This system is based on the old Oscar's Grind method of betting. But, I have added a twist that makes it much more effective than Oscar's Grind.
For the new roulette enthusiasts, Oscar's Grind requires you to increase your bet after each win and remain at the same bet after each loss.
One over-riding principle is that you never bet more than is required to bring your total to +1.
All my system does is try to keep Oscar's Grind from getting bogged down forever when you get the dreaded WLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLL type pattern.
Of course if you get the above pattern it will still pound you into the ground, but it will take less time to recover when the wins vs losses swing in your favor.
We will keep track of 2 things.
1) Amount of the current bet
2) Number of lost bets
We will increase our bet after each win but we will change the amount we increase it by based on the number of bets we have lost.
The idea is that if we have a large number of losses and haven't reached our +1, we need to increase our bet so when we get a series of bets that are heavy on the wins, we hope, we will recover many losses with each win.
The fundamental rule for winning at roulette is that we must win more on our winning bets than we lost on our losing bets!!!!!
Another way to say it. If we're betting more when we win than we were when we lost, we will WIN!The last two statements, which are the same thing said slightly different and said twice for emphasis, are the key to remember to win a roulette.
Here's our betting chart:
Losses Increase by
1-10 ^1
11-25 ^2
26-45 ^3
46-70 ^4
71-100 ^5
101-35 ^6
etc...
This chart means that we raise our bet after each win by 1 unit if we have 1-10 losses.
We raise our bet by 2 units after each win if we have 11-25 losses.
We raise our bet by 3 units after each win if we have 26-45 losses.
Etc...
One other rule. If you have a win and it takes you to say -6. Your next bet will be 7 because you are going for +1. If you lose the 7 unit bet you just continue playing as if this is the 1st time you've been at -13 which is where you will be, 6+7=13. You go back to the chart and increase 1 unit, in this case, after each win.
We play until we reach our win target or reach our stop-loss.
There is no magic number for either of these targets. I recommend not less than 100 units as a stop-loss.
If you like hit-n-run strategies, shoot for 5-10 unit win targets. Otherwise, just play until you get tired but don't stop until you resolve the series you're on.
That's the basic strategy. May you win with it forever. :thumbsup:
George
I have no idea how to do colors any more ???
I have a question that I'd like some input on from members.
Is it better to shoot for +1 and reset or is it better to play the progression exactly until you are plus no matter how far into the plus range the last bet takes you?
For instance, suppose I am having a really bad run and I am betting 50 units and I'm on a winning run so I'm approaching plus territory. My next bet is 50 units but I'm only at -23. If I bet 50 and win, I will be up 27 units and my next bet will be 1. But, if I bet 50 and lose, I will be down 73 units and my next bet is 55.
On the other hand, it takes a long time to win 27 units at 1 unit per attack.
Is there an advantage one way or the other or is it just a matter of person preference?
GLC
For anybody that's interested here's the win/loss result for the 99 bet streak from hell that I beat with this method.: Thanks Bayes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
+ This is where I reached +1 with the 1-10=1; 11-25=2; 26-45=3; etc... progression.
That's 17 (25%) wins vs 51 (75%) losses with 11 and 21 losses-in-a-row stretches.
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+ This is where I reached +1 with the 1-10=1; 11-20=2; 21-30=3; 31-40=4 etc...
That's 32 (32%) wins vs 67 (67%) losses of 99 bets.
This example shows the strength of Oscar's Grind when a series of losses are clumped together, because the bet stays level whereas when you're winning, the bet is increasing.
I am realizing that this method takes advantage of clumps of wins just like the parlay system does. With both systems, you lose gradually until you finally get a clump of wins close together.
The advantage with Oscar's Grind is that you don't have to have 5 wins in a row. You can have 3 wins a loss then 3 wins another loss then 4 wins and recover that way also . This makes Oscar's Grind a little safer, I think.
Talk to me!
George
Hi George
Like this alot, do you prefer this over the Project202 method as I know you're knowledgeable of it
Very interested in the +1 concept and of course flat betting or as close to it,
I'm quite intrigued how this would work with the P4 strategy, only betting on the 1st outcome as it often wins, and if it loses wait the 2 spins before betting against the next pattern, hope that makes sense George
The other night I aimed for a +1 and started off with 4 losses in a row and never recovered until I had to give up at -20 units, below is the win/loss outcomes and if you've got any spare time I would be interested in whether this strategy would have pulled it back to +1 at any moment
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
| L |
| L |
| L |
| W |
Thanks for your excellent input on this forum, you're a valuable asset
Gordon :thumbsup:
Gordon,
Thanks for the reply. I will play your line a little later tonight. I can guarantee that I'm going to reach + before too far in your line because I notice a string of 6 Wins and a little later, a string of 5 wins.
I'll show how I would play it so everybody can see it in action.
Later,
G
I will play this using the rules stated in my original post. I will shoot for +1 then reset. If I happen to get back to zero, I'll reset also.
Bet Losses Running total
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
W 1 4 -3
L 2 5 -5
L 2 6 -7
W 2 6 -5
L 3 7 -8
W 3 7 -5
L 4 8 -9
W 4 8 -5
L 5 9 -10
L 5 10 -15
L 5 11 -20
W 5 11 -15
L 7 12 -22
W 7 12 -15
L 9 13 -24
L 9 14 -33
W 9 14 -24
W 11 14 -13
L 13 15 -26
L 13 16 -39
L 13 17 -52
L 13 18 -65
W 13 18 -52
L 15 19 -67
L 15 20 -82
L 15 21 -97
W 15 21 -82
W 17 21 -65
L 19 22 -87
W 19 22 -65
W 21 22 -44
W 23 22 -21
W 22 22 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
L 2 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
W 2 4 -3
W 3 4 0 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
L 2 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
L 2 5 -7
L 2 6 -9
L 2 7 -11
W 2 7 -9
W 3 7 -6
W 4 7 -2
W 3 7 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 2 0 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 1 0 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 1 0 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5
L 1 6 -6
L 1 7 -7
L 1 8 -8
W 1 8 -7
W 2 8 -5
W 3 8 -2
W 3 8 +1
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
W 2 2 +1
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5
W 1 5 -4
L 2 6 -6
W 2 6 -4
W 3 6 -1
L 4 7 -5
W 4 7 -1
L 5 8 -6
W 5 8 -1
W 2 8 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
W 1 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
L 2 5 -7
L 2 6 -9
W 2 6 -7
L 3 7 -10
L 3 8 -13
L 3 9 -16
W 3 9 -13
W 4 9 -9
L 5 10 -14
L 5 11 -19
L 5 12 -24
L 5 13 -29
L 5 14 -34
W 5 14 -29
L 7 15 -36
L 7 16 -43
L 7 17 -50
W 7 17 -43
So we won 10 units until the last losing attack. I would never stop playing where this ended. Odds are if we had more results, we would get back to +1 eventually. Then I may take my 11 units and call it a day.
This was a fairly hard fight. This series demonstrates how the system works beautifully. It shows how a long series of losses followed a little later by a good streak of wins can close the attack out nicely.
It also demonstrates the killer pattern I mentioned above, the WLLLWLLLWLLLLW we see at the end of the series.
Thanks Gordon. This method is very strong unless we never get a good cluster of wins to pull us out of the hole. If we can stay with it long enough, there's almost always a good win streak to give us our plus.
George
Gordon,
I do like the project 202 system, but it's as dangerous as any of them if you get the wrong win loss sequence. Any system that bases it bet on a progression will get into trouble if you have a lot of losses, a spattering of wins and then a lot of losses. That's because with the 1st bunch of losses we increase our bet size to recover which we do with a few wins, but then the next clump of losses can really increase out bet size and drive us way down into the hole. With 202, once you are deep in the hole, it can take a really long time to climb back out.
With this system, we need a decent win cluster to recover from a hole, but not so much as the project 202 or other bet progressions like Alembert. I think it's much better than a martingale or fibo. As you saw in the win/loss session I posted, it started off with 21 losses in a row. I don't think any system other than this one can recover from a start as bad as that.
The Star system would have tanked, a martingale would have tanked, fibonacci would have tanked. Probably the only one that wouldn't have tanked is the labby method Fripper and friends are working with using the zero's to keep the bet sizes from escalating too rapidly. Still, they have to have a 1500 unit bank.
I think if we had a 1500 unit bank playing this system, it would be right up there with the best of them.
Just my opinion for what it's worth.
GLC
Hi George
Thanks for your prompt explanation of how to bet, What are your thoughts on following the table with this method especially with odds and evens or high and low due to there nature of streaking or would you only recommend just betting on one E/C and sticking with it
I'm sure you could play.continuously with this as you can reset after a 0 or +1
Thanks
Gordon
I've played this method in it's original form from winmaxx playing all EC's at the same time. In other words, play red and black, odd and even, high and low, a six unit bet. My stop-win was 60 units per session. Never failed that I can remember. Come to think of it, not sure why I stopped playing it. Senior moment probably ....
Thanks for posting it George.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Jul 15, 03:27 PM 2011
I've played this method in it's original form from winmaxx playing all ECs at the same time. In other words, play red and black, odd and even, high and low, a six unit bet. My stop-win was 60 units per session. Never failed that I can remember. Come to think of it, not sure why I stopped playing it. Senior moment probably ....
Thanks for posting it George.
Hey Wally, This is quite a bit different from anything I've seen posted at win-maxx. I know they have a pluscoup progression, but it's not the same animal. It does have a tail, two ears, two eyes and four legs. The difference is that the legs on theirs are short and the legs on the this one are a lot longer and they get longer the farther it has to run.
As far as not remembering why you quit playing a winning system, I've got a few of those myself. We just get distracted by something we think looks a little better.
Bayes gave us a bunch of horror sessions in Fripper's topic on the labby and I'm going to start playing all those sessions to see how this performs under extreme pressure.
If you remember they were trying to find a system that would withstand 65 losses to 135 wins in 200 bets. That was the worst loss to win ratio they could find in millions of historical spins.
This system is a tweak of the Trioplay/Tera TNT system without having to do all the gyrations they want to put us through. I don't know if it is a long term winner, but I've been having excellent results with it.
You should run through some of the sessions you've played my even chance progression that you've been using on baccarat and see how it performs compared to that one. It may be better if not safer. That is if you have some test sessions handy that you can do that with. I'd be interested to know how they compare to each other.
LOL,
George
George, I'll absolutely do that. And, I was really having a senior moment when I posted that last note. I had the Whitaker prog post up at the same time and confused the 2. Sorry about that. No question I think this will find success on my last 100 bac sessions and with a safer movement forward.
Yours and others comments on bet selection is right on point. Believe it or not, I mostly use a 4 step follow and if/when it loses before I'm ready to run, I switch to a 4 step chop. It's been very rare (about 1 in 100 shoes) that I've run into back to back losses. I used to use a fibo and then a modified fibo. Both have worked very well for many years. I've enjoyed running some of your progs on my old shoes. Will let you know how this one performs.
Best, Wally
Hi George
I've been using XXVV's adaptation of the Whittacker progression lately with good results. Although this Oscar takes longer to get back into profit, it is much tamer. I actually been getting better results with it than with XXVV's Whittacker. Only time will tell.
Thanks for all your great and sometime crazy ideas. Your the guy .... the prog guy.
Thanks
TTT
Wally and TicTacToe,
I have been thinking about how to turn this into a true long-term winner. Tell me what you think about this idea.
We set a maximum drawdown that we'll allow. Let's say 300 units. But, that does not mean that if we reach -300 units we just take the loss and start again at 1 unit, it means that when we reach 300 units we cut that into two 150 unit games.
As we know, LLLWLLLWLLLWLLLWLLL this is the win/loss pattern that will kill us. I have used that pattern exclusively to see where I would be re: bet size and number of losses to reach -150 units. It turns out to be the second 17 unit bet at 29 losses = -155 units. Now when we start trying to resolve our -150 deficit, we drop back from whatever unit size we were betting when we reached -300 to 17 unit bets with 29 losses. That means according to our chart we will be increasing our bet size by 3 units after every win because we are in the 26-45 losses range.
If we find out that dividing by 2 leaves us too much to recover without a high risk of getting back to -300 again, we can divide our 300 by 3 and have three 100 unit games to recover. That would put us at betting 12 units with 22 or so losses. We would be increasing our bet size by 2 units after each win until we reach 26 losses when we would go to increasing by 3 units.
The reason I think this is better than just taking the whole 300 unit loss and re-starting at 1 is because it takes a really long time to recover 300 units betting small units.
All we're trying to do is stay alive until we have some good win clumps which will recover quite a bit in a shortened number of spins.
I acknowledge that there will be times when we will divide and stay in a losing trend and find ourselves right back at another -300 unit situation. I'm hoping that will rarely be the case and we'll be well ahead of the game by the time we run into a series that bad.
I like this system for the same reason I like the parlay systems. We are betting either with the houses money much of the time or at least we're using a modified positive progression. I say modified because we don't reset to 1 after each loss which is what a real positive progression usually does.
I know this is throwing a lot out there at one time and it for sure needs some serious testing, but when you get the time to think on it, tell me what you do think.
Thanks,
George
Quote from: TicTacToe on Jul 15, 05:38 PM 2011
Hi George
I've been using XXVV's adaptation of the Whittacker progression lately with good results. Although this Oscar takes longer to get back into profit, it is much tamer. I actually been getting better results with it than with XXVV's Whittacker. Only time will tell.
Thanks for all your great and sometime crazy ideas. Your the guy .... the prog guy.
Thanks
TTT
Thanks for your encouragement. Although some members might be thinking, "Please stop encouraging him. He's driving us crazy with all these progressions!" But that's okay. I have often said that if a system wins with one progression, it'll win with any progression. I'm starting to think that's not exactly true. It could be that a system can win with a certain progression, if not exclusively, then maybe better than with other progressions.
And, I'm not suggesting any bet selection method. Which ever e.c. bet selection method you like will work. I agree with Gordon that this can be used with pattern 4 or any e.c. matrix idea if we only bet 1 time per betting opportunity. If it's win rate sucks on the 1st bet and it takes 2-4 bets to get most of the wins, then that might not work with this progression method.
This progression can be adapted to each person's personal risk tolerance. The way to make it more aggressive is to change the chart. This chart: 1-5 = ^1; 6-10 = ^2; 11-15 = ^3; 16-20 = ^4 etc... is much more aggressive than: 1-15 = ^1; 16-30 = ^2; 31-50 = ^3; etc... because our bets increase more quickly with the 1st chart and much more slowly with the second chart. We might find that the second chart, or one of your own making, is exactly what the doctor ordered if you don't mind grinding out a few units each day.
Cheers,
George
Hi George
Just to clarify my bet .... it's not an ec bet ...
I play on BV no zero .... I play inside numbers, but it works out to an on average ec bet.
Thanks
TTT
Quote from: TicTacToe on Jul 15, 06:06 PM 2011
Hi George
Just to clarify my bet .... it's not an ec bet ...
I play on BV no zero .... I play inside numbers, but it works out to an on average ec bet.
Thanks
TTT
It makes no difference Triple T. An e.c. bet is an e.c. bet. Of course when you have to start out betting 18 units and work up from there, things could get a little steep. I hope your bet selection method has a really high hit rate. :'(
GLC
Another potential improvement.
If you reach a situation like this. You are down say 41 units and your next bet is 30 units. Under existing rules, you would bet 30 units and if you win, your next bet would be 12 units. 41-30 =11 and 12-11 = +1. Now if you lose the 30 unit bet your next bet is 30 units. What if in the name of keeping our bets as low as possible, we reasoned that we're going to have to win 2 bets to clear the 41 units so let's divide it in half and bet 21 and 21. That way if we lose the 1st bet, we will have dropped our bet size from 30 to 21.
If we win them both, it doesn't matter. Either way nets us +1.
What are the negatives. Well, if we had won the 30 unit bet and lost the 12 unit bet, we would be at the 12 unit bet size instead of 21 unit bet size. Maybe it doesn't make that much difference in the long run. But it is an option that could be used to keep our bets as low as possible.
GLC
Oh! By the way. I've been testing it a little on BJ. So far it's working great. It's really nice to be at the end of a recovery period and divide the remaining bet into 2 equal bets since you have to bet twice to clear anyway and bingo, you win a double down; +1 and re-set city.
by the way, with BJ, when playing these progressions, I don't double down and split as much as the books say. I find I win more hands that way which aids my progression.
Sorry to mention Blackjack, Chris. As punishment, I'm going to start writing 1,000 times, "I will never mention blackjack on this forum again. I will never mention blackjack on this forum again. I will never mention ... ;D
Just having a little fun. :LoL: Don't be such a stranger on my posts!
GLC and beyond!
How come I got the 1st smiley face but not the 2nd? ???
George, I think a possibility on this is to use a modified Marty. 1-2-4-8, which is where the majority of our hits are going to come, then start this prog on 8. Just a quick thought. Got alot of testing to do on it.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Jul 15, 09:08 PM 2011
George, I think a possibility on this is to use a modified Marty. 1-2-4-8, which is where the majority of our hits are going to come, then start this prog on 8. Just a quick thought. Got a lot of testing to do on it.
You could be right Wally. But I don't think we have to start at 8 on our Oscar's progression. According to my check line we are at -15 when we lose our 1st 4 unit bet. That means we could bet 1-2-4-8 and then start our recovery line at 4 units and 10 losses. That will help keep our progression a little lower. Of course, if you want to play more aggressively, you can start at 8 and hope the negative series turns around to wins quickly. You're right we have a lot of testing to do.
I think I'll look at the series Gordon gave us and see how your tweak works on those spins.
Thanks for the observation.
GLC
Hi GLC - nice system! It seemed to be doing pretty well - I was betting on red every spin till I hit my 100 unit stop loss. Im not sure im doing it right.....could you go over these spins for me please?
Win/Loss Bet Losses Running Total
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5
L 1 6 -6
L 1 7 -7
W 1 7 -6
W 2 7 -4
L 3 8 -7
W 3 8 -4
L 4 9 -8
W 4 9 -4
L 5 10 -9
W 5 10 -4
L 6 11 -10
L 6 12 -16
W 6 12 -10
L 8 13 -18
L 8 14 -26
L 8 15 -34
L 8 16 -42
L 8 17 -50
L 8 18 -58
L 8 19 -66
W 8 19 -58
L 10 20 -68
L 10 21 -78
W 10 21 -68
W 12 21 -56
W 14 21 -42
W 16 21 -26
L 18 22 -44
W 18 22 -26
L 20 23 -46
L 20 24 -66
W 20 24 -46
L 23 25 -69
W 23 25 -46
L 26 26 -72
W 26 26 -46
L 29 27 -75
W 29 27 -46
L 32 28 -78
W 32 28 -46
L 35 29 -81
L 35 30 -116
It didnt win enough times in a row....too much WLWLWLWLWL i think unless I played it wrong.....
Cheers GLC!
Quote from: GLC on Jul 15, 07:53 PM 2011
If you reach a situation like this. You are down say 41 units and your next bet is 30 units. Under existing rules, you would bet 30 units and if you win, your next bet would be 12 units. 41-30 =11 and 12-11 = +1.
I went thru your example on the first page and I dont see where you did this...You always increased your bet by the amount you should do IAW the amount of losses in the first post rules. Shouldnt your next bet be 32 or 33 depending on the amount of losses?
Is this perhaps where I went wrong?
Thanks.
Actually on closer inspection I see you did it once....and I can see where I should have done it once but I still dont think my session would have won before the 100 unit stop loss.
Quote from: Smee on Jul 16, 01:10 AM 2011
Actually on closer inspection I see you did it once....and I can see where I should have done it once but I still don't think my session would have won before the 100 unit stop-loss.
Smee, you did your session correctly as far as I can see.
My idea of betting equal amounts when down to 2 bets to recover is a new thought. I haven't given any examples where I did that.
You definitely have a very bad run there. 17 wins vs 30 losses. 36% win rate.
You're right you never had enough wins to pull you up out of the hole. I personally think that 100 units as a stop loss is too small for this system. I feel that to give it a good chance to have a bad stretch and then recover you need to shoot for at least 100 spins. To do that, a 300 unit stop loss is probably more reasonable.
Nevertheless, you could divide your 116 units into two 58 unit games and play them separately. According to my check series you could start at 8 units and 17 losses to recover the 58 units.
I can't imagine that 17 wins vs 30 losses will continue much longer. A decent cluster of wins will resolve a 58 unit deficit pretty quickly.
This is kind of like Atlantis testing the MV6 and busting on his very first attempt. Everything is possible. 17 vs 30 won't happen very often.
Don't give up the ghost on this progression yet. A few more tests should show you its value.
George
Thanks for verifying that....Im not giving up, I really like your idea and hope it can be tweaked.
I read the post on the 65 loses to 135 wins in 200 spins.....maybe I just got in to the 200 spin cycle at the wrong time and didnt give it enough time to pull out. But if that was the case at least I had been thru 30 losses before the wins would get heaped on!
I was also waiting for 2 blacks in a row before betting on red....didnt help much.
Cheers fellas!
Hmm....I re-read the post. Fripper said "in any 200 spins there are no fewer than 65 reds or blacks" or near enough to it.
Maybe we could wait 100 spins noting the blacks, reds, odds, evens, hi's and lows and bet on whatever showed the least? Or against whatever showed the most?
In 100 spins if red showed 30 times and black showed 70....its kinda reasonable to assume there must be a heap more reds to show in the next 100 spins....
It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....
Quote from: GLC on Jul 15, 08:02 PM 2011
Sorry to mention Blackjack, Chris. As punishment, I'm going to start writing 1,000 times, "I will never mention blackjack on this forum again. I will never mention blackjack on this forum again. I will never mention ... ;D
you are bacaretting roulette--not only making chris angry - also me! you do one more time, I will report to moderator to stripe off your posting status and downgrade to reader status--ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D
needed few giggles ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Smee on Jul 16, 03:41 AM 2011
Maybe we could wait 100 spins noting the blacks, reds, odds, evens, hi's and lows and bet on whatever showed the least? Or against whatever showed the most?
It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....
we will be shaken by too much grinding and not by the progression to get few units and by that time we will be all dead!
needed few giggles ;D ;D ;D
Hey Catalyst.....that was exactly my thoughts when I posted it! Good call.
Quote from: Smee on Jul 16, 03:41 AM 2011
In 100 spins if red showed 30 times and black showed 70....its kinda reasonable to assume there must be a heap more reds to show in the next 100 spins....
It would really be a grind then.....one or two units every 200 spins.....
I agree with your tracking for a 100 spin cycle. I think it would give us a better shot. But like you said, it will take a huge amount of time.
If Red started showing more, I think we'd make better than a couple of units. Just think if you had been betting on Black for the previous 100 spins. You might have won 20 or 30 units.
I've been testing Wally's idea of starting with a 1-2-4-8 marty and if I lose the 1st four bets, I go to betting 4 units with 11 losses which means I'm increasing bet by 2 after each win. It's been working well. Many times I can win 15-25 units before losing 4 in a row and so far I've been able to recover my -15 units within 10-25 bets.
GLC
Catalyst PM'd me with this idea. When we reach our stop loss we can divide in into 2 or 3 and play each part on different even chance bets simultaneously. That way we can speed up the process.
Definitely something worth looking at.
I have been doing a little analyzing. This can be dangerous but here goes. The number of wins has a relationship to the amount we are down. So if we are down 50, it will only take about 3 or 4 wins to recover. If we're down 150 it will take 5 or 6. 250 =6 or 7. 500 = 7 or 8. Here's what I realized. We don't need to recover them in a row, just within a high win vs loss stretch. So if we need 7 wins to fully recover we can get them like this WWWWWWW or this WWWLWWWWW or even this WWLWLWWWLWWWLWLWW or any such combination. The point being, we don't have to get them in a row. A LW cancels each other out so all we have to get is 7 (or whatever depending on how deep in the hole we are) wins plus a win for every L during that series.
What this means to me is if we can stay in the game long enough to get a good win series, we'll recover. This means the higher our stop loss, obviously, the better chance we have to hang in there until we get the winning stretch. This is why I always think of Winkel's system that requires you have 5000 units to play. What if we had that many? Would we ever lose?
I know, that's true of every progression. But when I was down on the horror session I posted above, I had a stretch of 7 wins and 47 losses (how many systems can survive a stretch like that?) and then recovered in 14 spins of 10 wins and 4 losses. Now granted the first 21 losses were only at 1 unit each and when I was recovering I was betting in the 20's and 30's, but that's the power of this progression. When the wins finally come, we're betting more and increasing with each win thus recovering quickly.
Like I said before. We have a skeleton system and we have many options. It takes a lot of time and effort to adequately explore all of them to determine if some are better than others or if they all are equal. It depends on the w/l series you're in at the time which option is doing the best.
I still like the system. I have never lost with it in any test and I've played it a couple times on my local airball double zero game and won both times quite easily. I know there are losses coming, there always are. Hopefully, the wins will run ahead of the losses.
I still am going to start through the other horror sessions Bayes blessed us with. I'll keep you posted. It'll be slow going because I don't have enough time each day to get everything done that's on my plate.
Cheers,
GLC
hi George
please give us some thoughts regarding bet selection for this progression. in the bet selection section. you have discussed lots of diferent types. i was thinking to use the bet selection you mentioned in your 'Tour de Force" thread. which one you are using for testing this progression? please tell us, so we can use the same one to compare our results with yours to find consistency in the progression.
at the end i want to say that you are the only one in the forum contributing heavily and maintaining the colourful attraction of Even Chances!
may god bless you and your family!
thanks
catalyst
I have been working on Horror session 3 that Bayes gave us. It's not pretty at all. It does well in the beginning, but then it goes into a stretch with 111 losses and only 49 wins. That's a 30% to 70% win/loss ratio. This system could handle that if there were some heavy concentration of wins, but unfortunately the wins are interspersed without any good clusters so we just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole.
If Fripper's "beating roulette with math" labby system can beat these horror sessions, I have to tip my hat to that system. It's well worth learning.
If you play this Oscar system, you must set a realistic stop-loss. I would say 300 units is reasonable.
These horror sessions are based on picking a single color (or any of the even chances) and betting on it exclusively. Definitely not the way I would ever play the even chances.
I still play basically follow-the-last but switch to chops when I get 3 chops in a row. This can have some streaks of losses also, but it also can find streaks on either color and also chops. The most I've ever lost in a row with this bet selection method is 13 once and 12 once. The rest have been under 10 losses in a row.
It's discouraging testing it against these really bad sessions. It makes you lose confidence, but better to face reality than to get killed.
I wonder how the Whitaker progression Lucy and XXVV are working on would handle a 30/70 win to loss ratio?
I have tried to attach the file for your observation. You can see that we are already down more than 1000 units and from checking out the upcoming spins, it looks like we're going to drop another 1000+ before we get to a series that might have enough wins to pull us back to even.
I'm just putting out data as I can so we can all make the best decision we can. I think these killer streaks are pretty rare, but when they hit, they can take the wind our of your sails.
Might be a good idea to go virtual after bad win to loss ratio starts and let it play itself out before we continue. This isn't a foolproof method to handle it, but it can't hurt.
I think looking at some bet selection methods other than betting every spin with a mechanical selection method might keep our win/loss ratio much close to normal. Pattern 4, Icey's dimension system. Tomla021 told me that in his tests with Icaman's system he got a lot of clumping of wins. That's a good thing with the method.
Keep looking up.
GLC
I don't seem to be able to open my own attachment. If you guys are having trouble, let me know and I'll just copy it in the next post.
hi George
on Bayes horror session 3, where you start getting in trouble (you actually noted down a 19 a loss when it should have been a win but i've corrected it in the example below), you could try the following -
after 2 losses, start a parallel Oscars on the opposite e/c. & bet the differential. In your example it would look like this:
10 1 1 -1
22 1 2 -2
4 1 3 -3 1 0 +1 (nobet -2: actual bet & running total)
1 1 3 -2 2 1 -1 (bet1b -3)
32 2 4 -4 2 1 +1 (nobet -3)
6 2 5 -6 3 1 +4 (bet1b -2)
3 2 5 -4 4 2 0 (bet2b -4)
20 3 6 -7 4 2 +4 (bet1b -3)
3 3 6 -4 5 3 -1 (bet2b -5)
0 4 7 -8 5 4 -6 (bet1b -6)
10 4 8 -12 5 4 -1 (bet1b -5)
8 4 9 -16 6 4 +5 (bet2b -3)
19 4 9 -12 7 5 -2 (bet3b -6)
10 5 10 -17 7 5 +5 (bet2b -4)
20 5 11 -22 8 5 +13 (bet3b -1)
24 5 12 -27 9 5 +22 (bet4b +3)
End: +3u
the totals look a bit funny as the zero comes - betting the differential meant that when it came, you were only betting & losing 1 unit there instead of the 9 if you were betting the full amounts on both e/c's, but the Oscar numbers should carry on as normal. Betting the differential also keeps the bets even lower than a normal Oscars.
I've tried this on a few of Bayes' other sessions & its ok so far but we'll see..
lot of different variations you could try, such as start running the parallel Oscar after 4 losses, those 4 losses could be your 1-2-4-8 marty maybe, i'm trying running them both at the same time from the off as well.
Quote from: monaco on Jul 18, 09:42 AM 2011
hi George
on Bayes horror session 3, where you start getting in trouble (you actually noted down a 19 a loss when it should have been a win but i've corrected it in the example below), you could try the following -
after 2 losses, start a parallel Oscars on the opposite e/c. & bet the differential. In your example it would look like this:
10 1 1 -1
22 1 2 -2
4 1 3 -3 1 0 +1 (nobet -2: actual bet & running total)
1 1 3 -2 2 1 -1 (bet1b -3)
32 2 4 -4 2 1 +1 (nobet -3)
6 2 5 -6 3 1 +4 (bet1b -2)
3 2 5 -4 4 2 0 (bet2b -4)
20 3 6 -7 4 2 +4 (bet1b -3)
3 3 6 -4 5 3 -1 (bet2b -5)
0 4 7 -8 5 4 -6 (bet1b -6)
10 4 8 -12 5 4 -1 (bet1b -5)
8 4 9 -16 6 4 +5 (bet2b -3)
19 4 9 -12 7 5 -2 (bet3b -6)
10 5 10 -17 7 5 +5 (bet2b -4)
20 5 11 -22 8 5 +13 (bet3b -1)
24 5 12 -27 9 5 +22 (bet4b +3)
End: +3u
the totals look a bit funny as the zero comes - betting the differential meant that when it came, you were only betting & losing 1 unit there instead of the 9 if you were betting the full amounts on both e/c's, but the Oscar numbers should carry on as normal. Betting the differential also keeps the bets even lower than a normal Oscars.
I've tried this on a few of Bayes' other sessions & its ok so far but we'll see..
lot of different variations you could try, such as start running the parallel Oscar after 4 losses, those 4 losses could be your 1-2-4-8 marty maybe, i'm trying running them both at the same time from the off as well.
excellent post monaco! I think you have a safety brake there that improves this idea a bunch. That's one of our objectives, to be able to survive through the worst series of spins we can expect to have thrown at us.
Good on ya mate! :thumbsup:
I'm a little tied up right now, but will do a few tests when I can. It's important for each of us to run tests on ideas so we know exactly what we're getting into.
GLC
another quick example just to illustrate on Smee's earlier sample, this time starting after 4 losses..
Win/Loss Bet Losses Running Total
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5 1 0 +1 (nobet,-4: ActualBet,R.Total)
L 1 6 -6 2 0 +3 (1b,-3)
L 1 7 -7 3 0 +6 (2b,-1)
W 1 7 -6 3 1 +3 (2b,-3)
W 2 7 -4 3 2 0 (1b,-4)
L 3 8 -7 3 2 +3 (nobet,-4)
W 3 8 -4 4 3 -1 (1b,-5)
L 4 9 -8 4 3 +3 (nobet,-5)
W 4 9 -4 5 4 -2 (1b,-6)
L 5 10 -9 5 4 +3 (nobet,-6)
W 5 10 -4 6 5 -3 (1b,-7)
L 6 11 -10 6 5 +3 (nobet,-7)
L 6 12 -16 7 5 +10 (1b,-6)
W 6 12 -10 8 6 +2 (2b,-8)
L 8 13 -18 8 6 +10 (nobet,-8)
L 8 14 -26 9 6 +19 (1b,-7)
L 8 15 -34 10 6 +29 (2b,-5)
L 8 16 -42 11 6 +40 (3b,-2)
L 8 17 -50 12 6 +52 (4b,+2)
End. +2u, highest bet 4u, highest drawdown -8
you could have made that last bet 3u if you just wanted to aim for the +1.
Quote from: monaco on Jul 18, 11:58 AM 2011
another quick example just to illustrate on Smee's earlier sample, this time starting after 4 losses..
Win/Loss Bet Losses Running Total
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5 1 0 +1 (nobet,-4: ActualBet,R.Total)
L 1 6 -6 2 0 +3 (1b,-3)
L 1 7 -7 3 0 +6 (2b,-1)
W 1 7 -6 3 1 +3 (2b,-3)
W 2 7 -4 3 2 0 (1b,-4)
L 3 8 -7 3 2 +3 (nobet,-4)
W 3 8 -4 4 3 -1 (1b,-5)
L 4 9 -8 4 3 +3 (nobet,-5)
W 4 9 -4 5 4 -2 (1b,-6)
L 5 10 -9 5 4 +3 (nobet,-6)
W 5 10 -4 6 5 -3 (1b,-7)
L 6 11 -10 6 5 +3 (nobet,-7)
L 6 12 -16 7 5 +10 (1b,-6)
W 6 12 -10 8 6 +2 (2b,-8)
L 8 13 -18 8 6 +10 (nobet,-8)
L 8 14 -26 9 6 +19 (1b,-7)
L 8 15 -34 10 6 +29 (2b,-5)
L 8 16 -42 11 6 +40 (3b,-2)
L 8 17 -50 12 6 +52 (4b,+2)
End. +2u, highest bet 4u, highest drawdown -8
you could have made that last bet 3u if you just wanted to aim for the +1.
Monaco,
This may be the tweak of the century.
I know that there has to be a way for this to lose. It looks like it's a lot of WLWLLWLWL, the same thing that hurts the original Oscars. Is this the way you see it?
G
Quote from: monaco on Jul 18, 11:58 AM 2011
another quick example just to illustrate on Smee's earlier sample, this time starting after 4 losses..
Win/Loss Bet Losses Running Total
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5 1 0 +1 (nobet,-4: ActualBet,R.Total)
L 1 6 -6 2 0 +3 (1b,-3)
L 1 7 -7 3 0 +6 (2b,-1)
W 1 7 -6 3 1 +3 (2b,-3)
W 2 7 -4 3 2 0 (1b,-4)
L 3 8 -7 3 2 +3 (nobet,-4)
W 3 8 -4 4 3 -1 (1b,-5)
L 4 9 -8 4 3 +3 (nobet,-5)
W 4 9 -4 5 4 -2 (1b,-6)
L 5 10 -9 5 4 +3 (nobet,-6)
W 5 10 -4 6 5 -3 (1b,-7)
L 6 11 -10 6 5 +3 (nobet,-7)
L 6 12 -16 7 5 +10 (1b,-6)
W 6 12 -10 8 6 +2 (2b,-8)
L 8 13 -18 8 6 +10 (nobet,-8)
L 8 14 -26 9 6 +19 (1b,-7)
L 8 15 -34 10 6 +29 (2b,-5)
L 8 16 -42 11 6 +40 (3b,-2)
L 8 17 -50 12 6 +52 (4b,+2)
End. +2u, highest bet 4u, highest drawdown -8
you could have made that last bet 3u if you just wanted to aim for the +1.
I continued on with differential betting from where Monaco left off. I didn't wait for any losses, just started with the very next spin to see what would happen through the WLWLWLWLW section. I didn't reset unless I was at +1. That means that if I was at zero I kept the progression going on both sides.
combination
spin bet loss total bet loss total total
L 1 1 -1 1 0 +1 0
L 1 2 -1 2 0 +2 +1 +1
W 1 2 +1 1 1 -1 0
L 2 3 -2 1 1 +1 -1
L 2 4 -2 2 1 +2 -1
W 2 4 +2 3 2 -3 -2
W 3 4 +3 3 3 -3 -2
W 4 4 +4 3 4 -3 -1
W 5 4 +5 3 5 -3 +1 +1
L 1 1 -1 1 0 +1 0
W 1 1 +1 2 1 -2 -1
L 2 2 -2 2 1 +2 -1
L 2 3 -2 3 1 +3 0
W 2 3 +2 4 2 -4 -2
L 3 4 -3 4 2 +4 -1
W 3 4 +3 5 3 -5 -3
L 4 5 -4 5 3 +5 -2
W 4 5 +4 6 4 -6 -4
L 5 5 -5 6 4 +6 -3
W 5 5 +5 7 5 -7 -5
L 6 6 -6 7 5 +7 -4
W 6 6 +6 8 6 -8 -6
L 7 7 -7 8 6 +8 -5
L 7 8 -7 9 6 +9 -3
So, playing this new differential way we went from Smee losing -116 units to Monaco and I actually braking even if he had only bet 3 so as to end up with +1 instead of +2. I won 2 units and was down 3 units at the end. That's a 116 unit swing in less than 50 spins.
The potential problem I see with this is that it could be quite a grind, but if your grinding leads to wins instead of losses, where's the downside? Also, it will take some practice to get used to playing both sides. It is easy to get confused.
Like Monaco said, we could tweak this in ways to make it more profitable without compromising the safety.
I'm going to test all of the horror 3 session and see how it looks after that. We also have to remember that the bet selection is just one side of the even chance which is not my favorite method. I'm using the horror sessions though because they represent what should be the worst hands we can expect to get in 200 spins. If it can handle that, it should be able to handle anything better than that also.
G
Nice work guys....im very much watching with interest! Im really busy at the moment and dont have time to test sorry - ill try to do a little later tonight.
Hey George
Nice work, keep it up.
Let me know if you want any more of these hell sessions. It doesn't have to be 200 spin sessions, it can be 100 or 50 or what you prefer. All can be done with bayes software which is posted in the forum, you may be aware of it, it's excellent.
Cheers
Quote
I know that there has to be a way for this to lose. It looks like it's a lot of WLWLLWLWL, the same thing that hurts the original Oscars. Is this the way you see it?
G
yes, i think that's right George,
I had a look at Bayes 65 reds in 200 spins session, firstly using the marty 1-2-4-8, then by starting both Oscars at the same time.
Quickly realised, starting both Oscars at the same time means this isn’t a hell session at all, but a complete heaven session, as it will take full advantage if there’s a large dominance of either e/c. see attach.2. Even the 1-2-4-8 could turn in a decent profit, albeit with longer games (attach,1).
It could well be that all the horror sessions produce decent results but i'm not sure that puts us in the clear.
The thing is these particular horror sessions might not be the real horror sessions for this method. Any set of spins where either e/c dominates to a large degree & i would expect any of these ways to produce a profit - it's when the results are choppy that it needs looking into, like the 2
nd half of Smee’s sample but on a much longer scale. How would we get on if we had 200 spins mainly containing chops/series of 2 or 3, things like that.
The good thing is that the differential betting keeps the bets so low, that you can stay in the game for a long time if needed. It's hard to say at this point how things would look without testing some choppy sessions.. will do that next.
possibly, you could try this on all 3 e/c's at the same time & you would only need 1 of them to contain a dominant e/c to overcome a choppy other 2.. if you had 2 containing a dominant half at the same time, it should be pretty good for profits, although it could be tricky to do in practice..
be interested to see your results, cheers :thumbsup:
" The thing is these particular horror sessions might not be the real horror sessions for this method. Any set of spins where either e/c dominates to a large degree & I would expect any of these ways to produce a profit - it's when the results are choppy that it needs looking into, like the 2nd half of Smee’s sample but on a much longer scale. How would we get on if we had 200 spins mainly containing chops/series of 2 or 3, things like that. "
This paragraph is the heart of the matter. WLWLWLWLWL this pattern causes us to drop 1 unit for every 2 bets. WLLWLLWLWLWLLWLL this pattern lets us recover enough to pull ahead eventually. WLWLWLWLLWLWLWLLWWLWLWLWLWLLWLWLWWLWL this is the sequences that kill us. We keep dropping 1 unit for each WL and we only recover 1 unit on each WLL OR WWL. The problem I see is that we do keep our bets so low that it can take a long time to pull out of a hole. As always a good WWWWWWLWWWWWW streak like this can pull us up pretty good.
The positive about the above is that I don't think we need to have that large of a buy-in to have a realistic chance to win 5-10 units. I haven't been able to place a bet over 11 units so far, and looking at your sessions, neither have you. I'm thinking a 50-100 unit buy-in should be adequate.
If we have a good bet selection that hits in clumps, that would be ideal.
Playing all 3 e.c.s at the same time could be pretty hectic, but if you had good tracker from Ophis that did all the minute calculations for you and you reset all three anytime the total reached +1 or more, this could bump up against the membrane separating long term winner from long term loser.
In spite of everything that we're seeing, I've been at this excited point numerous times in the past only to have the big hammer smash all our expectations to smithereens, so I'm staying cool for now. Much work still to do.
One more thought, what if we do start with a 1-2-4-8 marty, that puts us pretty far down for a recovery to 1 unit.
The safest way to play this thing may be to just play differentially from the get go and take a 5 unit win and call it a session. A couple or three sessions should be adequate each day if you're betting a reasonably sized unit.
My next experiment is to play all 3 e.c.s at the same time and see what that looks like. I can't believe one of them won't be streaking well enough to overcome a few single unit losses from the other two. And if 2 e.c.s are streaky, it'll be short work to get to +5.
Thanks for all the help and interest, Monaco, Catalyst, Smee, Fripper. You know as well as I do that if this keeps looking like a gold nugget more and more miners will start diggin' with us.
If it gets too complicated, (like it already is with 3 e.c.s) people will be afraid of it because it's too much work for too little reward. I know the feeling. That's kind of how I feel about the labby Fripper and friends are working on. That doesn't mean I don't keep my eye on their work, just in case!! As soon as they send up the victory flag, no amount of complication will be too much!
Luck to all,
George
Hello GLC,
I still have to research the method indepth......
It looks good........
I think you might have found the MAGIC to take you further.......
GLC:
"The safest way to play this thing may be to just play differentially from the get go and take a 5 unit win and call it a session. A couple or three sessions should be adequate each day if you're betting a reasonably sized unit".
This is a great thread folks I have always had a soft spot for OG and it's various spinoffs. I have used it differentially before but missed the obvious Monaco solution.
GLC , I notice throughout this thread that a recurring concern of yours is that it is a very slow grind. A possible solution may be to use the take out principle, whereby over a time period of your choosing, let's say every five spins in this example, you add a unit to your deficit so that when the series is finally closed there will be a whole bunch of extra units accumalated as well as the +1. So as an example say that it takes 20 spins to close the series and you add a unit every 5 spins then you will effectively make 5 extra units. I hope this is of use.
Mike
Quote
One more thought, what if we do start with a 1-2-4-8 marty, that puts us pretty far down for a recovery to 1 unit.
yep, the 1-2-4-8 marty leaves us with too much of an uphill climb i think - if you hit a choppy period straight after losing it (as i did) then you could be in for a long night. I think the other benfits of playing it differently are outweighing it at the minute.
Quote
If we have a good bet selection that hits in clumps, that would be ideal.
i feel i'm still learning the real impact of bet selection, but from what i've learned, we're not looking for one here that delivers a steady ratio of wins to losses, such as Authors System, maybe your own ftl & change to chops after 3 chops, or any kind of trend-follower - as these are designed to keep the number of wins & losses close together.
what we need as you say is one with a high variation of wins & losses delivering clusters of both, a high z score if im not mistaken, & is there one better than pick an e/c & stick with it?
(i did have a look at Gordonline's w/l's got through P4 & his 20 unit loss was turned in to a 20-odd unit gain this way - maybe something there with delivering an unequal ratio between wins & losses..)
i think also worth remembering here is your original tweak on the Oscar that started this thread, & trying to see if that can also help (I'm not sure if you're still using that in your results?).
best regards
Quote from: monaco on Jul 19, 07:18 PM 2011
i think also worth remembering here is your original tweak on the Oscar that started this thread, & trying to see if that can also help (I'm not sure if you're still using that in your results?).
best regards
I have been thinking about this and wondering if we need to keep track of the losses so we can escalate our bets to take advantage of the inevitable (usually) cluster of wins on one side or the other. I haven't been using it in my tests because, to be honest, I've always reached +1 before I lost 11 times on either side.
My purpose in designing the escalating bet increases after a predetermined number of losses was for faster recovery with fewer wins in a row. If we always increase by 1 unit after each win, when we finally start recovering, even though we will be winning on larger bets, they won't be as large as with my progression which recovers a lot more losses with each win.
The trade-off is that we can go into the hole faster and deeper also. But, with the differential betting, I don't think we have to worry about this problem even if we stay at +1 unit after every win. It would result in less tracking which will help if we try to play 2 or 3 e.c.s at once.
I am attaching a short session I did from some historic spins from Weisbaden.
As you will see it is playing all 3 e.c's at the same time. I am not keeping track of the losses. I'm not sure it's necessary to increase by more than 1 when playing all 3 ec's.
Rather than track a null spin after each successful attack, I just use the last decisions to decide what I'm going to bet on the 1st bet of the new attack. My logic is this. If you had bet 1 on each location, you would have six 1's bet and they would of course cancel themselves out so the result would be zero. The next bet would have 3 bets of 1 unit and 3 bets of 2 units because all the wins would go to 2 units and all the losses would stay at 1 unit so that's what I bet on the 1st bet of the new attack.
In the chart you will see that the first bet was 1 unit on each location. After that you will notice that when I start a new attack, there are three 1 unit bets and three 2 unit bet. For example the 6th spin is a Red 5 which resulted in a +1 total. That means I reset. The next bet is for 2 units on Red since it won and 1 unit on Black since it lost. One unit on Even since it lost and 2 units on Odd since it won. One unit on Hi since it lost and 2 units on Lo since it won.
To the right of the chart is the result of combining all three and at the bottom is the result of each even chance bet. You will notice that R/B won 3 units. E/O won 13 units and H/L lost 2 units for a net win of 14 units. Not bad for 23 spins.
For those of you who are really interested in this system, a few minutes looking over the session will reveal pretty much how the system will work.
Questions are welcome.
George
Hi GLC
Its very interesting. I have read differential betting in WINMAXX which say it works very nicely when there is Ecart deviation between the red and black or even and odd or high and low. In the long term, they tend to balance each other. Therefore short session are probably profitable if it incorporates all the ECs meaning there will be probably Ecart deviation in one or two among the three ECs which can be materialised through your progression.
What will be the effect if there are lot of chops? Can you please shade some lights? :question:
also what progression do you think will be better? your tweaked Oscar in this thread or Win2 Up1?
Thanks a lot :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Catalyst
Quote from: catalyst on Jul 20, 10:35 PM 2011
Hi GLC
Its very interesting. I have read differential betting in WINMAXX which say it works very nicely when there is Ecart deviation between the red and black or even and odd or high and low. In the long term, they tend to balance each other. Therefore short session are probably profitable if it incorporates all the ECs meaning there will be probably Ecart deviation in one or two among the three ECs which can be materialised through your progression.
What will be the effect if there are lot of chops? Can you please shade some lights? :question:
also what progression do you think will be better? your tweaked Oscar in this thread or Win2 Up1?
Thanks a lot :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Catalyst
Catalyst,
Yes, chops are what causes this to drawdown. So far the chops have been short enough that a good streak can recover quickly. During chops we tend to lose 1 unit for every 2 bets, but with a good win streak we can recover at much more than 1 unit for each bet.
To be honest, I don't know which will work the best over the long run. Win 2 up 1 is a very safe, slow progression. I think it will hold it's own with this system.
The chart I posted with this system is much more aggressive than win 2 up 1.
I am interested in how to make w 2 up 1 less of a grinding progression. In other words, I want to incorporate the idea of making sure our wins wipe out more than 1 loss; 2 or even 3 losses wiped out by 1 win would be great.
I was thinking of this formula:
1. Start betting 1 unit.
2. When losses are 1-10, win 2 up1
3. When losses are 11-20, win 2 up 2.
4. When losses are 21-35, win 2 up 3.
5. When losses are 36-50, win 2 up 4.
This progression chart is just an idea. What I'm trying to do is increase our bet size as we have more and more losses without reaching our +1 target. If we don't increase our bet size, we can really have an Oscar's Grind. Might as well just play the original way. Not saying that's necessarily a bad idea.
It takes so long to test this thing, that I'm going to try to stay steady and gradual. I have played this a couple of times on airball and reach my +10 unit target in less then 50 spins each time. It looks like this will net 1 unit every 5-8 spins.
I'm frustrated as all get out because I know that Flatino's made a statement that indicates he's polished his Constant Winning Bet to the point that it's a winner flat betting. That makes it hard to spend time seeing if this system's going to fly or not when he's got one already soaring. When he makes a statement like:
Well guys I haven't been here for almost 2 months now,but have continued to work hard on this bet and finally
have created-Constant Winning Bet--/not promised/but
a life bet.......ON FLAT BET BASIS...on same principles of sectors betting.
You gotta consider putting things on hold and checking out what he's talking about.
You know what I mean?
GLC
Another session on my trusty 0/00 airball machine. I'm still just playing +1 on a win. No adjustments for losses. If you look closely, you'll see that I never reached -10 losses before reaching +1 or more.
I had a little losing streak in the middle of the session; a couple of zeros didn't help. But, a nice run on the high numbers pulled me out of it.
You can see that my largest bet was 12 units on the 2nd Red 36 about 60% of the way down the page.
At the bottom is the results for each even chance. To the far right is a running total. At one point I was down 20 units. This number is important because it gives us an idea about how large a buy-in we need to play safely.
When you check out the chart, don't just skim it looking at the totals, make sure you understand why I did each move.
I have decided that when zero hits, we should repeat the exact same bets for the next spin. We will just have to recover the loss down the line. This is not mandatory, you could act as if the larger bet lost on each even chance set. That's because if you are betting 5 units on Red and 7 units on Black. You would actually only bet 2 units on Black. So, if a zero spins, you lose your 2 units which is the same as the Red showing. That means you could act like the Red won and bet 6 units on Red and 7 units on Black for the next spin. I don't know which is better. Just taking the loss on a zero and betting the same bet on the nest spin is easier.
I did find myself having to really scramble a couple of times to get my bets played in time. More practice will definitely come in handy.
I personally don't think we need to be too concerned if we miss a spin every now and then. As a matter of fact, I don't think it will matter that much of we decide to just bet every other spin especially in the beginning before we get really proficient at the system.
Why do I say that? Right now this is a progression method, not a bet selection method. I do think it can be improved with a better bet selection method than just playing Red against Black, Odd against Even, High against Low. But, for right now, that's the way I'm testing it.
I don't even think it will make that much difference if we stop in the middle of an attack and come back at a later time or place and continue the progression.
The situations we are looking for to bring us into plus territory are very common and come around often enough that we don't have to worry with thinking that 5 or 6 in a row is due to hit soon. We've got 6 bet locations that can give us a good streak and it should happen pretty often.
Okay, enough said.
LoL,
George
One last round test to show you. These are the numbers immediately following the last post.
I didn't play them because I was visiting with a fellow roulette player that I see at the casino regularly.
I did keep track of the numbers while I was there for this purpose.
This session started off going into the hole, but only -7 at the worst point. After a short winning stretch it went into another drawdown to -12 before recovering to end the session. There were 2 more numbers that left me at -2 but I didn't post them because I normally leave after a win, and not in the middle of an attack.
So, 32 spins to win 15 units. Not bad. I'm getting the feeling that about 50 unit buy-in is the minimum I would set and since I like more wiggle room than that, I would probably buy-in for 100 units.
Nothing too exciting to say about this session.
GLC
HI GLC
i have collected 315 spins from airball machine by spending around 4 hours in the casino and i will run with this parallel progressionand i will let you know the outcome.
thanks
catalyst
hi George
I was thinking about the bet selection for ECs. Any type of bet selection other than following the both side as usual for differential betting could led us to further complication especially If we run Oscar series on both side of an EC, then manual calculation will be harder. For example, we run oscar PARALLEL by betting on both red and black. Black win, as our oscar dictates us to increase bet by one unit on black and to bet the difference (of betting unit between red and black) on black but our bet selection push us to bet on red. so, do we bet differential unit on red? and if we bet on red and red loses, do we still increase bet by one unit on black again although we have lost on red?
do we actually need a bet selection for differential betting on three ECs? :question: :question:
Its a tricky situation and I could not find a proper solution.
Hope, if you could throw some lights on this issue.
thanks
catalyst
Cat,
I think you're correct. I haven't attempted to use a bet selection method because I've been playing all three ECs and it's complicated enough just to calculate the next bet and get it down in time. But, I see what you mean.
Thanks for helping me think this through.
George
hi George
are you still having success with this? hope so.
have a look at this set of spins - this was the worst i could find for this method..
(link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3689.0;attach=4025;image)
from about the 4th line from the bottom up (from the zero on that line) up to the top, it really tests this. Although there are some streaks, they're not long enough or on 2 e/c's to pull it out.
i think it demonstrates the need for the stop-loss for this particular method, as opposed to something like Frippers Labby that is built on a priniciple of playing the game to the end.
I would personally put the stop-loss about 30u, as when it gets to this stage, you begin to get the feeling that it could just be getting out of control & impossible to pull back.
as you can see from your examples & mine, most of the time, 5,10 or 15 units can be won quite regularly without going beyond 20 units drawdown, so giving yourself 30 units might just be enough to win more than you lose.
Quote from: monaco on Jul 25, 09:23 AM 2011
hi George
are you still having success with this? hope so.
have a look at this set of spins - this was the worst I could find for this method..
(link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3689.0;attach=4025;image)
from about the 4th line from the bottom up (from the zero on that line) up to the top, it really tests this. Although there are some streaks, they're not long enough or on 2 e/c's to pull it out.
i think it demonstrates the need for the stop-loss for this particular method, as opposed to something like Frippers Labby that is built on a priniciple of playing the game to the end.
I would personally put the stop-loss about 30u, as when it gets to this stage, you begin to get the feeling that it could just be getting out of control & impossible to pull back.
as you can see from your examples & mine, most of the time, 5,10 or 15 units can be won quite regularly without going beyond 20 units drawdown, so giving yourself 30 units might just be enough to win more than you lose.
I appreciate the observation Monaco. Yes, as I tested it more I could see that there were going to be some large drawdowns that would take a real effort to come our of if you ever could. 30 unit stop loss may be just right. Low stop losses keep you up to date so you know where you stand with the system at all times. 1500 unit stop losses leave you thinking you've found the holy grail until you finally have a 1500 unit loss. And I don't even want to think about the possibility of two 1500 unit losses close together.
I will check out your spins when I get time just to see how bad it can get.
Also, it's such a difficult system to play and keep track of everything, that if it's not any better than a lot of others on this site, it's won't be worth all the effort.
G
Hello GLC,
It will take me a lot of research to understand the method.....
From what I can gather would the progression
1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c etc ...... help?
On a loss move down one on the progression on a win move up one.............
Quote from: amk on Jul 25, 07:49 PM 2011
Hello GLC,
It will take me a lot of research to understand the method.....
From what I can gather would the progression
1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c etc ...... help?
On a loss move down one on the progression on a win move up one.............
AMK, That's not the way I have suggested we play this modified Oscars. We never move down until we reach a new high bank. That will end this attack and we will reset all bets to 1 and start a new attack.
With the original Oscars we increase our bet amount by 1 unit after every win. With this progression, we track our number of losses and this will determine whether we increase our units bet by 1,2,3, or more after each win.
There are two controllers. 1 is the number of losses and 2 is the number of units to increase our bet by after each win. The chart I gave in post #1 tells us how many units to increase our bet by after a win depending on how many losses we have had up to that point in this attack.
So, if we are playing along and we have 6 losses and no wins, we are still betting 1 unit per bet. If we win the 7th spin, we will increase our bet size to 2 units because our loss count is less than 11 and our chart says that if our loss count is between 1 and 10 we only increase our bet size by 1 unit after each win.
If we are betting 6 units per bet and we have 13 losses and we win the current bet, we will increase our bet size by 2 units because our loss count falls in the 11-25 zone which tells us to increase our bet amount by 2 after each win.
The only time we have to start increasing our bet by more than 1 unit is when we are having a losing start to our attack and we are hoping for some wins in a row at unit amounts higher than we were betting on the bets we lost.
Remember, we never reduce our bet size until we reach a new high bank balance, and we only increase our bet size after we have just won.
I see GLC........
What are your stats up to this moment........
Monaco,
I devised this system because I thought it would be easier to play than Tera TNT. I don't know if it is or not if we have to play all 3 e.c.'s simultaneously to have a winning system. I am going to play your spin sequence from hell with this system and also with Tera TNT to see how each performs.
This will take a while since I don't know Tera TNT that well, so there will be a lot of mistakes that I'll have to correct. I am not going to play them differentially because it will be too complicated for the large number of spins.
I will play Red/Black with both systems and see which works the best. Then I will play O/E and H/L. whichever comes out on top, will be the method I'm going to work with to try to improve.
I'll keep everyone posted. Did you play your spins based on playing all three differentially?
George
Quote from: amk on Jul 25, 08:14 PM 2011
I see GLC........
What are your stats up to this moment........
AMK,
I'm not spending a lot of time testing this because I don't have a lot of time to sit and test. I have played a few short sessions at the local casino which I posted above. Most of my other testing have been with Smee's posted session and Bayes' horror session. So I don't really have stats that are going to convince you that this is something to invest a lot of time in. All I can say is if you're interested, test it and see how you like it.
If you have more questions about how it's played, I will be happy to try to clarify all.
Cheers,
George
Change of plans. Who would have guessed it?
I am shelving the differential bet method for the time being. Instead, I have been going through my notes because I was remembering an even chance bet selection method by Carlo that I always felt was one of the better ones out there. If I remember right, it resulted in a lot of win clumps which is what I'm looking for with this progression.
I don't know if I remember this exactly as Carlo presented it, but I know it's very close. Now that I have some experience under my belt, I can mold Carlo's system into whatever shape I feel fits the situation best.
We will be playing 1 e.c. to begin with, but eventually we will probably play all 3 at the same time so we have plenty of betting opportunities.
I will present this method using the Red/Black even chance.
We start betting when we have 2 or more of a color and then a change of color. At this point we bet for the new color to keep hitting.
Example: BBBR<---right here we start betting for Red. As long as Red continues to hit, we keep betting on it. As soon as B hits, we immediately switch to betting for B to keep coming.
Example: BBBRRRRB<----right here we bet for B to keep hitting.
We continue to bet this way until we get 2 losses in a row. If we get 2 losses in a row it's because the spins are chopping like this: BBBBRRBR<----right here we have lost 2 times in a row and should stop betting until we have a color change with at least 2 in a row and then another color change. Example: BBBBRRBRBRR<----don't start betting here. The RR is our change of color with a streak but now we have to wait until the color changes again before we start betting for a streak, like this: BBBBRRBRBRRB<----right here we start betting for Black to continue.
We also stop betting if we get LWLW. A LWLW is the result of this: BBB(RRBB) We lost on the 1st Red and the 4th Black. We stop betting until we get 3 of the same color in a row, or more, and then a switch to the other color like this: BBBRRBBRRBBBR<----right here is where we start betting again and we will be betting that Red will continue.
When zero hits, we just take the loss, but it doesn't interrupt the pattern flow. Just continue as if it didn't hit.
We are looking for streaks of the same e.c.. Not streaks of chops or doublets.
As you can see, we are using "a streak of 2 and a color change" as our trigger to start betting for a streak. When we get 2 chops, that breaks our streak pattern and we have to wait until we would have gotten 2 wins in a row before we can start betting for streaks again.
Option 1: If you are using a different bet progression than the one I'm using, you don't have to stop betting when you get LWLW since you will be winning 50% of the bets. I'm using a pluscoup progression which doesn't do well on a LWLW streak.
George
My newest thought on betting all 3 e.c.'s at the same time. Sorry for all the jumping around with ideas, but I want to get them down on paper before I forget them.
We will play all 3 e.c.s, but we always bet the same amount on each even chance. We will use the same tweaked Oscar's bet (with the new idea, I think we can use almost any progression we want with good results).
We start by betting 1 unit on each e.c. We can either loss 3; lose 1; win 1 or win 3. If we lose, we continue betting the same unit amount. If we win 3, we increase our unit amount by 1 unit. If we win +1 three times, we increase our unit amount by 1 unit. Remember, we always bet the same amount on each even chance.
We use the same loss chart as before but we multiply by 3. That means that we increase our bet on all 3 e.c.'s by 1 unit every time we win 3 units until we reach 30 losses. Then, when we win 3 bets,(remember, this could happen in 1 spin if we win on all 3 e.c.'s or it could take 3 spins if we win 2 e.c.'s and lose 1 e.c.) we increase our bet on all 3 e.c.'s by 2 units. etc....
Catalyst, Monaco, AMK, you should know exactly what I'm trying to accomplish here. If not, just ask. Any observations are eagerly awaited.
Sorry, I have to run.
George
Following up on the previous post.
We can lose all 3 e.c. bets = -3 No change in bet size.
We can lose 2 and win 1 = -1 No change in bet size.
We can win 2 and lose 1 = +1 Must win 3 times like this since the last +3 win to increase bet size.
We can win all 3 bets = +3 We increase bet size from 1 - ? depending on how many losses we have had.
I have tested this for just a few spins, and it looks to be pretty stable. I'm trying to identify the achilles heel.
I'm hoping this stablizes the system. I don't really mind if it slows the + and - swings down as long as it frequently finds itself at +1 or more.
Since we are not betting differentially, we can choose our favorite bet selection method. For right now, I'm just betting on the same even chance on each of the 3 locations for ease of play.
Cheers,
Glc
After a few more tests I can see that this new idea makes the system too volatile. :o
I can't recommend it! :'(
Due to work and family restrictions, I'm putting roulette on hold for a while!
Luck to all,
George
Quote from: GLC on Jul 29, 08:36 AM 2011
After a few more tests I can see that this new idea makes the system too volatile. :o
I can't recommend it! :'(
Due to work and family restrictions, I'm putting roulette on hold for a while!
Luck to all,
George
--
Take a time out George mate you deserved it.......you will be hearing from me soon.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Jul 29, 09:59 AM 2011
--
Take a time out George mate you deserved it.......you will be hearing from me soon.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I too can't wait to hear from F_LAT-INO again.
His knowledge and experience has saved me hours of testing unproftitable systems.
Looking forward to his next idea or system to be explored.
Nick
if two roulette-giant Fla_t_ino and George make a clubmix, even poison will be sweeter than honey! :twisted: ;D :thumbsup:
After much testing, I want to make a much needed tweak to this system. It makes it a little more aggressive, but I think it improves it in the long run.
My new chart is much more simple:
1-10 losses ^1 after each win
11-20 losses ^2 after each win
21-30 losses ^3
31-40 losses ^4
41-50 losses ^5
51-60 losses ^6
61-70 losses ^7
71-80 losses ^8
81-90 losses ^9
91-100 losses ^10
Never increase by more than 10 after a win.
You can be more conservative and limit it to a lesser number to increase after a win, say 5 or 6 units max.
I am going to copy this new chart to my topic "A system worth a King's ransom" since they are so similar.
Hope this helps some of you.
G