I have put together a means of betting that overcomes the house advantage (even on American Roulette, but I don't see why you would give up the extra profits) in a very understandable way. It can be explained in a way that will please the math guys, can be played flat or with a progression, and will work with many different methods of playing dozens. It has some elements that will appeal to believers in the gambler's fallacy, but it is based squarely in the notion that wheels have no memory, and that spins are, therefore, completely random.
I will not be explaining the actual bet selection method I use because it is nothing but noise that distracts from the elegance of making bets that have a positive expectancy. I have discussed this betting mechanism with several contributors whom you would all recognize, with almost universal interest (the only dissenter can be explained away by mentioning a language barrier - it also lead to my decision to ignore the actual bet selection I use because this individual couldn't get past the simplistic method I have been using).
Right here, I need to take a second to give full credit to two individuals - Richard, of Signum fame, and ommanipadmihum who made a brilliant leap in applying Signum to the dozens. Both of their postings eventually directed me to where I am happy to find myself in my evolution as a winning roulette player.
For any new readers who might not be familiar with the Signum system, it is a very clever way of interpreting short-term trends to help predict the next spin result on an EC bet. Ommanipadmihum realized that the system could work on the dozens by turning the dozens bets into an EC bet, expecting movement among dozens from the last spin to the next as being either to the left or to the right. Numerous postings documented the great results that came from applying EC methods but gaining 2-1 rewards. The trip up came when the dozens didn't move to the left or to the right, but repeated. Some suggested the best way was to start putting a unit on the repeating dozen after a series of repeats.
Following is my improvement on the staking method that was discussed, as well as a brief mathematical explanation of how this betting method beats the house advantage over the long term:
Note: I will not expound on what methodology you should use to determine expected L-R values. You can use a follow-the-last, opposite-of-last, Signum, Lww, or whatever other system you choose to determine if your expectation is for the dozen to move left or right. For the sake of this example, I have determined that the last spin fell in the 2nd dozen and I expect the next spin will move to the left into the 1st dozen.
Since I expect the next bet to be in the 1st dozen, I place one unit there. I place another unit on the 2nd dozen as the last dozen to have spun. In the past, we have assumed that the house advantage would rule in such a bet because 13/37 would be (-2) and 24/37 would be (+1), resulting in -2 units per every 37 spins on average. If we were to leave the bets on these two dozens, that is exactly what would occur. This is where my betting method diverges from the rest. This system minimizes losses, locks in profits, and allows the winning to run on all at the same time.
If the spin gives us a result in the 1st dozen, we would count this as a win (W) and take our money off of the table. If the spin gives us a result in the 3rd dozen, we would count this as a loss (L) and our money would be taken off the table anyway. However, as long as the 2nd dozen might continue to repeat (R), we will duplicate our bet exactly. This is the entirety of the Eggleston Betting system. Stop with a win, stop with a loss, keep winning with repeats. Then wait for whatever your next trigger is and begin again.
Why does this work? If we get a win from the 1st dozen, we are (+1), meaning (+12) out of 37 spins on average. With a spin of 0 or the 3rd dozen, we are (-2), meaning (-26) out of 37 spins on average. Excluding the 2nd dozen results, we are currently (-14) in 37 spins. That means we would need the results from the 2nd dozen to average (+1. 1667) per spin to overcome the house advantage (-14 offset over 12 spins out of 37 where we expect 2nd dozen).
What can we expect from typical returns from the 2nd dozen? Since we won (+1) unit already with a repeat in the 2nd dozen, our next totally random spin has 1/12/12/12 out of 37 spins likelihood of hitting each position on the table again. Ignoring the 0 here (just for the sake of easing the calculations), rather than the +1/+1/-2 results we would expect from covering 2 dozens, our new expectations are +2/+2/-1, or a grand total of +3. Divided by the three possible outcomes, the average spin at this level is +1, exactly matching our usual expectations of the +1/+1/-2 2-dozen bet payouts.
However, of these spins, roughly one third will result in yet another spin of the 2nd dozen, taking the same considerations as above to a new expected +3/+3/0, or +2 average. Already, at this point, we are into positive expectancy territory. Of the 12/37 spins that take us to the 2nd layer of payout expectations, approximately 4 spins (1/3 of 12) will go to a 3rd layer of payouts. Another 1+ (4/3) will go to the 4th layer of payouts, +4/+4/+1, or +3 average. Extrapolated out to these higher layers, the 12 spins in the 2nd dozen will pay approximately (8x+1, 3x+2, and 1x+3, or a total of 17). Remember that we only needed to overcome -14 from the other 25 spins, giving us an expectation of +3 every 37 spins, more than +. 08 units on every spin on average. Don't lose sight that over long periods, repeats can extend into higher level of payouts on those incredibly fun streaks that we have all seen where we hit 6, 7, 8, or more in the same dozen.
The benefit to this system only comes when we follow the rules which require we stop betting after a win or a loss until a new trigger begins a new bet begins.
Some advantages of this system:
It can be played with a flat bet or with a progression
It stays out of the way of prolonged series of results in one direction or the other
Even when our anticipated direction of movement is wrong, we may still end up being winners
It features advantages of both EC and 2-1 bets
It overcomes the house advantage
I am anxious to hear your reactions to this system. What I have received so far has been very supportive, but if you see somewhere that it can be improved, by all means let me know. I am also keen to hear how people may apply this to different systems they already play, just with the improved odds of profiting.
Also, I have attached a 40-spin series that ends with a net of +3 units, just slightly off my expected winnings of +3. xxx in 37 spins. It was hurt in the middle by the brutal 2-3-2 chops but recovered. Had I been playing my system, the net would have been +10, although I do use a negative progression. Playing same as last is obviously a wildly simplistic betting method, but this should demonstrate the methodology and thoughts behind the system.
Hi Colbster and thanks for sharing!
I will have to look this up myself.
I think that there will be interest in your post.
Cheers
well done...nicely explained and really simple :) :)
Maybe attachment will tell you something.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Jan 19, 04:22 PM 2011
Maybe attachment will tell you something.
L/R= left and Right or Loss/(and something beginning with R) ? :question:
R=right
L=left
Same story but different approach.
Using just the basic system of follow-the-last as I described above, I was +17 units on that series of spins that you attached. You showed some repeating dozens as having moved, which is not consistent with the betting system I have proposed.
That said, I am always keen to hear your thoughts on matters, as you have been around this forum for quite some time. What specific point were you trying to make, as I think I may have missed it.
how do you know when to go L OR RIGHT ?
Warrior
Colbster has not said HOW he selects where to bet, he suggests follow the last in his example but you may try different thoughts. He says that this should work whatever as long as you follow the method.
Quote from: Blood Angel on Jan 20, 08:54 AM 2011
Warrior
Colbster has not said HOW he selects where to bet, he suggests follow the last in his example but you may try different thoughts. He says that this should work whatever as long as you follow the method.
ok thanks.
Quote from: Colbster on Jan 19, 04:55 PM 2011
Using just the basic system of follow-the-last as I described above, I was +17 units on that series of spins that you attached. You showed some repeating dozens as having moved, which is not consistent with the betting system I have proposed.
That said, I am always keen to hear your thoughts on matters, as you have been around this forum for quite some time. What specific point were you trying to make, as I think I may have missed it.
You didn't miss anything,as gave you this sample of numbers to test your way,while it could be played in many diff.ways,and believe me neither works on the long
run,that is these variations I have tested.Maybe your might work,one never knows unless throughouly tested.
I'm glad I didn't miss anything specific. I was worried that something was right out front that I couldn't grasp. Anyway, the +17 I got from flat-betting that basic method I posted seemed weak to me because of the number of spins. I re-tested the same spins with my personal method using the progression: Total +132 Highest point +135 Lowest point -19 (on spin 21).
I usually play the columns at the same time, as this is an easy system to track. I will test the columns from your posted spins and post results shortly.
Thanks for the data.
Colbster,
Thanks for sharing the method. Can you enlighten us on the progression that you use for this? I am sure everyone is interested after you said you reach +132 on those spins.
I use a martingale progression only up to 64. I temper the danger of the martingale my having two separate columns, 1 for L and 1 for R, with their own progressions. With a nasty series of chops on a typical martingale, you reach 64 and fail after 7 spins. With my way of using two columns, 7 spins only takes you to 16 in one column and 8 in the same 7 spins. It allows you to carry on for 14 spins of straight chops before failure (8,192 on the usual martingale), with the possibility remaining of still making a profit depending on appearance of repeats during that streak. I prefer using the progression because it allows the value of repeats to increase drastically. This is where most of my profits come from.
The columns were considerably tougher. When using the flat betting method I detailed, the total of columns was -21, meaning a net of -4 for the whole session. My personal method was down -26, although that was right in the middle of a progression at level 16 and could have easily recoved. Nevertheless, the running total using my method was +109. I would have stopped the session much earlier based on my own playing rules, but this was nice to see. +105 in 390 spins works out to +.269 units per spin.
Quote from: Colbster on Jan 19, 02:25 PM 2011
I have put together a means of betting that overcomes the house advantage (even on American Roulette, but I don't see why you would give up the extra profits) in a very understandable way. It can be explained in a way that will please the math guys, can be played flat or with a progression, and will work with many different methods of playing dozens. It has some elements that will appeal to believers in the gambler's fallacy, but it is based squarely in the notion that wheels have no memory, and that spins are, therefore, completely random.
I will not be explaining the actual bet selection method I use because it is nothing but noise that distracts from the elegance of making bets that have a positive expectancy. I have discussed this betting mechanism with several contributors whom you would all recognize, with almost universal interest (the only dissenter can be explained away by mentioning a language barrier - it also lead to my decision to ignore the actual bet selection I use because this individual couldn't get past the simplistic method I have been using).
Right here, I need to take a second to give full credit to two individuals - Richard, of Signum fame, and ommanipadmihum who made a brilliant leap in applying Signum to the dozens. Both of their postings eventually directed me to where I am happy to find myself in my evolution as a winning roulette player.
For any new readers who might not be familiar with the Signum system, it is a very clever way of interpreting short-term trends to help predict the next spin result on an EC bet. Ommanipadmihum realized that the system could work on the dozens by turning the dozens bets into an EC bet, expecting movement among dozens from the last spin to the next as being either to the left or to the right. Numerous postings documented the great results that came from applying EC methods but gaining 2-1 rewards. The trip up came when the dozens didn't move to the left or to the right, but repeated. Some suggested the best way was to start putting a unit on the repeating dozen after a series of repeats.
Following is my improvement on the staking method that was discussed, as well as a brief mathematical explanation of how this betting method beats the house advantage over the long term:
Note: I will not expound on what methodology you should use to determine expected L-R values. You can use a follow-the-last, opposite-of-last, Signum, Lww, or whatever other system you choose to determine if your expectation is for the dozen to move left or right. For the sake of this example, I have determined that the last spin fell in the 2nd dozen and I expect the next spin will move to the left into the 1st dozen.
Since I expect the next bet to be in the 1st dozen, I place one unit there. I place another unit on the 2nd dozen as the last dozen to have spun. In the past, we have assumed that the house advantage would rule in such a bet because 13/37 would be (-2) and 24/37 would be (+1), resulting in -2 units per every 37 spins on average. If we were to leave the bets on these two dozens, that is exactly what would occur. This is where my betting method diverges from the rest. This system minimizes losses, locks in profits, and allows the winning to run on all at the same time.
If the spin gives us a result in the 1st dozen, we would count this as a win (W) and take our money off of the table. If the spin gives us a result in the 3rd dozen, we would count this as a loss (L) and our money would be taken off the table anyway. However, as long as the 2nd dozen might continue to repeat (R), we will duplicate our bet exactly. This is the entirety of the Eggleston Betting system. Stop with a win, stop with a loss, keep winning with repeats. Then wait for whatever your next trigger is and begin again.
Why does this work? If we get a win from the 1st dozen, we are (+1), meaning (+12) out of 37 spins on average. With a spin of 0 or the 3rd dozen, we are (-2), meaning (-26) out of 37 spins on average. Excluding the 2nd dozen results, we are currently (-14) in 37 spins. That means we would need the results from the 2nd dozen to average (+1. 1667) per spin to overcome the house advantage (-14 offset over 12 spins out of 37 where we expect 2nd dozen).
What can we expect from typical returns from the 2nd dozen? Since we won (+1) unit already with a repeat in the 2nd dozen, our next totally random spin has 1/12/12/12 out of 37 spins likelihood of hitting each position on the table again. Ignoring the 0 here (just for the sake of easing the calculations), rather than the +1/+1/-2 results we would expect from covering 2 dozens, our new expectations are +2/+2/-1, or a grand total of +3. Divided by the three possible outcomes, the average spin at this level is +1, exactly matching our usual expectations of the +1/+1/-2 2-dozen bet payouts.
However, of these spins, roughly one third will result in yet another spin of the 2nd dozen, taking the same considerations as above to a new expected +3/+3/0, or +2 average. Already, at this point, we are into positive expectancy territory. Of the 12/37 spins that take us to the 2nd layer of payout expectations, approximately 4 spins (1/3 of 12) will go to a 3rd layer of payouts. Another 1+ (4/3) will go to the 4th layer of payouts, +4/+4/+1, or +3 average. Extrapolated out to these higher layers, the 12 spins in the 2nd dozen will pay approximately (8x+1, 3x+2, and 1x+3, or a total of 17). Remember that we only needed to overcome -14 from the other 25 spins, giving us an expectation of +3 every 37 spins, more than +. 08 units on every spin on average. Don't lose sight that over long periods, repeats can extend into higher level of payouts on those incredibly fun streaks that we have all seen where we hit 6, 7, 8, or more in the same dozen.
The benefit to this system only comes when we follow the rules which require we stop betting after a win or a loss until a new trigger begins a new bet begins.
Some advantages of this system:
It can be played with a flat bet or with a progression
It stays out of the way of prolonged series of results in one direction or the other
Even when our anticipated direction of movement is wrong, we may still end up being winners
It features advantages of both EC and 2-1 bets
It overcomes the house advantage
I am anxious to hear your reactions to this system. What I have received so far has been very supportive, but if you see somewhere that it can be improved, by all means let me know. I am also keen to hear how people may apply this to different systems they already play, just with the improved odds of profiting.
Also, I have attached a 40-spin series that ends with a net of +3 units, just slightly off my expected winnings of +3. xxx in 37 spins. It was hurt in the middle by the brutal 2-3-2 chops but recovered. Had I been playing my system, the net would have been +10, although I do use a negative progression. Playing same as last is obviously a wildly simplistic betting method, but this should demonstrate the methodology and thoughts behind the system.
? how long have you played like this .
I have been playing this method quite consistently for the last 6-8 weeks. I started getting feedback from others when it continued to hold up to my tests about 2 weeks ago. I have won regularly with RNG play, RNG real $, and live spins on a casino boat near my home. To this date, I have lost exactly 3 times, with the worst loss being exactly 99 units.
Thanks for the interest.
--Casino boat near my home---
Where is this as know few such casinos around.
I live in SE Georgia, just a few miles north of Jacksonville, Florida, in the US. We have a casino boat that leaves from the port just about 45 minutes away from me. Have only gone once, with my brother- and sister-in-law, but had a decent time. It was an American roulette table I played, but my system still beats the house advantage even with the 00. Wanted to try it on a real table. I was quite pleased with the results.
Good on ya mate.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Jan 22, 01:30 PM 2011
--Casino boat near my home---
Where is this as know few such casinos around.
Down here in Florida, gambling is "illegal".
Uh, unless you're an Indian casino (but no roulette), a bingo hall, a church, any of 100,000 little "casino" stores along the side of the road (no tables) or a boat offshore!
The offshore gambling junkets are very popular here and they're available in most major coastal cities all over the state.
Cheap to buy a ticket to get on and after a short trip to the appropriate offshore marker, the casino fires up for 4 or 6 hours, depending which one you're on.
All in all it's a good time but the tables get very crowded early. Luckily I eat my dinner early and by that time, most of the people have lost their stake (as I ate my steak) and can leisurely gamble at my own pace with the remaining players!
A good way to kill a Thursday night around here.
AD
Sounds nice mate :thumbsup:
I do like a nice Rare Steak !
Hi Colbster, thanks for posting this methodology. I shall work through it and give feedback in a few days.
Best Rgds
Hello Colbster
Thanks for your support and clear and open instructions where you emphasise it is essential to pause between bets until the direction changes.
I have tested only in flat staking form.
As is often the case with outside betting and flat staking it is wise to take profit at +3 or more if you are fortunate before a re-trace which if in chops mode can quickly erode your hard won profit.
By not pausing between directions, ie bulldozing on, play can be more volatile but sometimes runs of repeats can be harvested that otherwise would be missed.
After many 100 spin tests I am not convinced this method uptrends to your expected return when played to your recommended rules.
I like the method but recommend caution as always.
Cheers
XX V V
I'm glad for the feedback. The more I work with this betting process, the better I feel about the use of a progression of some sort. The real money is made from the repeats, and the higher chip values that come with moving up the progression a little really kick the system into overdrive. I play a 7-step progression (technically 14, but the amounts rise to level 7). Your odds of losing 7 straight without any repeats is (13/37)^7. This means about 3 in 5000 series. I have only ever lost 3 times after heavy testing for the past 2 months. If you are losing as frequently as you say, I would be keen to review your sessions for my own learning.
Thanks for giving it your effort! :)
Quote from: Colbster on Jan 24, 04:06 PM 2011
I'm glad for the feedback. The more I work with this betting process, the better I feel about the use of a progression of some sort. The real money is made from the repeats, and the higher chip values that come with moving up the progression a little really kick the system into overdrive. I play a 7-step progression (technically 14, but the amounts rise to level 7). Your odds of losing 7 straight without any repeats is (13/37)^7. This means about 3 in 5000 series. I have only ever lost 3 times after heavy testing for the past 2 months. If you are losing as frequently as you say, I would be keen to review your sessions for my own learning.
Thanks for giving it your effort! :)
i have no idea on how your placing your bets ,can you give ex.please.
i would love it if someone could show me this on even chances like red/ black, not quite getting it yet---but ask my wife she will tell you that im slow:)
thanks
Hello Colbster
This data came live from the casino an hour ago, and illustrates both the good and other side of this bet as played falt and based on the dozens betting as you originally illustrated.
1
20 play 2+3 as direction is R.
33 hit +1 as direction is still are we pause
8
3
8
30 direction is L so trigger for bet 3+2
31 hit +2 o/a
29 hit repeat again +3 o/a and this is a good time to always take profit
6 direction are so trigger to bet 1+2
28 loss -2 so +1 o/a. going L so trigger to bet 3 +2
24 win +1 so +2 o/a. still left so track
23
11
20 going are so bet 2+3
19 win +1 so +3 o/a and bet 2+3 again
8 loss -2, so o/a +1. going L so bet 1+3
15 loss -2, so o/a -1, going are so bet 2+3
8 loss -2, so o/a -3 , going L so 1+3
26 win +1. so o/a -2, going L so track and pause
0 just as well
33
35
31
8 going are so bet 1+2
11 win +1, so o/a -1 and bet 1+2 again
27 loss -2, so o/a -3, going L so bet 3+2
17 win +1. so o/a -2,
16
14
25 going are so bet 3+1
11 win +1, so o/a -1
14
7 going L so bet 1+3
3 win +1, so o/a 0 and bet 1+3
4 win +1, so o/a +1 and bet 1+3
30 win +1. so o/a +2, going L so bet 3+2
30 win +1, so o/a +3 ( suggest again take profit at +3 if not earlier), bet 3+2
11 loss -2, so o/a +1. going R, so bet 1+2
25 loss -2, so snakes and ladders down to -1 again and stop
10
This small sample illustrates acouple of points.
More often than not, a small profit flat staking appears. From multi testing +2000 spins it seems prudent to take profit at that level if flat staking.
If playing without pause there may have been several repeat opportunities to permit sufficient gain to often comfortably build to +5.
Thanks very much for sharing this. I hope I have played the sample correctly - please correct or improve where necessary.
The achilles heel of the bet appears to be chop passages, e.g. 2-3-2-3-2-3- etc. Perhaps there can be a virtual bet or stop when such patterns manifest. There are other bets that can be made that can take profit of such outcomes ( dominant pair of dozens or clusters).
These can run to 15 or more at times and can usually be recognised after 3 spins if two elements have manifested.
Looking forward to further comment here. Perhaps you can illustrate a small section of progression play, even factoring both dozens and cols and see how this may reduce risk exposure.
Cheers XX V V
You are correct that chops do hurt this method, especially on flat betting. To counter the chops, I have started playing a split martingale. I have two separate progressions (I track via a sheet of paper marked with an L and and R, both followed by 1-2-4-8-16-32-64. Whenever I have a new R bet, I refer to the R progression to help determine amount bet. The same with new L bets. These two bets are completely independent of one another. The advantage of doing it in the manner is that it slows down the progression up to higher betting levels. To illustrate, a true chop-series that beats the system from level 1 would require 15 chops in a row. In the usual martingale, the 15th level is 16,384 units. Since mine is split into two 7-step progressions, we are only up to 64 on my two columns. This is much more manageable and does not run into the table limits. In all of my time, I have only had 1 such loss at the 64-level. After our back-and-forth on this issue, I am beginning to think that this betting mechanism is more suited for playing with a progression.
Here is what I don't want to see lost in this discussion though: The bet process of repeating on repeats and taking the money on wins is the heart of this program. My simplistic bet may not be the best vehicle to take advantage of this understanding. That is why I originally did not post any thoughts on bet selections, and why I chose to post this topic in the first place. It is my sincere desire that someone can take my betting method and apply it to a bet selection method that will give us an optimum system. That is my goal here, and I don't want to see that lost (as I am afraid is already the case) because I didn't give a better example or way of playing.
Tomla - There is no way for this method to be used on the dozens. The important aspect of this betting system is the ability to win, lose, or repeat, requiring at least 3 result possibilities. It can be adjusted to lines or streets, but not EC methods.
i thought you where using it on the dozens and columns? im still not clear on it yet could you give an egz on another bet selection?
thanks
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jan 25, 09:02 AM 2011
I thought you where using it on the dozens and columns? I'm still not clear on it yet could you give an egz on another bet selection?
thanks
i think he means 1 dozen at a time.
This play very well on BetVoyager no-zero roulette!
After finally getting a BV account open (which is not easy for us US players), I am playing real-money on the No-zero table as well. It is playing exceptionally well. ;D
excellent---
colbster
thanks for your important contribution
and do you think it can win in long term on flat betting?
The system has a positive expectation on a fair wheel in the long term. As mentioned in a couple posts above, this system can be hurt fairly quickly in the short term by chops (1-3-1-3-1-3-1). In individual sessions, you will find yourself down quickly 10-20 units after a bad little stretch if flat betting.
Let me hedge my bet here: The betting system will absolutely be positive, my bet selection (which I grabbed out of thin air for the sake of demonstration purposes and have just never gotten around to improving on) may not be the optimum method to apply the system.
BetVoyager no-zero table: playtime: 1h, 24 min., 567 spins, deepest progression 16 units (betting 2 columns = 32 units), result +154 units (bankrole 150 units).
That is a great result, marivo! Your results are consistent with my averages of about 50 units in between 100-200 spins. I always take a break after that point, because 567 spins is quite a grind. But doubling your money in 1 1/2 hours seems like a pretty good way to do it!!
Been reading this topic with interest.
I have some questions that are giving me many sleepless nights.
It appears that what you are recommending is to bet on 2 dozens. If you win on the dozen that didn't hit last or lose to the dozen not bet you stop and wait for a new trigger to bet 2 dozens. If you win because the last dozen repeated, then you continue to bet on the same 2 dozens until you finally lose.
You went through some math to show us that this method overcomes the house advantage. It seems to me that as far as your formula goes, if you bet 2 dozens and win, how does the formula know whether that was the last dozen repeating or the other dozen? It seems to me that if either of the dozens hits, we should be able to continue betting the same 2 dozens until a loss occurs. If neither of the two dozens hits, we stop and wait for our next trigger to bet on 2 dozens.
I don't see why stopping after the dozen that isn't a repeat hits changes things so that we overcome the house advantage.
What if we said that if the dozen that isn't a repeat wins we continue betting the 2 dozens until a loss, but if the dozen hits that is a repeat we stop and wait for a new trigger. The formula is the same.
Where am I misunderstanding what's going on?
George
I have had several suggest continuing betting no matter which of the two winning dozens hits. To me, that is a static bet that ultimately loses to the law of averages and the house advantage (if you aren't playing BV no-zero table). My stopping is based on statistical evidence that doubles are about 3 times as likely as triples which are about 3 times as likely as quads to hit. In the long run, that means you will win an additional unit 1 time, but lose 2 units on the 3rd spin twice. Assuming spins are random, you have even chances of a non-repeater being a win or a loss. 50%(+1) + 50%(-2) is a losing proposition. Short term it might work, long term it falls back to being just another system like so many others we have all tried.
Hope that helps clarify my thinking process. I may very well be wrong, but the system is working so well for me, I am not in any hurry to reinvent the wheel.
George mate,
As Colbster pointed it only loses on a 1313131313basis,and as you
can note from my attachement/we study this approach on many variations/
but as all methods it fails on 100000-10000000 spin tests,therefore it should
be play on short time sessions,150-200 spins and could be winner for a life
session.
I agree with F_LAT_INO's spin recommendation. I find that, using my progression method instead of flat betting, I reach my win target of +50 by about 150 or so spins in most cases. At very least, that gives you time to work up to some higher bet levels and work out of holes you might start out in for a break-even session that comes inevitably as well.
Okay Colbster,
I have been giving this baby a test drive. Pretty decent results.
I'm playing my Universal Principle, Almost method for the dozen selections
link:://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/universal-principle-almost/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/universal-principle-almost/)
I play the 2 dozens and if I win on the doz that didn't hit last time, I stop and re-track. If I win on the doz that hit last time, I continue to bet until the repeating stops. Then I re-track for a new bet. If neither dozen hits, I re-track for a new bet.
If my trigger to bet is 2-1-2, then I bet the 2 and since the 1 is to the left of the 2, if play my left bet progression and if my trigger is 2-3-3, then I bet the 3 and my left progression. If my trigger is 1-2-1, then I bet the 1 and the 2 is to the right, so I bet from my right line.
This seems to be working right on expected win ratio, 45 units in about 150 spins. Playing Betvoyager single zero wheel.
George
I admit that I haven't read your bet selection system yet (give me 5 minutes and I will :thumbsup:), but this should work with any method that gives you left or right triggers. Glad it is working for you!
FIRST TEST
97 SPINS ->+19 UNITS FLAT BETTING
i have made 3 others test
+3 -3 +12
it looks good
others results?
L R
-2 +1
-6 +2
-4 +3
-12 +4
-8 +7
-23
-7
+1
+2
+0
+1
+2
+3 PROFIT +10 PROGRESSION 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
warrior do you think that it can win in long term?
i have made 10 test of 100 spins and i have in flat betting an average of 10 units /session.
and you with progression?
Quote from: olinet on Jan 30, 11:30 AM 2011
Warrior do you think that it can win in long term?
i have made 10 test of 100 spins and I have in flat betting an average of 10 units /session.
and you with progression?
i think if there is some one who can test on a higher scale of spins much faster way we could see the out come .
With respect I think this method can be managed to produce a long term profit, but much care and careful timing and self management is essential. I would only flat bet this and accept a lower return at lower risk.
By progressing there will be a mathematically certain catastrophic collapse at some stage, when you are least expecting it.
I doubt the mathematical argument put forward that attempts to persuade us that the house advantage is overcome by moving left and right, as opposed to tracking on.
Now I believe there are faster and better ways to achieve consistent profit, although , as outside bets go, the dozen/ column combinations can be very attractive when they maintain an ability to quickly square off a loss. With progressions it can all get out of hand under duress.
I like the ability to capitalise on repeats and I prefer a head on approach to capture ALL opportunities, as long as you are quick on the trigger and the toes to get out fast if things turn hostile. I am very grateful to Colby for publishing this material. But take care! XX V V
Hey, anyone out there?
Is anyone still playing this system?
Did anyone try it and have a negative series with it?
I got side tracked by other systems and kind of forgot this one.
I was hoping someone was still working with it with good results?
G
Quote from: GLC on May 18, 09:52 PM 2011
Hey, anyone out there?
Is anyone still playing this system?
Did anyone try it and have a negative series with it?
I got side tracked by other systems and kind of forgot this one.
I was hoping someone was still working with it with good results?
G
just tried it
i am impressed. will follow with tests on other "less dangerous progressions" than that crazy martingale
:embarrassed:
:sad2:
very hard
i will post my test
i feel there is something i am not getting wright. the progression? the bet selection? separate banks?
plz look at my test & comment.
I am still working with the basic premise, although this version was replaced by 2.0 on this website. Just search "Eggleston" to find it. I am even more convinced now of the mathematical advantage that I described, although I am struggling to find the right balance. I think that 3.0 will eventually leave the progression world entirely and focus on flat betting. The bet selection is not optimum yet, and I have to admit to having gotten interested in some of the other systems lately, especially those based on matrices. I am toying around with the Eggleston system being applied to a matrix, as well as some really basic concepts I have come up with, such as always bet to the right, with a move right as a win, a move left as a loss, and repeat as just that. I spent a lot of time working through some variations with Sam/Birdhands, but never made any improvements over the 2.0 methodology. I had taken my real-money bankroll from 40 euros to just under 240, which thrilled me. I then screwed up and played 50 euros instead of .50 euros and lost my entire BR on a bad spin. After losing my BR and not having the money to replenish it, I got bored with testing. All that said, there is definitely merit here. Not the HG yet, but very strong fundamentally. Just need to find that trigger to make it more consistent.
Hi Colbster
I am glad to hear of your steps. I admire your statement wrt departure from progression to flat staking - if you can find the right triggers.
Like a stuck record I keep saying the same thing. Short cycles, small edge - this is the way to play roulette. You can add a lot of the results of these short dips in the water together, and you will genuinely advance. As JL has phrased it, three steps forward and one back sometimes. I could add sometimes two steps forward and three back sometimes as well.
However there are numerous pathways, and they all will lead forward eventually given a wise approach and understanding of roulette.
What really interested me in your statement also was the interest in matrices, and overlaying of techniques.
Given a cool head and a plan it will be possible to strike targets with great accuracy, inside as well as outside of the table. I visualise looking down on the table overlaying partially transparent planes of glass. Sometimes through the cloud and mists, a number or small group come clear!
Recent matrix implications of D+C can highlight 16 numbers and then with EC overlays the target scope can be reduced to a handful, occasionally. It is that waiting for the right opportunity and characteristics that is our power over the casino. They cant wait.
I personally will be taking a fresh look at your methodology soon in the workshop, as well as
some other material from US colleagues including a mysterious procedure which was intriguing me using an exponential curve guide as to outcomes from KWTQ. You may be aware of it but the writer goes into periodic hibernation. Maybe he is an astronaut.
Cheers.
who are you talking about mate?
i find myself sharing your opinion on small risk but consistent small profits...flat betting or small progressions..
any thoughts?
I am working with Scooby Doo at the moment on his Divide and Conquer method, one of a family of matrix bets, some of which JohnLegend has developed, and some of which CommonSense and XXVV have developed, and are developing.
Know WhenTo Quit has written on VLS on his exponential curve method.
Trying at the moment to identify triggers so as to break sequences into short passages of play and take advantage of the Ecart short term small edge deviations there with flat staking.
Its work in progress but very exciting. Hope that answers your query.
Cheers XXVV
Quote from: Colbster on Jan 26, 03:27 PM 2011
My stopping is based on statistical evidence that doubles are about 3 times as likely as triples which are about 3 times as likely as quads to hit. In the long run, that means you will win an additional unit 1 time, but lose 2 units on the 3rd spin twice
if thats the case wouldnt it make more sense to have your stop and continue the other way round?
Quote from: Colbster on Jan 26, 03:27 PM 2011
Since I expect the next bet to be in the 1st dozen, I place one unit there. I place another unit on the 2nd dozen as the last dozen to have spun.
If the spin gives us a result in the 1st dozen, we would count this as a win (W) and take our money off of the table.......However, as long as the 2nd dozen might continue to repeat (R), we will duplicate our bet exactly.
You are very possibly correct about the reversing course after the double being a better play. This was my old methodology, which was replaced in another thread. I am currently looking for improvements, including switching to flat betting and playing the next-to-last as a better selection. I will update with any findings that contribute to the discussion.
also...
Quote from: Colbster on Jun 24, 08:58 AM 2011
What can we expect from typical returns from the 2nd dozen? Since we won (+1) unit already with a repeat in the 2nd dozen, our next totally random spin has 1/12/12/12 out of 37 spins likelihood of hitting each position on the table again. Ignoring the 0 here (just for the sake of easing the calculations), rather than the +1/+1/-2 results we would expect from covering 2 dozens, our new expectations are +2/+2/-1, or a grand total of +3. Divided by the three possible outcomes, the average spin at this level is +1, exactly matching our usual expectations of the +1/+1/-2 2-dozen bet payouts.
wouldnt betting on the new "cold" dozens increase our chances of actually getting our expectations of +2/+2/-1, or a grand total of +3? i say this because if we have alread hit the 1st dozen wouldnt probability work against us?
im not a maths guy just a logical thinker so please ignore my ignorance
While streaks, for or against us, are a part of the roulette playing experience, there is no reason to expect a "hot" sector to suddenly cool or a "cold" sector to heat up. Each spin is an independent event, and there is no result that is any more or less likely than another. Regardless of the previous 60 spins, the chances of the dozens hitting are exactly 1/3 (zero not considered for simplicity).
What is interesting about the Eggleston method, however, is that it takes advantage of both "hot" and "cold" sectors without trying to. If our last bets were 2nd dozen, followed by 1st dozen, the Eggleston method shows this as a move to the left. The expected next movement would again be to the left, meaning we would cover the 1st dozen and the 3rd dozen. Note that since our last spin was 1st dozen, by covering the 1st dozen again, we are automatically covering the most recent "hot" dozen. Also, the 3rd dozen is the "coldest" dozen, since we went from 2nd to 1st, meaning we haven't seen the 3rd since at least 3 spins ago. Both "hot" and "cold" are already taken care of by my method.
I also strongly recommend you look at my updated playing method of this system on this forum at
link:://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/eggleston-betting-method-2-0/msg40699/#msg40699 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/../../../full-systems/eggleston-betting-method-2-0/msg40699/#msg40699).
You have to pay closer attention to the exponential curve to have success.
KWTQ
sorry to revive
colbster....any update on this? tweaks?
I'm also interested in signum system as well as 4selectA but his links no longer work
thanks
Interesting Thread. Greatly worded.
A system i made before was a little similair to this.
Basically
if Dozen 1 appears Bet on Dozen 2
If Dozen 2 appears Bet on Dozen 3
If Dozen 3 appears Bet on Dozen 1
If a repeat Dozen appears stop and wait til it stops repeating.
Quote from: jbudd32 on Sep 21, 02:42 AM 2015
Interesting Thread. Greatly worded.
A system i made before was a little similair to this.
Basically
if Dozen 1 appears Bet on Dozen 2
If Dozen 2 appears Bet on Dozen 3
If Dozen 3 appears Bet on Dozen 1
If a repeat Dozen appears stop and wait til it stops repeating.
I thought this thread was good to
Still trying to grasp colbsters original post
Very interested
Also the mr chips dude
If someone could help me understand id be grateful. Threads like this are what the forum should be about
I would be interested to hear any updates on this, too. Was it ever extensively tested or promoted to version 3?