozens. GLC has adapted this bet location to the Full Trioplay method. It helps control really bad sequences. The basic progression works most of the time, but bad runs WILL come around occasionally. We need some way to keep from getting too much invested in a draw down.
Nate
This is interesting...
Here are three vidclips I made using SAME real casino number spinfile.
Each vid shows betting same dozen EACH SPIN until profit of +20 using a progression.
Dozen 1:
Roulette: Dozen Test 1 (of 3) (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=AJVM05GW5KY#)
Dozen 2:
Roulette: Dozen Test 2 (of 3) (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Y_y_nRThU#)
Dozen 3:
Roulette: Dozen Test 3 (of 3) (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=nkxo6Gogxlk#)
Doz 1 sleeps the most and requires the longest time and highest steps to make profit.
It is a question of sticking with the doz until the turnaround comes.
Doz 2 and 3 achieve the target much sooner and with lower betting.
Progression used is: original GLAT.
Regards,
A.
Using your same spins, I came to a +34 by the same time Dozen 3 got to +21 using my progression. I spun 18 max for 1 spin and 14 for 2 spins, everything else was lower than that. Max drawdown was 70 and lowest bankroll was -62. This appears to be safer on the bottom side and score higher profits than the GLAT. Nice to compare side-by-side like this. Thanks for the data, Atlantis!
No problem. Hope it helps. Good to see your result is better, Colbster!
A.
Hello Colbster,
I was wondering what kind of BR u would recommend for playing this?
I have only had 1 drawdown of 100 units so far. I'm thinking a trailing stop loss of 100 off the high. Session br 100, win goal 50
Continued testing
Spins 151
Bets 147
Ending balance +53 units
Profit per spin 0.361 units
Lowest balance -4
Greatest drawdown 25
Highest bet made 5 units
This is still a pretty solid looking system to me. I have noticed that every session would have won flat betting also. That means that it should also win with a progression. What that tells me is that the bet selection is very good.
The first time we get a session that has a lot more losses than 2:1 we'll see what to expect on a bad day.
I've done some testing using 1 1 1 instead of 1 1 2. It still wins and of course it keeps the drawdowns smaller, but a person will have to decide if it's worth the fewer units won for the lessened risk.
I went to the session in reply #16 starting at row 101 and ending with row 211 we had 110 spins where we were in the hole. There were 78 losses and only 33 wins. A flat bet would have lost 12 units but with the progression it was able to get back to even. This does show the power of this progression. And a draw down of 107 units isn't outrageous. Maybe 200 unit stop loss would be reasonable?
Further testing - This session was a good test of the limits of this system and the B/R discussion
Total spins: 152
Total bets: 150
Ending balance: +47 units
Profit per bet: 0.3133 units
Max Drawdown: 91 units
Lowest B/R balance: -78
Highest bet made: 24 (3 times, each hit which drastically helped the recovery speed)
I had 48 wins, 102 losses this session. It was ever so slightly less than expected. Flat betting would have us at -6 units for this round. My recommendation earlier in the thread was for a 100 unit B/R,while Nathaniel suggested 200. Mine would have covered it, but just. Had I not had the three wins on max bet, I would have had a harder time of it and my 100 might not have cut it. To each their own on risk/reward, but I think that both 100 and 200 are reasonable considering the strength of recovery this shows, the few large drawdowns experienced, and the not-a-loss-yet situation. More efficient testing (bot) could help with the discussion here.
Forgot to attach ::)
Colbster
Been running some tests to gather some stats.
Your best bet using your method is to wait for 2 appearances of a dozen in last 3 and bet on that dozen to hit on the next spin.
In tests of 250 spins each. Usually around 155 chances to bet resulting in around 105 wins.
On a No Zero wheel.
Hope this info helps.
B
Can you verify that that is correct? 105 wins out of 155? We only would expect 51 or 52, but you say it is double that? /Passes out :wink:
Even flat betting, that has us +160 on 155 bets. /Passes out again
Now to the purpose of my original post, which is another reality check on this method which passes, but just.
Total spins: 175
Total bets: 173
Total units won: 20
Profits per bet: 0.116
Total wins: 58, almost exactly the expected value
Highest drawdown: 119
Lowest B/R: -100
Largest bet: 18 (1 spin)
This session had 2 sets of spins that turned against us, yet the method managed to return to a new high as in the past. The worst of the turns began on spin 74 and lasted 103 spins. During these 103 spins, we won 33 times, nearly the expect. This includes the recovery, though, with the drawdown only having 22 wins over the course of 84 spins, drastically below the expected value. Playing with my suggested rule of a rolling 100 unit stop loss, this session would have been a bust. Playing with my suggested bankroll of 100 would also have been a bust. I was close on both, but either would have turned this winning session into a 100 unit loss. Going forward, I am accepting Nathanael's suggestion of 200.
All of that said, this was a successful set of spins, twice reversing the negative trend and only climbing to a bet one time of 18 spins (there were a couple 16s in there as well, but nothing terrible). To my way of thinking, this is manageable risk.
Thanks for the latest, Colbster.
@Buffster - Hope that is right about the 2 out of 3! Sounds a bit like the ignatus method (bet same doz after it hit twice - but bet once only)
A.
Colbster
Even I found it was very high, so I rechecked my formulas and lo and behold ( My bad ) .... it's actually around 50-60.
Sorry for getting your hopes up...but still a very good system. Just have to figure out the sweet spot.
B
Another solid session
Total spins: 150
Total bets: 147
Total profit: 46 units
Total profit per bet: 0.313 units
Highest drawdown: 59 units
Lowest B/R: -29 units
Highest bet: 12 units (3 spins)
Tough start, awesome recovery!
Spins: 150
Bets: 147
Total profits: 48 units
Profits per spin: 0.327 units
Max drawdown: 100
Lowest B/R: -98
Highest bet: 22 (1 spin), followed by 12 (1 spin)
The 100-unit drawdown solidifies Nathanael's 200-unit suggestion. This didn't touch anywhere near 200, but 200 gives enough wiggle room to get right. The drawdown came early this session, with only 13 wins during the first 52 spins. Despite the early losses, it recovered easily and was off to the races!
Hi Colbster, I've read through the post and there seems to be lots of added tweaks and safety breaks. Please can you tell me exactly how you're playing now with the perfected method?
thanks in advance
Bet selection: Consider the past 3 spins. If a dozen appears twice in the past 3 spins, it is activated as the hot dozen and we bet on that dozen every spin until a new dozen is activated by showing twice in 3 spins.
1-1-2 as long as we get wins.
After the first set (1-1-2) loses, we add 1 to our drawdown, divide by 4, and play for 2 sets of 3 spins apiece, using the x-x-2x format for each set of 3 spins with x being the result of our figuring. Always after losing 1-1-2, it becomes 2-2-4, 2-2-4. If we lose the first 2-2-4 or get a hit on any step, we begin the second 2-2-4. After the two sets (which could be as fast as 2 consecutive wins or as slow as 6 spins), we determine our drawdown.
We now add 2, divide by 5, and play for 3 sets of 3 spin using x-x-2x format again.
Next round if we are still down after these spins, add 3, divide by 6, play 4 sets
Next round, add 4, divide by 7, play 5 sets, etc.
At any point, if we are even to the session high or at a new high, we reset to our 1-1-2 betting.
B/R suggestion is Nathanael's, 200 units per session.
I have not lost a session yet, having only had drawdowns equal or slightly greater than 100 3 (4?) times. I have been playing 150 spins a set but not for any reason. I find that most sessions pay about 50 units profit per 150 spins, but that has some variance as you would expect.
I don't mean to muddy the water and forgive me if this is just a distraction from what is proving to be a very good system, but all 1-1-2 is is the 1st 3 steps in a 2:1 martingale.
I think that if this will work long term, it should work with any number of steps in the martingale. How about 1-1-2-3? 1-1-2-3-4? 1-1-2-3-4-6? Even 1-1-1? or 1-1? All of these are reasonable options.
The longer the progression, the larger the number of bets before a re-calculation. This also means the fewer recalculations required, the larger the jump from one stage to the next, on average. A progression like 1-1 will require a lot more re-calcs but the increase in the size of bets will climb at a much slower rate.
The units added and divisor can remain the same. In other words, 1 and 4; 2 and 5; 3 and 6; 4 and 7 etc...
I only bring this up to trigger some new ways of looking at a system that is well worth trying to hone to a razor sharp edge.
Colbster, have you considered at any of the above suggestions? Maybe you have already and I'm just wasting a post.
Nate
Colbster
Congrats on a great system. Like Nathanael, I don't want to hijack your thread, but i do think this is along the same ideas and may help you bring it to the next level ... you never know !
I haven't done as much testing as you, but am getting great results so far.
I don't use your bet selection, but your selection is as good as any other.
I don't use the divisor either.
I use the 4 step Marti ... 1,1,2,3
Once I lost that level, I go to 2,2,4,6 for 2 tries.
Like you, if same or higher than last high, I then reset.
If I don't succeed at reaching a new high ( or even to last high ) after the second try at level 2 I go to level 3 ( 3,3,6,9 ) for 3 tries.
And so on.
Now the one thing I do different is if I get a win at level 2 on either the first or the second series, I add 2 more tries at that level before going to next level. I do the same thing at all levels. So I might end up staying at level 2 for many spins before going to level 3.
Anyways, it might sound a little complicated, but it's not really. Just the way I wrote it up that might be confusing ( Sorry )
All this comes from your system and trying to tweak it some more.
Thank you
B
Nathanael and Buffster,
Both of your ideas are wonderful. Yes, the 1-1-2 is strictly the beginning of the 2:1 Marti. Yes, we could theoretically extend further into the Marti, as there are times when I am betting the first 2 of a 2-2-4 after losing my 1-1-2 and it wins and I am even, whereas your idea would put me at +1. On the other hand, losing at 3 vs 2 puts me one step farther down and increases what I need to recover,slowly increasing my bets after a series of losses. I hope you run some tests of your own and let us know if there are any improvements by spreading it out.
Buff, your idea of staying at a level if you have wins is also very solid. You run the risk of getting your win on one of the middle spins and only gaining 1 unit vs the 2 units you win (times the base bet) on either the first or third. However, I like it. I hope you share your results on the thread.
Another thought is, because of the large number of wins in the 1-1-2 range, we could use a 1-2-3 progression which would win us 2-3-3 respectively. Then drop down to the recovery x-x-2x that I suggested. There are lots of options here that change the BR needed, but also the potential winnings. This system is proving to be very solid to me. I have never had one hold up as well as this one has. I'm excited but need any input to make it even more solid. Glad you guys are following along with me on this.
Anyone try the steson idea do d'ambert raise one unit win or lose ,your winning bets should make more money then losing ones when they win keep raising one unit until profit or even.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 06, 09:31 PM 2014
Bet selection: Consider the past 3 spins. If a dozen appears twice in the past 3 spins, it is activated as the hot dozen and we bet on that dozen every spin until a new dozen is activated by showing twice in 3 spins.
1-1-2 as long as we get wins.
After the first set (1-1-2) loses, we add 1 to our drawdown, divide by 4, and play for 2 sets of 3 spins apiece, using the x-x-2x format for each set of 3 spins with x being the result of our figuring. Always after losing 1-1-2, it becomes 2-2-4, 2-2-4. If we lose the first 2-2-4 or get a hit on any step, we begin the second 2-2-4. After the two sets (which could be as fast as 2 consecutive wins or as slow as 6 spins), we determine our drawdown.
We now add 2, divide by 5, and play for 3 sets of 3 spin using x-x-2x format again.
Next round if we are still down after these spins, add 3, divide by 6, play 4 sets
Next round, add 4, divide by 7, play 5 sets, etc.
At any point, if we are even to the session high or at a new high, we reset to our 1-1-2 betting.
B/R suggestion is Nathanael's, 200 units per session.
I have not lost a session yet, having only had drawdowns equal or slightly greater than 100 3 (4?) times. I have been playing 150 spins a set but not for any reason. I find that most sessions pay about 50 units profit per 150 spins, but that has some variance as you would expect.
Thanks for the reply Colbster. How high have you had to go level wise. And what happens when you hit a losing streak when you're playing sets of 10 for example?
Thank you. This is a very good system. The only problem I have is with bet selection. Do you change every time when 2 dozens hit in the last 3 spins? even when you are in the middle of a progression? Can you suggest another bet selection method?
I am fairly certain I have only gotten to level 7, but there are some wins along the way, just not enough to get all the way back to even with the session high. Because of the increasing divisor, there hasn't been any real troubles.
Regarding longer sets, you would expect to have wins during earlier sets, as the number of straight losses is only so many. You would have more regular winning sets with higher losses when they come. There may be someone who could optimize this, but I am not that guy.
@Shaquille
I do change every time the dozen changes, even in the middle of a progression. This allows the system to reflexively respond to the changing situation that random is throwing at us and to catch the streaks that are intrinsic to roulette.
If you are looking for another bet selection, you could play follow-the-last, chase-the-sleeper, or any other number of selection methods. As long as they give a roughly 1/3 hit rate, they will do well in this method. I like playing hot dozens myself, but that isn't necessarily the best, just the one that makes me feel the best.
Why not try to increase first lvl bets to get more in the streaks, wich are something that happens a lot? With this progression, it seems we will be betting only 1 on streaks most of the time... For example, maybe we could start with 3-2-3 instead of 1-1-2? On streaks, we would be getting +6 every hit... it also raises the bet for the first lvl to the double.
Hey ... this is worth to be my first post. Another way to make the dozen selection is to wait for sleeping dozens to trigger. 5 or 6 times might be the magic number? Can anyone test my theory? If not i will test it with my own written software script but that takes some weeks.
THanks,
Jeroen
I tried this according to the rules above and it wasn't long before I reached 300 drawdown level 7. I luckily got it back but if wasn't lucky I could have gone really bad as the stakes were quite high at that level.
This could be good at 0.10 but at full 1 unit stakes it need a lot more than 200 bankroll. Even 10x that would be risky.
As I haven't seen anything even vaguely that level, can you share your spin history so I can confirm?
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 05, 09:28 PM 2014
Tough start, awesome recovery!
Spins: 150
Bets: 147
Total profits: 48 units
Profits per spin: 0.327 units
Max drawdown: 100
Lowest B/R: -98
Highest bet: 22 (1 spin), followed by 12 (1 spin)
The 100-unit drawdown solidifies Nathanael's 200-unit suggestion. This didn't touch anywhere near 200, but 200 gives enough wiggle room to get right. The drawdown came early this session, with only 13 wins during the first 52 spins. Despite the early losses, it recovered easily and was off to the races!
I tested these spins from Reply #44 using the 1-1-2-3-4; 2-2-4-6-8; 3-3-6-9-12; etc... progression.
I always go to 2-2-4-6-8 after a loss on 1-1-2-3-4.
I stay at the same level until I fully recover or I if a win on a smaller starting bet will put me in profit, I drop back to that level.
If I am betting 6-6-12-18-24 and I win and all I need to recover is say 4 chips, I drop back to 3-3-6-9-12 because a win on 3 will give me a new profit.
If I lose the 2-2-4-6-8 or higher level, I don't add anything, I just divide by 4, 5, 6, 7 etc... per Colby's method.
I played all 150 spins making the 147 bets.
Highest draw down was 29 units.
Largest level was 6-6-12-18-24 and I got to it by losing 1-1-2-3-4; then 2-2-4-6-8; then 6-6-12-18-24. I won the 6 unit bet 3 our of 4 spins which put me at a new profit.
Units won were 51.
I'll try one of the other high draw down sessions later.
Nate
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 07, 05:02 PM 2014
As I haven't seen anything even vaguely that level, can you share your spin history so I can confirm?
I was doing on play mode of an online casino. I'll download roulette xtreme again and try it on there. I'm pretty sure it wont take long to reach high drawdown again unless I'm doing it wrong and misunderstood your way of playing. Is the below chart the correct way of playing in levels (a set being x-x-x)
1-1-2 (1 set)
DD+1 div 4 ( 2 sets)
DD+2 div 5 (3 sets)
DD+3 div 6 (4 sets)
DD+4 div 7 (5 sets)
DD+5 div 8 (6 sets)
DD+6 div 9 (7 sets)
DD+7 div 10 (8 sets)
DD+8 div 11 ( 9 sets)
DD+9 div 12 (10 sets)
DD+10 div 13 (11 sets)
@Le Chiffre
Yes, that is the correct setup for the levels
The spins from Reply #38 killed the 1-1-2-3-4 progression.
The stretch of 24 losses and 8 wins did it.
My guess is any of these progressions will work or not work?
You just have to pick your favorite based on your stop loss and win targets.
I have to throw my hat in the ring for Colbster's progression, so far.
I hope others will give this a try, or at least multiple tests.
I've only played 3 times real money but will continue to use this each day,(unless I bust my bankroll) I'm playing for a 5 unit profit then quit. While not playing I'm running tests with old numbers that I've had.
Thanks Colbster for posting this, even if I lose, I still like this method.
For a method to be solid and work in the long run you shouldn't need to play for small targets and quit like you're being sneaky or something or hoping Lady Luck won't notice or will think 'oh it's only a small amount he's playing for, let him have it'. You should be able to play to a million units target if you want all day every day comfortably without fear of going bust.
That being said I'm manually testing this on roulette xtreme which i like to do with methods that take my interest. I'm not a massive fan of bots and trackers as there always seem to be errors in the code and give misleading results either showing it to be the grail or showing it fails when it actually wouldn't at that point. I will do manual test of 10,000 spins of this and post the bankroll trend chart when done.
I completely agree with Le Chiffre about hit and run play. A solid method is just that and won't be staggered by continuous play. I have quit after 150 spins (except when it took more to recover) just for the sake of posting results. That spin count consistently have me results in the 50 unit won range and I wanted to share. I don't think for a second that my results would change if I were to get out earlier or later.
I'm currently at 1,500 manual spins and I've ran into the run from hell. At the minute im up to playing the 13 sets level which in this case is 41-41-82 as you can see when it gets to that level it's a slippery slope to hell. I'll keep going to see if it recovers as it's not real money but if it was real money I think most people would be feeling a bit sick at this point.
Le
Just looking at your screenshot out to the lower right where the formula is------are you sure you're doing this right?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 09, 12:46 PM 2014
Le
Just looking at your screenshot out to the lower right where the formula is------are you sure you're doing this right?
Sam
Hi Sam, I playing to the rules confirmed in an earlier post by Colbster so the method is correct. And as I've done this by hand I can assure you its correct, not fault of a bot.
Le
No need to get your hackles up!! I was going to have the systems botted and just wanted to confirm the rules. As I read it--and I've read it three times---your way and the way Colby set forth the rules are not the same. I suppose I'm reading it wrong, huh?
Anyway, I'll leave it be and move on.
Thanks.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 09, 01:10 PM 2014
Le
No need to get your hackles up!! I was going to have the systems botted and just wanted to confirm the rules. As I read it--and I've read it three times---your way and the way Colby set forth the rules are not the same. I suppose I'm reading it wrong, huh?
Anyway, I'll leave it be and move on.
Thanks.
Sam
Hi Sam, sorry if it sounded like i was being rude as I certainly wasn't trying to be. Just wanted to stress that I was doing it correctly (at least from what Colbster agreed when I posted the formula a few days ago). Please do make a bot if you have some spare time as it's always good to see the results they produce. I'm a fan of doing it by hand so I know for sure (as obviously I've done it and seen it play out) but that's not to say lessons can't be learned from the bot results.
Anyway, you'll see the formula I posted a few posts ago. That's what I was playing and Colbster confirmed it was correct. It may be different to the oriingal post and there's been a few modifications throughout.
Thanks for all your help on the forum.
Le
In post 46. Colby outlines his system again. In post 51, you seem to agree with it. From there until now I can find no post where the scheme you use is listed.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 09, 02:20 PM 2014
Le
In post 46. Colby outlines his system again. In post 51, you seem to agree with it. From there until now I can find no post where the scheme you use is listed.
Sam
Sam, bottom of page 4, reply 59
The numbers that are shown in your screenshot have 5 wins in the last 11 spins. Granted, 3 of those 5 are on the second spin of a 3-spin set which returns the least, but between the 5 tight wins, there should have been a VERY solid recovery that doesn't appear to be reflected in the chart. I would clearly have to see the whole session to see where we deviate, but any time you get 5 out of 11 on the dozens (and you appear to be at high bets according to the chart), you should have a steep uptick that appears to be absent.
Le Chifre,
Are you forcing every set to take 3 spins? The sets begin fresh after 3 losses or any win during the 3. If we get a L-L-L, a L-W, a L-L-W, or a W, we have completed that set and begin the next set of 3 spins. Also, are you forcing the complete number of sets at each level? That only applies if we haven't reached a new high (or equal to the old high), at which point we automatically resume with the 1-1-2 first level. I just want to make sure we are all working with the same rules, as all I have clarified so far is the progression question you had.
Colbster
Will you direct me to the post where you, not Le_Chiffre, posted the progression? Your progressions was up 2, then 4 and so on. I can find no post where you direct anyone to go up one on a loss as the chart he posted.
Must be me blind day!!
Sam
Yeah, something is not firing quite right here. You appear to take about a 650 unit drawdown over the course of 25 or 30 spins. Using your 41-41-82 figures, you would recover in the range of about 375 units in just the 5 wins I mentioned just previously. Instead, you are only 123 units off your low.
@Sam,
It is in reply 59. He asked about the formula for figuring the bets for each level. After the first 1-1-2, loss, we move to two sets of 2-2-4. After that, we take whatever the current drawdown from the maximum is, add a number that increases by 1 each level (it increases by 1 to figure level 2, 2 for level 3, etc.). We then take that amount, divide by the appropriate divisor, which is also determined on a last set +1 basis, and round up. This constitutes the new value for x and we play x-x-2x as our sets, with the number of sets also determined by the previous sets value +1. Any win or 3 losses ends a set, and we play only until we equal the previous high or set a new high.
OK, guys, I copied the original post to my hard drive. It is NOT the same. (I always do this when something has real potential as the author may realize the potential and delete the whole thread--so my copying is a compliment.)
I have had this gripe for years: There are so many tweaks, twists and turns one can never be sure of what's what.
Thanks for the replies. I'll just read for a while.
Sam
Colbster i was using the approach in 59 but I was just betting on the last dozen spun to repeat. I was wasn't using your rules for triggers. Maybe that is the problem although random is random and any dozen chosen the progression should be able to work for.
You do not have to tap me on my shoulder but I think waiting for a dozen not to hit for 5 or 6 times or even more, will lower the number of bets but will improve hit ratio. Sessions of not hitting a dozen for 6 times are more scarse then the average of 1 on 3. If you kick it up to 9 or so, so a dozen did not hit for 9 consecutive spins, and start betting, saves you at least 3 levels of betting, which might improve the overall success ratio. Only these do not occur so often.
Just my 2 cents!
Test with spins from Wiesbaden from today.
Been playing at my local casino online rng. ( I know rng )
Anyways been playing my version of your system ( very similar to yours ).
I've won 20 units per night.
Tonight's session won 21 units. Only difference was tonight's session wasn't from hell but verrrry close. Half way through after leaving my level 1 ... it ran up to my level 5 ( 104 spins ) to finally clear a new high.
Whole session took 164 spins.
I'll get into more precissions when I have more time.
Thanks Colbster
B
Here are the spins from Reply #38 played using Oscar's Grind. Plus 1 on a win. Stay the same on a loss.
Also the worst series of spins playing stretched Oscar's Grind. Plus 1 after 2 wins at a level. Stay the same on a loss. Largest draw down was 78 units.
Just looking at options.
well guys i carried on playing the way i was doing and i managed to recover quicker than i thought i would. highest i got up to was 15 sets. will keep going with the test.
Even with that nasty stretch, you gained over 1 unit every 3 spins. That's better than my average by a sliver. Glad it recovered.com although I don't like that big of a drawdown.
yes it was a nice recovery. Playing this 0.10 unit stakes this could have some long term potential. Would take a very nasty session to go bust at 0.10 stakes with a large bankroll.
20 units again tonight .... only 34 spins needed.
Easy compared to yesterday.
Once again... Thanks Colbster
B
Played 3 sesions today with 20 units gain each, so 60 units profit for today. I had a big DD of 170 units but recovered. My question is, what would have happend if I had got a losing streak when my bet was 20 20 40 ( aprox )? Isn't it like just starting with 20 20 40 and catching a losing streak? I am not yet convinced that I won't lose all my winnings if I continue to play this system. I like it alot when luck is on my side but when I start losing and losing and I have to bet 20 20 40 for 8 rounds its not fun :)
Another 25 units in 50 spins
Nice
Thanks Colbster
B
Quote from: Buffster on Feb 09, 09:16 PM 2014
Anyways been playing my version of your system ( very similar to yours ).
B
B
Would you please elaborate on your version of the system. This begs to be botted.
Sam
Hi Sam
Yeah sure ....
Well, my version compared to Colbsters is that for the betting ( progression ), I don't want to start calculating my drawdown and add then divide etc. If you want to fine.
What I do is I bet 1,1,2 like Colbster. I bet that till I have 2 complete losses of the 1,1,2 cycle. Anywhere in this stage or any other stage for that matter gets reset on a new high.
Then my next step is 3,3,6. Here I play at 3,3,6 until I have 4 complete losses of the 3,3,6 cycle.
Next step is 4,4,8 ( for 5 loses) ... 5,5,10 ( for 6 loses )... 6,6,12 ( for 7 loses)... etc.
Also, just to make things clear ... Say I'm at 1,1 in my 1,1,2 cycle ... and I won ... If I'm not at a new high, I restart at 1,1,2 until I have lost 2 complete cycles. Then if not at new high, I progress to 3,3,6 for 4 complete lost cycles or new high.
As for my bet selection.... it's kinda hard to explain, but I guess Colbster's best of three method is fine. Any dominance betting is fine. I wouldn't go with sleepers though. And if your playing dominance, don't get stuck on one dozen for too long....it might just be sleeping ... so move on.
Shouldn't be hard to BOT.
Enjoy and say thanks to Colbster for your winnings.
PS I played my version at Betvoyager NZ and my bet selection didn't fare to well. Go figure.
I play at my local casino's online version. ( Single zero ... but hey...the zero is just a TAX )
B
Quote from: shaquille3 on Feb 11, 03:39 PM 2014
Played 3 sesions today with 20 units gain each, so 60 units profit for today. I had a big DD of 170 units but recovered. My question is, what would have happend if I had got a losing streak when my bet was 20 20 40 ( aprox )? Isn't it like just starting with 20 20 40 and catching a losing streak? I am not yet convinced that I won't lose all my winnings if I continue to play this system. I like it a lot when luck is on my side but when I start losing and losing and I have to bet 20 20 40 for 8 rounds its not fun :)
Well, I've played everyday for the past 7 days. Don't know if it's just luck on my side, but I haven't gone higher than my level 5 so far. I know it's not much of a sample yet, but I'll keep posting my results.
B
The attached addition to Colbster's spins from Reply #38 is using the following progression rules.
[suspicious]
Our progression is 1-1-2-3-4-6-9.
As long as we don't lose more than 7 bets in a row, we win 1 or 2 units each win.
If we lose we will have lost 26 units. To try to recover those units I divide by 4 and then divide that result by 2 and that number determines the level I have to start my progression at.
Here's an example. I just lost 26 units. 26 divided by 4 = 6.5. 6.5 divided by 2 = 3.25. To limit the size of our bets let's round down to 3. Multiply each number by 3 and our next progression is 3-3-6-9-12-18-27. This means that if I win 5 or so times before I lose another 7 times in a row. If you study my attachment, you will see this very clearly. I chose these spins because at row 30-36 we lose 7 times and again at row 40-49 we lose 10 times.
You'll see that after losing our 3-3-6-9-12-18-27 set, we are down 95 units. 95 divided by 4 = 23.75 divided by 2 = 11.875. Round this up to 12 and our new progression is 12-12-24-36-48-72-108. It only took 5 wins to fully recover because we were down 95 and each win is 12 or 24 units. Obviously most of the wins were at 24 or it would have take 6 or 7 wins.
If we want to be less aggressive we can divide by more than 4 and recover at a slower pace. We divide by 2 because each win pay 2:1.
Just presenting options.[/suspicious]
4 complete losses of the 3,3,6 cycle
Thanks, Buffster.
Looking at your writing above, I understand that to mean you play 3, 3, 6 and if you lose, 3, 3, 6 again and if you lose--again---and a final time.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 11, 06:28 PM 2014
4 complete losses of the 3,3,6 cycle
Thanks, Buffster.
Looking at your writing above, I understand that to mean you play 3, 3, 6 and if you lose, 3, 3, 6 again and if you lose--again---and a final time.
Sam
Sam
Doesn't mean 4 losses in a row ..... it means a total of 4 losses at level 2 .... total of 5 losses at level 3 and so on.
B
Another test with spins from Wiesbaden of 10 February 2014
Had a DD of 178. Even had to bet 22-22-44 for a few spins but it recovered quite nicely.
This is played the way Colbster plays this.
I'm curious to see how the spins went for the second dramatic drawdown after the 50-spin mark. I understand the initial drawdown and the excellent recovery to almost full recovery. However, I wouldn't expect to see such a steep decrease immediately after as you would likely refigure the smaller drawdown divided among the greater number of sets. I would expect to see that secondary drawdown be a little flatter. Either way, I'm pleased to see the recovery happened as appears to be the norm. The 178 is still within the 200 range Nathanael recommended and it crawled back to the +50 goal eventually. Slow session but ultimately successful!
@Buffster
I like your variation on the progression. While I am one who doesn't mind figuring for the sake of getting the math just right, I know it might not be practical in a live-wheel situation at a casino. Yours is much more formulaic and can be written down in advance. It might be just right for playing in real time to not have to worry about time constraints and mathematical errors. Nice! :thumbsup:
Here are the spins I used.
I'll recheck this session when I'm back home
Played today till now another 5 sesions of 20 units gain each, so 100 till now and it's early ( 11 AM ). I played this for 2 days, 30 minutes a day and untill now it doubled my BR. I will report my progress with this but it seams like a winning system. Thank you for that Colby.
Another sesion but it was from hell :) , The DD wasn't that bad but it kept going up and down, reached level 14 where i had to bet 15 times, but finally after 1 hour of spins :)) it recoved, I had some doubts and I wanted to retire but I didn't and I am glad.
@Sam,
I have bad news >:(. I played my version using your numbers and did not have pleasant results. That's not entirely true, but it puts a dent in the armor. Here are the results as I have figured them.
Total spins in your file: 556
Total bets: 552
Total units won: 72 (1 off the high of 73)
Profits per spin: 0.130
Here's where it gets dicey:
Largest drawdown: 493
Lowest B/R: -493
Highest bet made: 72 (4 times: won 2, lost 2)
The system recovered as advertised, but the drawdown was MUCH greater than I have witnessed prior to this.
I reran the numbers with us busting out at our previous drawdown limit of 200. After our first loss, we were at -221. I started the next session and continued on with the spins as presented. By the end of your spins, I had recovered 139 of those lost, leaving us at a -83 balance. Do you play with a higher bankroll or take the loss and climb back? Totally personal pleasure. This would have been the first bust I have seen at the 200 mark, so I think I will continue playing at that level, but there are other options.
I think your next session will put you in the plus Colbster.
If not I would increase my betting level for the next 2 sessions, if needed. : )
I agree, AMK.
This session actually does not phase me and we all know that we will have variance that will upset sessions here and there. The recovery strength of this method appears to be where it excels. This does appear to fall into the grind category, but it seems very solid.
GLC always recommends that we try to adopt the attitude, and I know it's hard, that only 5-10% of what we win will stay in our pockets. The rest will be taken back in losses. I think he calls it taxes we have to pay the casino to play.
Unfortunately, I have a predisposition toward slots. This system reminds of my favorite slot machine. It lets me win and win and win and then it takes a big bite out of my winnings. If I don't limit that bite, it takes it all. By using a stop loss, I've started to stay in the profit category much longer. I'm my worst enemy when it comes to gambling.
Don't be too surprised if you don't have a win/loss record similar to this: +51, +55, +23, +46, +68, +35, +59, +52, -200, +63, +57, +65, -200, +48, +61, +50, +54, +58, -200 etc... Still a winning system, but how can it continue to win and win and win with no losses? It would be the end of roulette as we know it.
There's nothing special about the bet selection process, so it must be the unique progression. As it goes deeper and deeper in the hole, it takes some lucky hits to come out quickly. If we don't always get them, we shouldn't get too discouraged.
Well, learnt a lesson yesterday ... you should not play ( online ) unless you know that you can play your entire session. Had a Doctor's appointment, which I had forgoten about, when the wife said we had to leave ...... sh*t.... was in a session up to level 5 ( was down 80 units ). Oh well...what can I say ... I'm sure the system would have pulled through. hmmm I guess I could have started today's session a level 5 and continued from there ... too late ...!
Just played a session and won back 20 units. ^-^
Thanks Colbster
B
Buffster, it happend to me also, I had to leave in the middle of the sesion an i was down like 60 units, but when i came back I started another sesion at the level I left it and it recoved eventualy :). The sesions I hate the most are the ones that after you go down, recover but not enough and you go back down again and recover and back down again but eventualy recover. I hate those sesions but the good part is I recoved every time, even if I had to play 1 hour to recover. In 3 days I tripled my BR and its still going. Thanks again for this system. I modified it alittle, when I am at a higher level and I have to bet for example 20 units for more than 10 rounds and if I win the first 3-4 bets I stop and recalculate to lower the bet. And sometimes when I recover but not enough and I have to recover lets say 20 units and I am at level 12, I lower my level to 3-4 to bet 5 times max and not 13-14.
Also, don't know if it's greed >:D but last session I was at +6 and was in recovery at level4 when I got to +5, instead of reducing my level, I stayed at level4 ( Greed or impatients ) and wouldn't you know I caught a few bad spins and brought my drawdown even lower and had to go to level5 but I did recover and went to +14 and then went on to + 20.
Live and learn. ( 59 yrs old (soon ) and still learning )
B
Then my next step is 3,3,6. Here I play at 3,3,6 until I have 4 complete losses of the 3,3,6 cycle.
Buffster
Pardon my density!! I simply don't understand. Could you spell it out for me?
OK, I bet 3 units
Then I bet a second 3 units
and then I bet 6 units........
What is my fourth bet or fourth loss?
Thanks in advance.
Samster
Sam,
I'm pretty sure I can help here clear the confusion. A complete loss of the 3,3,6 cycle would be a loss at 3, a loss at 3, and a loss at 6. That is one complete loss of a cycle, not 3 separate losses. To lose 4 cycles, you would lose 3-3-6, 3-3-6, 3-3-6, 3-3-6. When he gets wins, he handles them differently, but he doesn't move up to the next level until he has lost 4 sets of 3 spins.
Colbster
That was my original thought.
Thanks
Sam
If someone that knows RX could code this so whe can test it for 1 million spins it would be awsome. If this works on long term it would be as close to a holey grail as I have seen.
Another 20 units...77 spins ::)
It helps a lot when you concentrate... :yawn:
Thanks C
B
PS...Sam ...Colbster explained it the right way ... :-[
Buff,
Your numbers have been awesome! I'm glad to see you doing so well with this. I wish I had a casino near me (or even the ability to play online - Stupid BS American no-liberty havin' sons of ......... - Dang, I wish I could play online!!!!) I would love to put a nickel or two on some felt and actually have a system work for me for once.
Colbster
Really...no local Casinos .... F*****...
My local Casino is always full .... the tables are FULL ... But they have their own online service ... for Quebec only.
They finally changed their crappy software and installed a better version ... still not BV but decent.
It's Government run... so it would be a scandal if they had rigged software. They already have the tightest slots I've ever seen.
I changed my bet selection and this new selection seems to be doing better ... Still new so not really tested all that much. It's based on Right, Left and Same as Last movement.
D1->D2 =R D1->D3 =L D1->D1= S as L ....etc.
I look at trends within the movement.
I'll keep you updated as to how it fares with my other selections.
Once again ... NICE SYSTEM
Thanks
B 8)
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 13, 05:59 PM 2014
Buff,
Your numbers have been awesome! I'm glad to see you doing so well with this. I wish I had a casino near me (or even the ability to play online - silly BS American no-liberty havin' sons of ......... - Dang, I wish I could play online!!!!) I would love to put a nickel or two on some felt and actually have a system work for me for once.
Buff
I suspect there will soon be ways to log onto the New Jersey casinos through a rented address. Can a U.S. citizen have dual state residency's?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 13, 07:26 PM 2014
Buff
I suspect there will soon be ways to log onto the New Jersey casinos through a rented address. Can a U.S. citizen have dual state residency's?
Sam
That and a Virtual Visa Card .... ( no address ) Just country of origin.
B
What's with BV-NZ
Did some tests with Random.org and BV-NZ
Random.org 1-36.... BV-NZ same 1-36
My bet selection always hit between 42 % and 58 % at Random.org
Barely hit 25 % at BV-NZ ( fun mode of course )
Go figure
B
This system just backfired and I lost 400 units, all of my BR. Luckily I withdrawen my initial BR so nothing is lost. I had a real sesion from hell, I cached only 2 of 10 bets of 10 10 20 ( level 9 ) and lost all :(.
Good luck to all of you and I hope you won't catch such a session.
Sorry to hear about your loss Shaquille :embarrassed:
These bad runs will no doubt happen. That's why I think a 200 unit bank seems like the best idea. It is not too much that you can't climb back steadily with a few winning games.
cheers
Shaq. What kind of wheel are you playing ? Live dealer or RNG/autowheel ?
Buff. "what's wrong with BV - NZ" ? 3 simple letters RNG.
I played on BV no zero roulette, so RNG. But this string of bad luck can happen and will happen on a live wheel aswell, you just have to be lucky not to catch it at the beginning so you can afford the lose and try to recover from the winnings. Either way, I started with 200 BR, the max I had was 800 and I lost 400, so at the end I still doubled my initial BR. I first would like to see this put to test with RX on 1 million spins, if someone could code it and I think I will try again after some tests on FUN mode :) .
I still think this is a good system.
Good luck to all.
Fun mode RNG is also "go easy" mode. Real play is a different animal in that the "targeting" of your bets is more severe. This was been documented in 2010 from memory ?
If interested do a search on here By looking at DOCUMENTED PROOF OF CHEATING RNG SOFTWARE.
I always think you have a better chance on live dealer spun wheels. Look at buffs post about 5 back where he mentions only 25% on BV - NZ in FUN mode VS around 50% +/- on Random.org.
Yes, I know that Fun mode is easyer and that on live wheel you have more chanse but I like to always play on no zero roulette becouse that zero sometimes just f**ks your system and I hate that, It makes me more confident playing on no zero roulette. And I also like to keep my sesions short and I like the speed of RNG. But I will try this system on a live wheel also, what casino do you recommand?
Shaq. I don't know what country you are in ? but Party Casino may be worth a look. I have an account there & sometimes play Live dealer roulette & also Baccarat. They payout OK. The spins are around 1 per min. & the dealers change every 1/2 hour. The bet window is tight at only 15 seconds. The heard but not seen live players get longer ?
They run 24/7. You have to join to view, like most casinos. They aren't test friendly & always have a prompt for money if you are just viewing the play & will time you out after a few non bet spins.
The minimum bet is $2/Euro/GBP that's your choice. The max. bet is 250 on insides & 2k on any outside position. The max. total bet is 2,500. They also have a V.I.P. table with higher max. limits.
There's also Paddy Power (PP) but many countries are restricted, including OZ but the bet range is way better than most. Someone recently posted a screen shot of PP's limits which showed 1 - 100,000 for the outside bets. Others mentioned Dublin bet & I think a spin off from that is Live Party or something ?
Smart Live UK is ok for testing but rather slow with 2 minute spins & the bets can be restrictive depending on your play, like the EC's are min. $10.
For testing the free fun mode is linked to the same live dealer bet wheel. They give you 1,000 in fun chips to play with. Everything else is the same as the money play. They don't time you out so I think it is one of the best wheels to test live play on if you can put up with the slow spins & the yap yap of the dealers or turn the sound down. It's a good casino if you have a lot of bets to place, somthing like a 40 second bet window. They pay ok too.
Thank you for the sugestions. I will look into them next time I want to try this system :)
I am not disparaging anyone; I am just offering a point of view.....
To say you ran something one time and made a judgement is just not correct thinking. I have been running a certain sheet for days using the ExcelBot's internal RNG. It does nothing but profit, day after day. So I decided to run it on BVSZ play money. The first time I ran, it the thing went almost straight down. Lost $500 before quick could get ready.
Now, should I draw a conclusion from the above? NO! There are always "rogue" runs where things are either way too good or way too bad.
I set the bot for BV last night and after over 5,000 spins it is in a nice profit. I am bugging Stef to write into the bot a "virtual" mode so one can sit and watch the initial spins. I think we can determine early--at no cost--whether to play or get out.
Sam
can you share the excel sheet for excelbot?
The sheet is not mine; I did not order it's creation. Someone else did and I'm just testing it.
Listen, I've seen these things work for days and then crash.
In my opinion the only thing which will EVER work is to learn when a trot is going a certain direction early in the trot. There are good, average, and bad trots. If one could identify a good trot early, he could make money. If he could identify a bad trot early, he could just not bet and come back later.
I've truly learned one thing---take it or leave it. No matter what produces the "results", be in RNG, Random Org., BV or a real wheel, the results will come in peaks and valleys. Be that numbers, dozens, streets or whatever. Everything confirms to this peak-valley phenomenon.
Find the key and reap the rewards.
Sam
Sam
Which betting scheme are you using ... Colbster's calculating scheme or my no calculation scheme ?
Just curious
Thanks
B
I have not yet tried the Colby's Dozen Grind. It is on my list to test, but It has not been botted. I do bot testing where possible.
Sam
OK.... So which progression are you using ?
B
Quote from: Buffster on Feb 15, 12:51 PM 2014
OK.... So which progression are you using ?
B
Couldn't modify my post ... too late... So just to elaborate a bit more...
Are you using my progression OR are you using some other SECRET progression :twisted:
Thanks
B
Buffster
I don't have any secret progressions.
If you guys think this is a winning idea, I can pay to have the sheet written and we shall see. I can run it on Dublin or BV, but not SmartLive as they will not let you play for fun any more.
I have done this many times and what I always find is that while you were seeing it work, you were seeing an anomaly. When you test it over 5,000 spins or more, it breaks down.
There is no logical reason why numbers should run in your favor--no matter what you're doing--and then turn on you and go the other way, but they do. And they do it will 100% certainty.
That is why I am going to devote the majority of my non-bot time to trying to look at a trot early on and determine where it will be in 100 spins.
I can spare the $25 to test this....IF......I am 100% clear on the rules.
Sam
25$ or 30$ ?
From 25 to 50 depending on the difficulty.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 15, 12:25 PM 2014
The sheet is not mine; I did not order it's creation. Someone else did and I'm just testing it.
Listen, I've seen these things work for days and then crash.
In my opinion the only thing which will EVER work is to learn when a trot is going a certain direction early in the trot. There are good, average, and bad trots. If one could identify a good trot early, he could make money. If he could identify a bad trot early, he could just not bet and come back later.
I've truly learned one thing---take it or leave it. No matter what produces the "results", be in RNG, Random Org., BV or a real wheel, the results will come in peaks and valleys. Be that numbers, dozens, streets or whatever. Everything confirms to this peak-valley phenomenon.
Find the key and reap the rewards.
Sam
In my humble opinion the above statement should be chiseled in stone. Especially this "Everything conforms to this peak-valley phenomenon."
I have gone from loser to winner by bailing early if I'm getting bad spins for my system. I'm not saying I'm always correct, but I'm correct often enough to have won more than I've lost over the last few months. It's a subjective decision based on objective data. I don't think it can be taught. Just comes from knowing your system inside and out and spending time at the table playing it.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 15, 11:35 AM 2014
I am not disparaging anyone; I am just offering a point of view.....
To say you ran something one time and made a judgement is just not correct thinking. I have been running a certain sheet for days using the ExcelBot's internal RNG. It does nothing but profit, day after day. So I decided to run it on BVSZ play money. The first time I ran, it the thing went almost straight down. Lost $500 before quick could get ready.
Now, should I draw a conclusion from the above? NO! There are always "rogue" runs where things are either way too good or way too bad.
I set the bot for BV last night and after over 5,000 spins it is in a nice profit. I am bugging Stef to write into the bot a "virtual" mode so one can sit and watch the initial spins. I think we can determine early--at no cost--whether to play or get out.
Sam
Sam
I thought you were talking about playing Colby's Grind .... that's why I was asking about which progression you were using .... I finally understood you were talking about something else .... It all makes sense now.
Thanks
B