This is 1-5 splits bet.
For each hit in column 1 or 3 place 1 SPLIT (at the unhit part within that particular Street hit), do this in a progressive bet until 5 Splits bet (1+1+1+1+1 Splits bet) WHEN 5 splits are bet begin progression, (beginning with 2u). Stop/Restart at any hit.
Progression: 2 3 4 6 8 11 16 22 30 42 58 80 111 154 213
BR/Stoploss: 200u
Ignatus, do you bet at 6,7,8 street (split) or just at the top 5?
Quote from: blueman on Dec 03, 04:09 AM 2017
Ignatus, do you bet at 6,7,8 street (split) or just at the top 5?
No, the way i played it/tested it was with 5 splits only.
My third test game on BVNZ comes with 17x progression: .............80-111 -154-213- ? - hit (x17)?? To dangerous with 10 numbers? Google english, sorry. :yawn:
Quote from: blueman on Dec 03, 11:35 AM 2017
My third test game on BVNZ comes with 17x progression: .............80-111 -154-213- ? - hit (x17)?? To dangerous with 10 numbers? Google english, sorry. :yawn:
Yes i know. playing with progression is always a risk, but with a set wingoal & stoploss it May work...
Quote from: blueman on Dec 03, 11:35 AM 2017
My third test game on BVNZ comes with 17x progression: .............80-111 -154-213- ? - hit (x17)?? To dangerous with 10 numbers? Google english, sorry. :yawn:
are you testing this with RNG real money ??? if YES, do with your own risk..
Quote from: ignatus on Dec 03, 12:11 PM 2017
Yes i know. playing with progression is always a risk, but with a set wingoal & stoploss it May work...
I know, but the first loss in the third game? Maybe go to seven splits? :question:
Quote from: Ratwood85 on Dec 03, 01:00 PM 2017
are you testing this with RNG real money ??? if YES, do with your own risk..
not with real money! :thumbsup:
Quote from: ignatus on Dec 02, 12:07 AM 2017
Progression: 2 3 4 6 8 11 16 22 30 42 58 80 111 154 213
That progression is intolerably long. Can't you just incorporate some virtual losses at the beginning and make that progression several steps shorter?
Is this a realistic progression when design to play in real casino ?