Here is a money management idea that I have had in the past couple weeks while testing in some other areas - figured I would put it out for the community.
If you find a method that tends to perform evenly, with wins and losses appearing but not dominating, it could be a very profitable staking method.
Take whatever your betting method is and start two separate d'Alembert progressions on a spreadsheet or sheet of paper. One is for your method to win, one is for your method to lose. The d'Alembert always returns a +1 for a win, because you always win at your highest betting amount. For instance, your win of 5 units is always in response to a loss of 4 units, therefore +1. As you win on one progression, you are losing on the other. However, unless you go out on a tear of 10 straight wins on one side of your progression, you will have wins and losses on both sides, with the numbers growing and shrinking in waves.
Since we are playing the differential of the two progressions, our units will stay a little smaller than with other systems. For instance, if you are betting 8 on the "lose" progression and 2 on the "win" progression, you actually just bet 6 on "lose". Note: this method is only for the ECs.
I recommend a session bankroll of 190 units. This is because a d'Alembert losing at level 20 is a total loss of 210 units. Since we are offsetting this -210 by 20 wins on the other portion of the system, our maximum risk is 190 (210-20) units.
You play until either your "wins" or "losses" progression ends up losing at the 10 unit level. This is where the dynamic betting comes in. That occurance says that one side of our equation is winning more than expected, with the other side losing more than expected. At this point, we simply swap progressions. If our "win" progression is at level 1 and our "lose" progression loses at level 10, our "win" is now at 10 and our "lose" is now at 1. If the trend continues, our gradual advantage to the "win" side will bring our 10 down towards 1, with wins on both sides of the equation all along. If at any point the 10 becomes 1, we swap them back and continue on doing so as long as we like.
If you are at a net plus, or at break even, when one side loses at level 10, take your wins and reset both sides of the progressions with a little more coin in your pocket than when you started. Because this tends to ride up and down, we benefit from wins on both sides from the d'Alembert progression.
Tweaks and comments appreciated and encouraged!
Amazing Colbster,
I feel I have seen random at work with the development of roulette methods/approaches. There are long periods with little evolution, then a wave happens were many profound methods appear/overlap at the same time. We are definitely in one of those peaks and the odds are in our favor that one or several are indeed successful.
At the moment there are a lot of new concepts/methods being released with such insight it is amazing. I have studied roulette for a year now and this is the first time that I feel I cannot assimilate it all at once. I would say that this has been the case over the last month. This is good though :) The game is really evolving and great opportunities are there.
I tested it to see when it finally cracked. After 448 spins, it collapsed with a +14 unit ending total. However, it saw a high of +178 at one point. Need some profit taking rules in place, but I like losing with a positive balance.
I used a terrible bet selection method on purpose to see how it would work on one of my crazy creations that I reject outright. One thing I am GREAT at is coming up with ways to consistently lose! This works with that.
"...crazy creations that I reject outright."-Colbster
"crazy creations"? You should have seen me when I first started!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One thing I am GREAT at is coming up with ways to consistently lose!"
Stay encouraged, for all we know the Grail is right under our noses :)
I have been working on something like this also for awhile but with some changes. One was a modified d'alembert, 50, 60,70,80 etc . Another thing I was trying was the 123456 system... 50,60,70 80 up on a win or a loss till ahead ,,,---I was trying not using differentials but for team play. 2 players , 2 opposite systems (Should work out the same doing the calculations with one player).....Shows promise but its grueling as i am a pen and paper tester
Don't lose sight of the changing of progressions in all of this. When we swap progressions when one is clearly outperforming the other, we can take advantage of medium- to long-term trends that will maximize our profits.
I have thought about this a lot (many headaches-lol as Im not a computer guy or a math guy). Many variations have popped into my head. (remember two players) One was when if one is winning and the other is deep into the progression the winning player might start parlaying or accelerating his wins while the losing player tries to dig out which will usually happen with the 123456 -up a unit on a win or loss till ahead... Im still at the getting more headaches than progress stage but It is a very interesting concept in general---And heck a 14 unit win on a bust out is pretty darn good in any gambling idea
Just as an example of how powerful this idea can be with poor bet selection, I have been playing around with an idea that was sent to me this week that has been a net loser: when you have a majority of the last 4 spins on one side of the EC, bet in that direction. Very easy to track, which is nice is a system, but it ended up losing in my tests.
I have played three sessions now, using the dynamic differential betting, with results so far of +75, +75, and +81. Some of it has been intuitive, which I don't like. I need to firm up the rules of getting out. Also, my swapping of progressions has been a little disorderly. However, when one side of the progression is running up (a bad thing), switching it to the other side has brought it back down in every case (a good thing).
Remember that we win 1 unit on every single bet we make, provided we don't bust out. As I mentioned earlier, if we extend that long enough, we are positive even when we do bust out. I like the idea of playing for moderate wins and resetting. I should be more precise about this, but for now, I am enjoying the returns.
Fascinating stuff....how often in general do you get to the 10th step?
I get to the 10th level all the time. That is not a cause for concern at all. With a single good streak of repeats, HHHHHHHHHHHHH, for instance, we have 10 wins on the "win" progression and 10 losses on "lose" progression. Even in regular play without strongs streaks, one side or the other will become dominant. Over the course of 100 or so spins, this regularly manifests as 55-45 distribution, or something similar. This 10 spin difference causes one side of the differential betting to rise to level 10. That is when I do the swap of the two progressions.
At this point, one side of the progression is down a maximum of 55 units (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10). However, during this time, even the losing side of the progression has had some wins which lessen the 55 and the winning side of the progression is positive some amount, which also helps mitigate the loss of the 55. Playing with the bet selection method I mentioned in the earlier post, by the time we get to losing at level 10, we will have made near, or frequently more than, 55 units. Our losses at this point are very slight, and we may actually even be at a positive balance here. When we are, I suggest taking the profit and starting over.
If you choose to stay in, swap the progressions and let the side that has been the dominant side win back some of what the weaker side has lost up to this point. You will regularly see one side so dominant that you can swap several times and it keeps drawing down the losses, resulting in strong, consistent profits.
I think that I am settling in on swapping when one side has reached a loss at level 10, and again when the side that received the 10 has moved up and lost at level 15. To me, this is an evidence of a change in the trend that means we should be able to recover nicely on what used to be the weak side, but what is now the stronger side of the ledger.
The perfect place to be is when you are getting lots of chops with one side at 8 or 9 and the other side at 9 or 10. This equilibrium means you are making a lot of money. Obviously, there are moments when you might want to play a hunch and swap the progressions because you feel that one side is trending down when you are getting too high in the progression. This is clearly up to you, and can be easily done on a whim as you see fit. This system offers lots of flexibility.
I have received a few requests for a copy of my spreadsheet. I have attached the blank sheet here. I also have had requests for examples. I will attach a session here in short order.
Spins are entered into row 1, beginning at A1. By D4, you will start getting bet selection in row 4. The two yellow rows are the d'Alembert progression formulas. The top is the "winning" progression that expects your next bet to be the same as the row 4 indicator. The bottom is the "losing" progression that expects your next bet to be the opposite as the the row 4 indicator. These two numbers will change throughout the session. If the "winning" number is 6 and the "losing" number is 2, you will bet 4 on "winning", meaning you will bet the same way as row 4 (either "H"igh or "L"ow). When you have lost at level 10 (which you will know is the case when you have 11 in the next bet of your progression), manually enter the progression amounts over each other. For instance, if at AD7, your progression says 11 and at AD11 your progression says 1, you will type 1 over the formula at AD7 and 11 over the formula at AD11. All the other cells will be corrected on their own. This swap can be manually done as many times as is necessary.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Don't save the spreadsheet with the swap in place or it will be incorrect later when you reopen it. I suggest saving a blank copy to open each session and choosing "no" to save changes when closing.
Row 14 is your running session bankroll. As I have mentioned before, I play with a session bankroll of 190 units which takes me to a maximum loss at level 20. Read other posts for more details on my experiences so far with the MM aspect of this.
Here is a 200-spin example of my play method. Results for 200 spins: 129 total bets placed, 69 losses, 60 wins. Total profit from this losing session: +71 units.
Notes for this session:
There are times when both progressions are both in profit at the same time - NICE!
Even though the "winning" progression started off stronger, it eventually sputtered and fell behind, losing at level 10 at BG7. At that point in time, I swapped the progressions to take advantage of the relatively stronger "losing" progression results.
The "losing" progression sputtered a little itself. If I had lost at CN11 instead of winning, I probably would have swapped the progressions again at that time. Instead, that was the turn-around spot that gradually recovered to level 7.
For most of the rest of the session, the ebb and flow of the "winning" and "losing" progressions was mild. We made a lot of units during the soft chops that we experienced.
There were 109 spins between the session low and the session-ending high. Usually, the lowest points are those around where we swap the progressions.
I hope this clarifies my testing methods. If anyone has any ideas how to optimize, or better MM rules for entry or exit, please add to the discussion.
Just an FYI on the spreadsheet I posted - if you slide along the yellow row 7, there should be nothing but 1's before you enter spins. If you find any that are not, that is where I manually swapped progressions and it needs to be fixed. On any cell that is correct, hit CTRL+C and move over the cell that is 11 instead of 1. Hit CTRL+V to correct it. The same will need to be done in the other yellow row where the cell says 1 instead of whatever the next number in the series should be. Once you correct this, save the spreadsheet and there should be no problems at all in the future.
Sorry for the oversight!
Colby
Thanks Colby for the spreadsheets . . . I am a nuts and bolts type and need to see everything in order to understand it properly.
Just to clarify, if I wanted to play just the straight (normal) d'alembert progression, I would simply use the bet amounts shown in yellow at row #7 with the results being shown in row #8?
Under this method, you would bet BOTH the amount shown in yellow row#7 to win the bet and the amount shown in yellow row# 11 to lose the bet.
Or you could bet the difference between the two yellow lines and bet only ONE of the yellow lines, whichever has the net difference so sometimes you would bet to win and sometimes bet to lose.
Whenever either yellow line reaches 10 (or some other predetermined amount) you simply swap the amounts to be bet?
Thanks for the clarifications . . . Nick
You are correct in all your explanations, Nick.
Yes, the straight d'Alembert is the upper set of numbers, with row 7 being the progression and row 8 being the running bankroll.
Differential betting specifically refers to when one progression (never flat-betting) offsets another competing progression of some sort. There is no reason to play both sides, as they cancel each other out. You only ever need to play the difference, qed "differential", between the two sides. The only exception to this I can even imagine is if you are trying to qualify for some bonus or something where you might get credit for how much you bet across the table. I'm not a fan at all of the bonus programs of casinos, but I know that some here are.
Finally, yes, simply swap the progressions. When I am tracking on my spreadsheet and I get a loss that now shows the next bet in that progression as 11, I type directly over the 11 and the 1 to override the formulas in the spreadsheet. 1 becomes 11, 11 becomes 1. Later, if you choose to switch the progressions back based on the developments of the session, it may be with different numbers, but the first swap is always 11 and 1.
Hope this helps and you find this method as robust as I am.
Colby
Just a comment. It's one you may have already looked at and rejected.
I have had excellent results using 2 labbys bet differentially. My idea was that if using a labby recovers 2 losses for 1 win and we use a labby on either side of an even chance bet, it would have to really get slanted to one side to lose. This is indeed the case. And yes, it does occassionally get heavy on one side over the other, but not too often.
A check to stop a run-away losing streak is to stop betting on one side after say 3 or 4 losses in a row until we get 1 or 2 wins as a trigger to resume betting.
LOL,
GLC
I had hoped that you would read this and weigh in eventually, as I consider you the Godfather of all things progression-related. I had given just cursory thought to this idea, although it floated through my grey matter long enough to register. Am I correct in thinking you would play this without any starting numbers, but rather just with the initial 1, followed by 1-1, and then 1-1-2? As you pointed out to me on another post recently, a Labby with a 1 at the beginning operates as a de facto d'Alembert progression anyway.
I think a large strength of my idea here is that we swap the progressions when one side is really getting ahead of the other. You are correct about the 2-losses-are-covered-by-1-win aspect of a Labby, which makes it very attractive. If one progression gets squirly, what do you think about moving it to the other side of the differential bet to take advantage of the (at least short-term) advantage that that side holds to try to recover?
Also, George, since a Labby is so good at staying at the low end, because of the 2-to-1 wins, wouldn't both progressions spend a lot of time at the low end? The reason why I ask is I would think this would lead to the progressions essentially cancelling themselves out (1 to win, 1 to lose). Wouldn't using Labby's end up giving us considerably fewer betting opportunities?
Colbster,
The way I usually play differential betting with labbys is to play any bet selection method. Red on one side and Black on the other side. I bet 1 unit following my bet selection method until 2 losses in a row. In otherwords, I play follow-the-last; so if I'm having a streak of a color I will be winning each bet. I just bet 1 unit until the color chops 2 times. When I lose 2 in a row, I go to the labbys. I start out with one of my labbys with a 1 and the other labby with 1 2. Whatever my next bet location would have been will be the color with the 1 2 labby.
Let's say we were betting a string of Reds and we had the following:
R
R Bet 1 +1
R bet 1 +1
B bet 1 -1
B bet 1 +1
B bet 1 +1
R bet 1 -1
B bet 1 -1 At this point I go into my labbys, betting them differentially. Since my next bet should be Black for follow-the-last, I assign the 1 labby to Red and the 1 2 labby to Black. That means I will be betting 2 on Black (3-1=2). If Red hits, the Red labby will remain 1 and the Black labby will become 1 2 3 and my next bet will be 3 on Black (4-1=3) because the difference is toward Black. From here we continue the labbys per normal.
Anytime a labby wins with only a single 1 for a line, I just reset another 1. I never have a labby line without at least a 1 in it.
Once I go into the labbys, the color with the most units in it's line gets the differential bet per normal, but there's nothing to say that we couldn't have the 2 labbys floating so that the one with the most units in it, will be assigned to the color your bet selection method says to bet next.
I'm not sure how to do this with a win progression and a lose progression but there should be a way to adapt it.
Using labbys may not help in the long run. The thing that kills it is a run of wins on one side which results in the bet for that side being 1 unit and the bet on the opposite side climbing to larger unit sizes. I think the dynamic part of your idea can be worked using labbys the same as it works unisng D'Alembert.
One other thing I do is reset all labbys anytime I reach a new high bank at which time I go back to just betting 1 unit on the last color until I have 2 losses. I do this 1 unit flat bet without involving labbys for simplicity and because most of our wins will be in the 1st 2 bets.
It's late and the Patriots just got edged out in the Super Bowl so this may not be making much sense.
If you think it's worth persuing and you have any questions, maybe we can work them out together, but I am limited on how much time I can invest in roulette at the moment.
GLC
Thanks for the explanation, GLC! I see how that could be a useful variation. It may be the bet selection I am using, but I am concerned that dueling Labby's have a severe risk profile. When I play with the bet selection I mentioned earlier, there are streaks of 8-10 Highs or Lows in a row that mean 8-10 wins in a row. Depending on the first number of the Labby on the losing side, that could be very hazardous to our bankroll!!! I have found that the losing side holds up slightly better than the winning side using my bet selection, so it might be that we use the Labby on the winning side and the d'Alembert on the losing side. That does make it harder to swap at the appropriate time, which I think is the strength of what I am aiming to do on this thread. If we had a bet selection that chopped between winners and loser regularly, the differential Labby's might be just the trick. I think I will be staying with the d'Alembert for the time being.
the selection soso and the reverse might be more stable?
Absolutely! The bet selection is nothing to write home about. It is simple to track and wins about 50% of the time. It isn't bad, but it relies on streaks of WWWWWWWWW to come back from the deficits of the rest of the time. We could probably do just as well with penultimate, which is even easier to track and you get to bet every spin. My point of using this was to take a marginal bet selection and show how to use the differential betting to gain an advantage, which I think is what we have here.
I def think its a great way to go....Hope more people get interested it could be more than interesting
going thru exactly what has to be bet on what is super hard for me but i guess with some practice it should get easier.....i hope:)
Glad you are giving it a whirl, Tomla. It has held up very well so far for me. I am continuing to test with the bet selection I outlined for the sake of continuity, but may change that up eventually. Like I said, penultimate is an even easier tracking bet selection and should perform just about as well. If you have any questions, shoot me a PM and I will give you whatever help you need.
I continue to be pleased with my results testing just on the H/L, so I decided to do some testing with the other ECs. I first did B/R which performed just as well as the H/L. Thus, I decided to integrate a tracker spreadsheet for all three ECs at the same time. The blank template is attached, as is a set that I played earlier this morning as an example. If you are confused by the example play, go back and read the comments from the earlier example posted in this thread for explanation.
A couple of notes on this new spreadsheet:
- I had to hide a bunch of unnecessary rows to make all the data fit on the screen in Excel at the same time. If you like the data, you can simply highlight the rows, right click and choose "unhide".
- There is a lot of data that can become visually overwhelming. I added conditional formatting to highlight when there is a bet to be had on any of the ECs. I also added a red border that will appear any time a cell for a progression contains 11. I don't actually know how to only do this the first time, so it will appear on every 11. This is just to help you know when to swap progressions the first time, but it might become confusing down the road. Let me know if it is easier to just remove this, or clear the conditional highlighting yourself if you know how to do that in Excel.
- This seems like a system where 2 ECs will be running great and one will be struggling along. Obviously, you might choose to stop playing the poor performing EC and let the other two run free.
- The progression seems to lag occasionally and generate a N/A at times when I'm not sure that it is supposed to. Any technical help from others on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
I hope this tracking sheet meets with everyone's approval. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make this more useful to the community. I think there is a lot of merit to this method.
Here is an example session of just under 300 spins that shows how resilient testing this system against all three ECs concurrently can be. After 218 spins, the B/R EC failed with a total of loss of -76 units. However, by that time, the other two ECs had a cumulative +92, meaning we could walk away on the loss with a +16 units in our pockets. However, I played for a while more to continue testing the other ECs results. By 299 spins, our other two ECs had earned a cumulative +242 units, meaning we were up 166 units in 300 spins, or a little better than +0.50 units per spin, even with the loss from the B/R.
Just as a side note, I did let the tracking on the B/R run while I played the other two. At one point, it recovered completely to a positive balance before falling back down. For those who have larger bankrolls, it might be worth letting the tracking go to 16 instead of 11 and playing to a loss at 30 instead of 20. You could argue the optimum arrangement all day, and I won't here, but it is something to consider as you look at this method.
Since the previous spreadsheet hasn't been downloaded very much, I figured I would summarize the results of my first foray into tracking all 3 ECs.
Total spins: 259
Total win/loss: +241
Lowest point: -22
There were several times when the B/R EC fell below zero besides that lowest point of -22. However, the other two ECs were already ahead and racing down the track to gains which easily offset the lowest drawdown for the B/R, which was -33 for 1 spin.
I just had a session of 300 spins where two of the ECs busted. One of the busts cost me 71 units, which was offset by the gains from the winning EC (+76). The first bust came at spin 229, again from the B/R (!!!!!), costing 97 units. Grand total from the session was -92 units net. Not good, but really not bad considering it eventually busted not one, but two 20 step progressions with a total loss of only 92 units. When added to the winning sessions, this is only a minor setback and one that does not concern me greatly. Just wanted to give full disclosure of a losing session, as I hate those threads that claim 32,000 consecutive wins and I bust out on my second go.
Another session, another fine result. 199 spins, a win on each of the 3 ECs. Grand total, this session ended up 163 units. The results are attached. Would love some help testing, as I don't know coding, but this looks really solid.
QuoteJust wanted to give full disclosure of a losing session, as I hate those threads that claim 32,000 consecutive wins and I bust out on my second go
Yeah me too mate and others I know will agree, it's a good thing you have had that "bad session" now you need to continue and see how far appart they are, you say this happened on the second session, but you are still ahead in bank that could mean you can handle plenty of bad sessions versus the good ones, time will tell as always.
Maybe if you could post a psuedo version of your method I may bot it for a long test, something like
track until ?
then do what
if win
if lose
etc, I havent kept up with the thread but do now read new posts on it, but not exactly sure what you are doing mate.
Here is the basic premise of what I am doing:
Bet selection - 3 or 4 out of the last 4 gives us our next bet. For example, if we have HHLH, I would bet H.
Money management - This is the guts of this thing and way more important than the bet selection. We play differential bets on "winning" and "losing" the bet according to the bet selection above. The progression is a straight d'Alembert. +1 on a loss, -1 on a win. When we reach level 11 on one or the other side of the differential, we swap them. For instance, if our "wining" side is 1 and our "losing" side is at 11, that shows this EC is presently favoring "winning". We swap the 11 to the "winning" side and the 1 to the "losing" side in the anticipation that the trend will continue and the uneven results will balance out.
If I lose at level 20 on any bet, I stop playing that EC for the session and look for the other ECs to make up the loss and then some profits for my efforts.
I don't have a drop dead win goal. Right now, I seem to be happy playing for about 300 spins online for a session. I am testing on BV NZ. As I don't play with zeros, someone else might have a good idea how to deal with the zeros for those on other tables.
Thanks for the interest! PM me if you have questions or need some clarification.
QuoteYeah me too mate and others I know will agree, it's a good thing you have had that "bad session" now you need to continue and see how far appart they are, you say this happened on the second session, but you are still ahead in bank that could mean you can handle plenty of bad sessions versus the good ones, time will tell as always.
This was my second session testing all three ECs at the same time. The R/B seems the most volatile, having both big wins and big losses. The E/O seems the most solid and consistent, but that remains to be seen. I began with the H/L and had phenomenal results with just that EC, with a total of 2 busts during about 15 sessions. I was very much in the money with that testing, being up probably around 1,000 cumulatively, even after the losses.
QuoteI am testing on BV NZ
I'll do it for that table no problems there, I may have questions over the progression method later, will let you know.
there is def something here,, i have hand tested about 20 bacc shoes...its still hard for me to do them--confusing at the least ....
18 shoes where positive 2 small losers
I will attempt some more this week
Tomla,
I am sorry for my ignorance of baccarat. How many results come from a single shoe? I am curious what sort of returns could be expected from a round at the table. I might give a go at BV baccarat just for the sake of testing my system. Sounds like a nice break from my routine.
Thanks for the feedback once again! Glad you see the potential here like I do.
baccarat has about 60-70 hands depending on amount of decks and how many cards are dealt. You bet Banker or Player or tie (disregard tie). the great thing is the odds(about 1.25% house advantage banker has a 5% commission) are way better than 00 roulette and its twice as fast. The game is a bit different as I believe its way choppier than roulette.
The way I would bet baccarat with a differential would be bpbpbpbpbp vs pbpbpbpbpb
the hard part is I can struggle thru with the diff bet on paper but think it would take a long time to set it up and play it in a live casino
As for know I think it has something special so I will keep on looking at it...
In Bacc im not sure if after the 10 losses to switch the column amounts as Bacc seems to even out and bounce back faster than roulette.....
A cleaner implementation of my idea as you have described baccarat is as follows:
Rather than doing 3 out of 4 tracking, take an easy system that works for what you describe as the choppier game, such as opposite-of-last or penultimate, your preference.
Tracking is very easy with a piece of paper and a pencil and two lines. Put a 1 on both the top and bottom line. Wait for the first result to come up (1 tracking hand). Now wait for the second hand to be played. Let us say for this example you are playing opposite-of-last. The first hand went banco. Our betting system expects the opposite, punto. If punto comes, we have a win. If banco comes, we have a loss. Increase whichever line did not win. If we got a win with punto, you would increase the losing line (bottom line) by 1. You now have a 1 over a 2.
Since our last result was punto, our system says that we are looking for the opposite, or banco. However, we need to consider the differential bet. We have a 2 on the losing line, a 1 on the winning line. We subtract the 1 from the 2, leaving us a 1 unit bet on the losing line. A win would mean a result of banco, but we are looking for a loss. We bet 1 unit on punto to repeat.
Let's say it does come up punto. This means we are up 1 unit. We had a "loss" (since our bet selection expected banco). Since we had a loss, we increase the 1 on the winning line to 2 and we reduce the 2 on the losing line to a 1 on the losing line.
Our differential bet now suggests that we bet 1 unit on the winning line (2 on winning - 1 on losing). We expect opposite of our last result of punto, so we place 1 unit on banco. We get punto again. Again, this is a loss according to our bet selection method of opposite-of-last. We leave the losing line at 1 and increase the winning line to 3. Our next bet would be 2 units on a win (3 on winning - 1 on losing). We place 2 units on the opposite-of-last, or banco.
Banco shows and we gain 2 units. We reduce the winning line 1 unit from 3 down to 2 and increase the losing line up from 1 unit to 2. This next hand, we don't bet because our differential values cancel each other out (2 units on winning - 2 units on losing). Win or lose, we will increase 1 line to 3 and decrease the other to 1. Our next hand will be 2 units on either winning or losing, depending on the result of the last hand.
Since you say that baccarat can be quite choppy, I would expect that the winning line would win more often than the losing line. If that is the case, we will eventually have a 1 on the top winning line and an 11 on the bottom losing line. We would swap those values for the next hand and would now have a 10-unit bet on whatever the winning result would be. We allow the winning choppy tendencies of the game to bring us back in line. Eventually, you might get back to the 1 on top and 11 on the bottom with a very strong chop session, or some other variation. By this time, you would be solidly up for the session. You could reset, pocketing the money, end the session, again pocketing the money, or swap back for another leg of this session in the hopes of even greater wins.
I hope that makes the method a little clearer for your application. If not, just shoot me a PM and I will be glad to help you however you need. Since you are not using a computer for your testing, a simple bet selection will make tracking a lot easier and you can concentrate on the progressions. Good luck!
what is considered a blowout on this system? It is not one getting ahead by 10 , so what exactly is the i give up point:),, you mentioned at the start of this thread that you had a loss but where still 14 or 17 units up?
The most you can possible lose in a session playing how I play is 190 units. I play to a loss at level 20 in the progression, which is 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20, or 210 units. Since a loss on 1 side of the equation is a win on the other side of the equation, the only possible way you could have 20 losses is with 20 wins. Worst case scenario, this is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, or 20 units. The 210 units lost - the 20 units lost is 190 units. This could only happen if you lost the first 20 consecutive bets. I look at my progress when I hit my loss at the 10th level. If I am up, rather than swapping progressions, I typically take my wins and reset for another go. If I am down, I will do the swap and continue as before. Chops are actually the best possible world because you are moving up and then back down on each progression evenly, with a +1 on each hand on one progression or the other. It is completely possible to have positive balances on both progressions at the same time. After a period, you will have won enough that even a total blowout of the 210 units will end in a positive balance because you have earned more than that in the plays up to the loss.
ok now i have it:) thanks so much
Another session, another nice win! Total spins: 200, ending balance: 144. Each of the ECs performed well on this: 44, 50 and 50 unit wins. Largest drawdown came at spin 30, with a negative 55 units. The B/R EC went on a mad streak to start the session and moved into larger bets early on. After switching the progressions, it had another mad streak in our favor and quickly recovered all that it had lost early on. This one never even made me sweat!
Without a doubt, my best session yet! Over +1 unit per spin!
Total spins: 200
H/L Progression +68
E/O Progression +65
B/R Progression +105
Total Bank +238
Lowest point -9
Only 4 spins during this 200 spin session were below 0!!!!
This was one of those rounds where you can feel how much potential this method has. Glad to see it perform so brilliantly.
I'm playing this with a tweak. I reset bets whenever I'm in a new plus.
I think it adds safety to the system. Haven't lost any session yet.
Maximum I betted until now was 12.
Cheers and thank you for sharing this. Hope I'm not banned from casino for playing this way :)
Another member on here is testing it with resetting on +1 unit as well. I think you are correct about the safety factor and that this might be a great variation. My actual system relies on the swap of the progressions, which is unlikely to ever happen resetting that early. I am looking forward to seeing your results on your change.
Good luck and thanks for the idea!
Hello Colbster
I would not play your system without early reset or much earlier swapping. If you encounter streak of lets say 5 or 6 repeats on a wrong side in early stages you have a chance to recover. Equalization factor might not help you later. The dangerous situation is when you get to the point when you bet lets say 15 units on one side and 2 or 3 on other and you lose 3 or 4 next bets. On other side you can only win few units. In one of your examples you were down at one point 79u and you recovered but it required winning 14 out of next 19 bets. You won't be that lucky next time.
To me you were extremely lucky not to lose big more times.
Do early reset and maybe its necessary to incorporate some control about spread between bets and stop-loss is absolutely crucial.
Regards
Yesterday with some communication with Colby, I botted it and ran many tests, sadly it gets to a point of no return, or the drawdowns are just too big, I ran a simulation against 10,000 real money spins at BV NZ first test was without resetting when ahead, yes it made more money but had huge drawdowns, using 1 cent chips the drawdown was $70, resetting when ahead against the same number set made a lot less money and had only a slightly lower drawdown, $68 I think it was.
QuoteTo me you were extremely lucky not to lose big more times
I have to agree i'm afraid, bet selection could play a large part in the results but as we know, no matter what selection you use there will always be the run from hell that works against it.
QuoteI would not play your system without early reset or much earlier swapping
I agree with that. Maybe try a reverse D'Alembert? (raising after wins, not losses). Or you could cut it short at maybe 10 units and then start over at 3 units on both sides.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 14, 03:41 AM 2012
I agree with that. Maybe try a reverse D'Alembert? (raising after wins, not losses). Or you could cut it short at maybe 10 units and then start over at 3 units on both sides.
I would pray for a streak of chops at early stages to get some quick profit and shut down.
Or i would try to guard against betting on wrong repeats by shifting bets between EC but if you encounter opposite sequence of chops then you lose as well.
But generally i would consider it much safer bet.
Regards
@Robeen I have had some of the same concern about getting to the point of no return. The earlier swapping seems like it could be the better solution, maybe 5 or 6? The reason that I was able to recover was that I moved to the side that had already showed a clear advantage by being able to pull 10 bets ahead of even. A simplistic bet like the one I use will typically perform either really well or really poorly. Swapping to the stronger side seems to take advantage of that, but I may be waiting too long. Thanks for the input.
@Superman Not sure if you got my email in reply. You couldn't have a drawdown of of 7000 units if you stop at level 20, which is what I suggested. The maximum loss that you could incur is 190 units. The danger with a d'Alembert is the ridiculous numbers you can get too with a poor bet selection. Did you ever reswap at a higher level than 10? Results would be different if you did.
@Bayes Not a fan of the reverse d'Alembert on its own, but it might work brilliantly with a differential bet. I will play around with it some. Thanks for the idea. Also, 10 brings the possible loss down to 45 units vs. 190 units at level 20, although it doesn't give much time for recovery. We always need to be mindful of risk v. return.
Quote@Superman Not sure if you got my email in reply. You couldn't have a drawdown of of 7000 units if you stop at level 20, which is what I suggested. The maximum loss that you could incur is 190 units. The danger with a d'Alembert is the ridiculous numbers you can get too with a poor bet selection. Did you ever reswap at a higher level than 10? Results would be different if you did
No I didn't stop at any level, I replied to this post before I saw your email this morning.
When you say stop at level 20 do you mean stop when either progression hits 20?
If you stop at 20 what do you do next, just reset to 1/1, continue and take the loss? the only other thing would be to stop for the day, but then its like hit and run which we know doesn't work.
I will run a test that resets both to 1 if either hit 21 and continue from there
ok test complete, sad news
Resetting to 1/1 after a + in bank = total loss of -1138 units, peak reached 87, worst drawdown was -1385, highest progression used was 19 units.
NOT resetting after + in bank = -1177 units, peak reached 138, worst drawdown was -1424, highest progression used was 19 units. > 20 Resets = 39
NOT resetting after + in bank = -1015 units, peak reached 144, worst drawdown was -1086, highest progression used was 19 units. > 10 Resets = 108
I have regularly exceeded your peaks, so I am thinking we are not communicating properly. Also, did you take any profits along the way? If we have a stop-loss but no win goal, we will just have a series of 190-unit losses and no wins.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 14, 09:31 AM 2012
I have regularly exceeded your peaks, so I am thinking we are not communicating properly. Also, did you take any profits along the way? If we have a stop-loss but no win goal, we will just have a series of 190-unit losses and no wins.
[/qu
Hello Cobster
i dont need any statistical testing to tell me that your stop loss should not be around 80u. i would put it on the level on which you would need 2 consecutive wins to put you close to breaking even point. If u require 5 consecutive wins to break even then you would not be able to recover most of the time.
I would aim for win goal of max 20 units with resetting and early swapping and stop loss of around 30 units. In my opinion its an realistic goal.
In this case winning 2 out of 3 sessions or 3 out of 4 would make you profit.
If your draw down exceeds 50 units its very difficult to recover on a constant basis no matter if u swap or not.
Thats my humble opinion
Regards
30 unit stop loss only gives you 7 steps, which is not long enough for the benefits of the swap to kick in. I agree that 2 wins to cover 1 loss is a great place to be, and that is roughly where I am when playing a single EC. When I play 3 ECs, my losses tend to be largely offset by wins on the other ECs, so my losses are relatively small compared to the wins of my best sessions. If you look at the sessions I have recorded, you will see that most of my losses are recovered by just a single win. The second win that you want to have as a loss recovery is the pure profit. I'm up about 800 units so far in limited testing, including my biggest losses. I understand your desire to stay resonably safe, but I think your changes woud neuter the beauty of what I am putting forward here. However, I absolutely appreciate the input and am anxious to hear what works for you if you do some testing with your changes.
Thanks again!
Colby
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 14, 02:12 PM 2012
30 unit stop-loss only gives you 7 steps, which is not long enough for the benefits of the swap to kick in. I agree that 2 wins to cover 1 loss is a great place to be, and that is roughly where I am when playing a single EC. When I play 3 ECs, my losses tend to be largely offset by wins on the other ECs, so my losses are relatively small compared to the wins of my best sessions. If you look at the sessions I have recorded, you will see that most of my losses are recovered by just a single win. The second win that you want to have as a loss recovery is the pure profit. I'm up about 800 units so far in limited testing, including my biggest losses. I understand your desire to stay resonably safe, but I think your changes woud neuter the beauty of what I am putting forward here. However, I absolutely appreciate the input and am anxious to hear what works for you if you do some testing with your changes.
Thanks again!
Colby
Hello Colbster
If you play 3 EC at the same time then you can of course offset some losses in one EC.
I don't understand though your statement that in most of your sessions you can recover by just one win. In earlier post i wrote that once you went down 79u and needed to win 13 out of 19 next bets or 6 consecutive bets to recover.
Swapping just gives you a false sense of more security. If you can read trends that well why do you need a system like this? Just use simple d'Alembert or other suitable progression. I definitely like the idea of playing all 3 EC at the same time.
I played a system betting on EC before when i managed to pull myself from 70 or 80 units down and got lucky few times but finally lost 2 times in the row. At this level you usually need at least of 5 more wins to recover (like 13 wins and 6 losses in the next 19 bets in your case) In my experience its very difficult to have such a ratio.
Don't get me wrong. I like your system but you need to have win goal and stop-loss and i would definitely reset.
Playing all 3 EC like this might make you profit long term.
Regards
I didn't mean one spin win, I meant one session win. When I lose, it was 70-100 units. That is typically what I gain before quitting a session as well. When this system loses, it has partially been offset by the spins so far. When it works, it works brilliantly and consumes the losses. I don't have to read the trends, the system reads the trends and corrects itself. When the bet selection is winning a ton, the losing line goes down 10 units. Then I swap the 10 units to the winning side and they are overcome by the winning system. It solves its own problems. Brilliant!
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 14, 09:46 PM 2012
I didn't mean one spin win, I meant one session win. When I lose, it was 70-100 units. That is typically what I gain before quitting a session as well. When this system loses, it has partially been offset by the spins so far. When it works, it works brilliantly and consumes the losses. I don't have to read the trends, the system reads the trends and corrects itself. When the bet selection is winning a ton, the losing line goes down 10 units. Then I swap the 10 units to the winning side and they are overcome by the winning system. It solves its own problems. Brilliant!
Hello Colbster
I gave it some thought and i think that maybe we could play it a bit different. I bet every spin. The worst situation is when you have long repeats on both EC's. Like when you get HHHHH at the beginning you are down 10u. If you get after this a long streak of L's like LLLLL you back to zero. But if you alternated your bets on H and L you would be ahead 7u.
Let me explain more :
H H 1 L -1 you bet 2u on H instead of L
H H 2 L -1 you bet 2u on H again
H H 2 L -1
H H 2 L -1
H H 2 L -1 you got 4 repeats and you are ahead 4u
L H -2 L 1 you continue alternating
L H -1 L 3 u won 3u on L and bet then 2u on opposite and vice versa
L H -2 L 2 again you switch your bets: 3u on L instead of H after loss
L H -1 L 3
L H -2 L 2 ahead 7u
If you get chops after that lets see what happens
H H 1 L -3
L H -4 L 1
H H 1 L -5
L H -6 L 1 down 8u overall
You are on the wrong side of chops. Thats a worst case scenario
L H -1 L 7
H H 6 L -2
L H -3 L 5
H H 4 L -4 up 4u overall
Now you got on the right side and repeats are coming
H H 5 L -3
H H 4 L -4
H H 5 L -3
H H 4 L -4
H H 5 L -3 +10u
L H -4 L 4
L H -3 L 5
You pull ahead. Sometimes you bet the same amount on both. Of course because of 0 you skip it and bet virtually.
My point is that playing like this you are much more safe. Basically only if you bet for wrong sequence of chops you will get constant losses but you can take advantage of repeats and good sequence of chops.
Just an idea.
Regards
I understand where you are coming from. No matter what system we put into effect, there will be some series that will beat it. We have to be careful not to tailor our systems to beat one set of circumstances, just to be beat by another set of circumstances. The reason why I believe that this works as well as it seems to is because roulette has short-, medium-, and long-term trends. If there were no trends, that would be a trend that could be exploited by a clever bettor. Since there are trends, specifically a bet selection method working or not working well during a session, we bend that trend back on itself. With the differential betting I am suggesting, we don't win a lot of money if we win every bet. We win the most when the chops come and we keep both progressions churning and winning positive amounts at the same time. When the winning line is at 1 and the losing line is at 10, that tells us that we are winning a lot more than we are losing. We can take advantage of that temporary knowledge by swapping the progressions and letting the winning trends take our 1-10 down to 5-5, or even better 10-1 so we can do it all over again and make even more money.
You suggested in an earlier post that I was just lucky because I won a disproportionate number of spins. That wasn't luck, that was the system working the way it is supposed to. By identifying that we were winning more than we were losing, we were able to take the "losing" progression and clean it up with the winning trend for that session. It doesn't always work that way. If we have WWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLL, we are shot. However, that sort of streak is uncommon enough that we can win a lot of money in between the disaster sessions, enough that we can weather the hit we will eventually take. Max loss with my rules is 190 units. If we regularly take profits of 50 or 70 or 90, based on nothing more than our feel for where we are in the game, we cover that 190 quickly and then start putting some in our pockets for supper.
I'm not afraid of the losses here. They will always come. Don't overlook the winnings while you are trying to avoid the losses.
Hello Colbster
Good luck then. I still think that its extremely difficult to recover from bigger than 50u draw down playing single EC and stop loss of 190 is bit too high. But if it works for you so far then congrats.
Anyway its only for non zero roulette.
Regards
Yeah, a single zero can completly kill this system. French roullete is also good, the 0 losses are halved, and its where I play this.
And how do you play this in BV no zero table? I couldnt do it!It says that the bets can't be mutual exclusive lol . How you do it?
By the way, has anyone tougth about a way to cover 0?
Cheers
You don't play both sides. You play the larger side of the differential bet less the smaller side. If you are at 8 on winning line and 2 on losing line, you bet 6 on winning and 0 on losing.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 16, 08:57 PM 2012
You don't play both sides. You play the larger side of the differential bet less the smaller side. If you are at 8 on winning line and 2 on losing line, you bet 6 on winning and 0 on losing.
Hello
Yeah of course you don't bet on both sides but playing such a long sessions it would be advisable to cover 0. I would never play long sessions without covering 0 if my betting would allow it.
Got burned before i guess like everybody else. Few days ago got 3 0's in 10 spins.
But sometimes you just have to take more risks.
Regards
I'm sorry for not posting much lately. I have been tied up with sicknesses and injuries among my employees at work, so I have been wearing a lot of different hats, very few of them related to roulette. I wanted to post an example of a session that I just completed as an example of just how resilient this method that I have proposed really is. I have had several write to me, both publicly and privately, concerned that the drawdowns are just too steep and that this method cannot hold up under such pressure.
I am attaching the actual spins (Note: this is the very next game I have played after my last post, despite the time that has elapsed since my last update. This is not me cherry picking a good example out of several bad runs) with the following stats:
Total wins: +201 units
Total spins to reach +200 units: 205
Total spins to reach +100 units: 114
Lowest B/R balance for the session: -5 on my 4th bet (After this spin, the next 200 spins were in positive territory)
Largest drawdowns from peak:
56 units (Took just 9 spins to reach a new peak)
56 units (Took just 6 spins to reach a new peak)
53 units (Took just 7 spins to reach a new peak)
The very reason that people don't trust this system is the very strength of this system. When we have a drawdown, it is because one side of a differential is taking over. By swapping the progressions when this happens, we now put the higher bets on the side that has shown the strength. In this session, all three ECs demonstrate a preference to one side of the equation eventually. This is exactly the point behind my method, and I think that this session should give a lot of confidence to people who are thinking about giving it a whirl.
Here is a graph of my bankroll during the last posted session for quick review. Higher highs and higher lows show this is trending well in our favor. I would love to be the guy that buys a stock with this growth chart beginning at 0, which is exactly what I did with this session.
Thanks for this amazing system. I have proving something similar with two laboucheres at the same time with red and blacks appling a differential betting with the help of a laby sofware i have found in this forum.
Code or software its needed. 8)
Here is another interesting example, and again, the next one in sequence.
Total spins: 181
Total units won: +201
Spins to +100: 111
Lowest point: -19
I spent a total of 44 spins at the beginning at 0 or negative, and even after breaking above even, fell back into negative briefly. However, by 111 spins in, I had won over 100 units. Only two of the three ECs got far enough into the progression to swap progressions, but one of them (E/O) had a strong enough trend that I actually switched it twice. The max drawdown on this session was only 39 units, and it had recovered to a new session peak within 7 spins of that drawdown.
Again, I have attached a chart of the winning session below.
Forgive me Colbster,
I have not kept up with your method and have to start again from scratch really.
Am I correct in saying that WWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLL is the only losing sequence or alterations of the same WL streaks back and forth?
Really like this approach and should be the key I think although maybe not perfected. As you mention you jump ship to the winning trend and things correct themselves.
Yes, a strong winning trend, followed immediately by a strong losing trend is the demise of this system. Chops are perfect, as are gradual trends for and against. It has to be pretty severe to make it bust at a loss. As I mentioned before, there are times where you can bust and still be up because enough chops have come to make you positive before the strong trends.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 20, 08:53 PM 2012
Yes, a strong winning trend, followed immediately by a strong losing trend is the demise of this system. Chops are perfect, as are gradual trends for and against. It has to be pretty severe to make it bust at a loss. As I mentioned before, there are times where you can bust and still be up because enough chops have come to make you positive before the strong trends.
Hello Cobster
What do you consider a bust?
Do you still play it certain number of spins or you stop if you reach your win target? Do you evaluate all 3 ECs separately?
Regards
I consider a bust a loss at level 20.
I do not evaluate the ECs for bankroll or return individually, but only evaluate them at a bust of one. If the others are still strong, I will continue a session with just those two ECs with the hope/expectation that they will further offset the loss from the poor-performing EC. Each EC acts very independently. The weakest by far for a couple games will end up being the champion of the next.
I have been trying to squeeze manual testing sessions in wherever possible. For this purpose, I have been playing most recently with a goal of +200 units total. As you see in the past few posts, this takes me around 200 spins. As soon as the session takes off, it is very rare not to be in a positive, even after a bust in one EC. You can pretty much quit when you are finished winning, bored, need to pee, etc. I will note that when we successfully swap a progression, the optimum time to quit on that EC is when they have reacquired equilibrium. If we swap an 1 and 11, the 11 loses a couple more times right out of the gate and grows to 14-1, I will quit when they get around 7-7, 7-8, 8-7, somewhere in there. If it is a super strong trend, I might let that 11-1 move back to 1-11 and swap again. It is very subjective.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 21, 06:47 AM 2012
I consider a bust a loss at level 20.
I do not evaluate the ECs for bankroll or return individually, but only evaluate them at a bust of one. If the others are still strong, I will continue a session with just those two ECs with the hope/expectation that they will further offset the loss from the poor-performing EC. Each EC acts very independently. The weakest by far for a couple games will end up being the champion of the next.
I have been trying to squeeze manual testing sessions in wherever possible. For this purpose, I have been playing most recently with a goal of +200 units total. As you see in the past few posts, this takes me around 200 spins. As soon as the session takes off, it is very rare not to be in a positive, even after a bust in one EC. You can pretty much quit when you are finished winning, bored, need to pee, etc. I will note that when we successfully swap a progression, the optimum time to quit on that EC is when they have reacquired equilibrium. If we swap an 1 and 11, the 11 loses a couple more times right out of the gate and grows to 14-1, I will quit when they get around 7-7, 7-8, 8-7, somewhere in there. If it is a super strong trend, I might let that 11-1 move back to 1-11 and swap again. It is very subjective.
Hello Colbster
I play on airball machine and its not much time to place bets at the beginning. You really have to be prepared or change casino ^-^
Some tracker would be good.
Regards
That would be ideal, although I don't have the necessary skills to create one. I have had a couple guys ask for clarification of my play method for the purpose of botting and tracking, but I haven't seen anything functional from anyone yet. I hope to see something for this, as the results have pleased me very much so far.
Here are some more results. First, I had a losing session, although since I was not at my home computer, I don't have graphs or the stats in front of me. Grand total was a loss of about 76 units, but that could have gone 1 or 2 units either way. Not trying to sugar-coat it, just don't have the session saved.
This next session was at home, though, with the results as follows:
Total spins: 174
Total units won: 206
Total spins to +100: 99
Lowest BR of the session: -25
Largest drawdown of the session: 43 (6 spins later, we reached a new peak)
I did have a thought on a money-management tweak. I have been playing until a bust at level 20. If we do not meet our win goal before we lose at level 15 (I have been playing more-or-less to +200 per session), I suggest we end a session immediately if we have any positive balance. I have seen where we poke our heads up to a small win on our way to busting out. As I mentioned earlier, I lost around 76 units after a bust. The spins from levels 16 through 20 on that particular losing EC ended up costing us exactly 85 units, meaning I must have been even or at a tiny plus before the high-value losses at the end. I am not suggesting not going this high in the progression, as it sometimes takes that long for the momentum of the stronger side of an EC to correct the disparity after the swap. I am just suggesting that we look for a less painful exit point when we see that we might be heading south in a session. Just a thought.
My very first session after posting my thoughts on looking for an exit when things start going squirly gives a very good demonstration of why this might be a good addition to the system. This was a wild session, with a low of -36 units, a drawdown of 72 and a drawdown of 109 units, and a bust with a winning total of +31 units. The swaps did exactly what they were meant to do through the middle of the session, taking a strong trend and using it against itself for profit.
However, there were several instances where things got moving the wrong direction quickly. At spin 73, we lost at level 15 on the H/L EC. At this point in time, that EC was -69 units, although the other two were positive, giving us a -30 balance at that moment. 4 spins later, we could have reset at +10 units. Not a killing, and not the high point after that moment, but certainly a safe play in the interest of protecting BR.
At spin 123, we lost at level 15 on the E/O EC. By now, H/L had recovered to positive territory and B/R was buzzing along nicely. Even though we were at -40 on the E/O EC, we were at +35 units. If we had quit at that moment, we would have had a higher ending balance than we eventually did after the bust. Yes, there were moments when it grew from this point, but it could have done that starting back at 0 with a new session. It protects us to avoid big losses when we can if we see a lot of indecision being thrown at us in the session.
Finally at spin 158, we had our H/L EC back nearly in the red after another loss at level 15. By this time, the E/O EC had recovered back to slightly positive territory and B/R was still doing great. After the loss on H/L at level 15, that EC has a +5 balance and our overall BR was +66. There are some on this board who laugh at taking +66 units as not being worth their time. I will take 66 units profit anytime I can!
To summarize this post, we still won a profit, even after a session-ending bust. This is a strong system that I think has a lot of merit. I remain surprised that so few people are following along on this method, as it has shown it has the ability to recover nicely and generate some awesome profits. When we see an EC marching towards a loss, it might be time to look for the fire exit. We had 3 separate opportunities after a loss at level 15 to walk away with profits, with 2 of those 3 giving profits greater than our eventual ending BR for this session.
I think this might be a great rule to add to this system. Hope everyone else is having as much fun and success playing this as I am.
Quote from: Colbster on Feb 25, 05:37 PM 2012
To summarize this post, we still won a profit, even after a session-ending bust. This is a strong system that I think has a lot of merit. I remain surprised that so few people are following along on this method, as it has shown it has the ability to recover nicely and generate some awesome profits.
I think this might be a great rule to add to this system. Hope everyone else is having as much fun and success playing this as I am.
Colbster, I have much respect for your roulette savvy. I have been following your postings avidly but have not been testing. Why? For me, it's because this system takes a lot of time and effort to test thoroughly enough to come to the conclusion that it's a long term winner.
Your postings are for sure starting to draw me away from some of my ideas toward this concept of switching the side you're betting on when things are going bad hoping they continue and you can cash in on the opposite bets.
I have been here where you are several times, so I know how you feel. Having 2 or 3 other members working hard with you is a source of great encouragement and motivates us to keep going. One negative is that with more people making tweak suggestions, it can get so jumbled that eventually we don't know which method of play is the strongest.
At least with you being the main communicator, it is easier to follow how the system is developing. I will run a few tests myself. I know that there's nothing like getting your feet wet with a system to really appreciate it's worth.
From my perspective drawdowns of 72 and 109 units are very manageable. To come out with a win after a bust isn't too shabby either. I assume your bust was 190 units. I know that once you reach -190 in the hole if you continue to play and lose you go in the hole deeper faster because your progression has escalated to much higher bet sizes, but a bank of 500 units (or 5000 per Winkle) might be just the thing.
Don't give up on us just yet.
If all of a sudden you stop posting on the forum, I'm going to assume you've come to the conclusion that this is the one and all that's left to do is rake in the chips.
Keep on winning my friend,
GLC
Okay Colby, I've read through your complete postings and have some observations and questions. What is the difference in betting a win progression and a loss progression? If you were say betting Red/Black, what's the difference from betting a progression on Red to win and a progression on Black to win?
Have you considered a win target of say +25 units if you don't have the need for a switch before reaching +25. If you do have the need for a switch, you could extend the win target to +40 or +50.
Another thought is to shoot for a win target of say 30 or 40 and keep playing as long as you keep winning. Once you lose 10 units from your highest amount, you end that session whether you've had to switch or not.
Finally, on my system ROL vs BEH I had excellent results using what has been called the Boffins bet. It's just a single parlay system. It's made up of a bet plus a let-it-ride or parlay bet. You win 3 times whatever your bet was. The progression is:
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
14
17
23
30
40
A total loss is -160 units which never happens for the same reason that you will never have a -190 unit bust with your D'Alembert progression.
I'm not saying the boffins bet will be better than the D'Alembert, but it did play well with my system. It's a little more difficult to track because you can bet a unit amount and it can be either the 1st bet or the parlay part of the 2 part bet which get's confusing until you figure out a good method to keep track of where you are with your bts. We need 2 wins in a row to recover all losses on a progression. Just a thought. I don't know if it's worth pursuing, D'Alembert seems to be doing quite well.
Quote from: GLC on Feb 26, 12:02 AM 2012
Okay Colby, I've read through your complete postings and have some observations and questions. What is the difference in betting a win progression and a loss progression? If you were say betting Red/Black, what's the difference from betting a progression on Red to win and a progression on Black to win?
Have you considered a win target of say +25 units if you don't have the need for a switch before reaching +25. If you do have the need for a switch, you could extend the win target to +40 or +50.
Another thought is to shoot for a win target of say 30 or 40 and keep playing as long as you keep winning. Once you lose 10 units from your highest amount, you end that session whether you've had to switch or not.
Finally, on my system ROL vs BEH I had excellent results using what has been called the Boffins bet. It's just a single parlay system. It's made up of a bet plus a let-it-ride or parlay bet. You win 3 times whatever your bet was. The progression is:
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
14
17
23
30
40
A total loss is -160 units which never happens for the same reason that you will never have a -190 unit bust with your D'Alembert progression.
I'm not saying the boffins bet will be better than the D'Alembert, but it did play well with my system. It's a little more difficult to track because you can bet a unit amount and it can be either the 1st bet or the parlay part of the 2 part bet which get's confusing until you figure out a good method to keep track of where you are with your bts. We need 2 wins in a row to recover all losses on a progression. Just a thought. I don't know if it's worth pursuing, D'Alembert seems to be doing quite well.
Hello
I agree with your idea of moderate win target. You have a good chance betting on all 3 EC's to rack up few wins in a row. For me its time to get out and not push for more.
Once you start to bet 10 units your risk factor increases. I would set win goal at 2/3 of stop loss because i think its realistic to win 3 out 4 games meaning your total profit would be your stop loss.
Regards
George,
Thanks for the words of support. I remember you posting on the Boffins bet some time back, and remember being intrigued by the bet. I don't remember what pushed me off, but it was probably that I was focused on testing the system I created a couple years ago. I am not a coder, regrettably, and I don't know that I know the best way to implement the Boffins bet into an Excel tracking spreadsheet. I would be thrilled to see the results, which could easily surpass my own very acceptable returns. I hope someone with the skill set can take up that mantle.
I have also given a lot of thought to moderating the win targets. When we play only to a loss of the 10th level instead of the 20th, we are facing a loss of 45 units instead of 190. Playing all three ECs at the same time, a win of 45 units happens constantly. My only concern is that we are not giving random enough time to take advantage of the session dynamic to fix the disparity we have already gotten midway through the session.
Regarding the Black/Red question, I think I need to amend my terminology from "winning" and "losing" to "correct" and "incorrect". If we have a series of 4 spins, BBRB, this simple bet selection calls for a bet of Black. The next spin showing Black would be "correct", Red would be "incorrect". We do not run progressions on Black and Red, but rather on "correct" and "incorrect" according to the rolling 4-spin bet selection process. If we have 8 units on the "correct" progression and 1 on the "incorrect" progression, we bet 7 on "correct", which would be Black in this case. If, however, we have 2 on "correct" and 6 on "incorrect", we would bet 4 units on "incorrect", meaning 4 on Red. I hope that wording is a little better to clarify the bets. If it is still unclear, just let me know.
Thanks again for the support. It does help a lot!
Another fascinating session that I think can be very informative when we look at the parts, as well as the whole. I will start with the basic stats:
Total spins: 284
Total units won: +124
Spins to +100: 187
Largest drawdown: 138 (Needed 16 spins to reach a new peak)
Lowest BR: -28
Here is where it gets interesting - this was a busted session. Yep, a session that ultimately lost, yet gave us a profit of +124 units. There were two different EC progressions that came very close to busting, but I let them run so I could address the exit points as I did in the previous post.
At spin 111, we had a loss on the B/R EC at level 15. At that moment, we were -10. On the next spin, we could have closed the session with a +5.
At spin 121, we again had a loss on the B/R. However, here we were at +27.
Again at spin 136 on B/R. We were at +49. It danced around for several spins, getting up to level 18, although never showing a negative BR.
At spin 157, the B/R progression was breakeven. Now, it was the E/O progression that lost at level 15. Our balance at the time: +21.
Spin 173 sent us back to a loss at level 15 of the B/R, with the E/O having recovered. Right here, we had a balance of +75 (Take the profit, man!!!)
The B/R and E/O continue to bounce around, giving us increasingly attractive exit points. At spin 230, the H/L progression decides it wants to be a part of the excitement and loses at level 15. Our balance at this point: +105. As an aside, the B/R also was at level 16 here. I think the board was trying to tell me something!
Eventually, it was the H/L progression that ended the session. At one point, we were up to a +180 balance. the H/L progression was at level 18 here. I wanted to see how long it was going to hold up just for the sake of this post, because I think this is becoming a critical part of this system - when do you get out?
The first loss at level 15 would have given us a +5 balance as the first positive after the loss. Other than that, we could have been + at least 27 units at any other exit point. This was an amazing session because it took as long as it did to finish itself. I would have expected a bust or a win (+200) sooner than it came. Because it lasted as long as it did, it continued wining +1 on both sides of all three progressions along the way, allowing us a great profit, despite the bust. This is exactly the scenario we want. If we can win on a win or win on a loss, we have the grail. This isn't it, but this is the first method I have ever worked with that can generate +124 units on a loss.
Feeling a little cheeky, so I wanted to let one run to see where we ended when we finally busted, even after reaching my +200 goal:
Total spins: 345
Total profit: +256
Highest point: +324
Lowest point: -6 (You have to love that!)
Largest drawdown: 94 units
Spins to +100: 108
Spins to +200: 262
Spins to +300: 299
Now a stinker!
Total spins: 170
Ending loss: -162
This session had losses on all three ECs at the end of the session. Surprisingly, it held up in that it lost less than one entire bust worth (-190), even though all three had losses when the bust finally came. That is because the wins that came during the previous spins offset a lot of our losses.
I was looking for an exit after the first EC lost at level 15, but it never came.
Here are the results of my next session, winning enough to offset the losses of the past session and put a few bucks in my pocket to boot!
Total spins: 203
Total wins: +203 units
Lowest point: -17
Spins to +100: 127
Largest drawdown: 61 units (Next peak came 18 spins later)
I never had a loss at level 15 in this session, although I did get to level 15 several times, but with nothing but wins. It took a little longer for the swap to do its magic, but it kicked in and did just what we would have hoped.
Another successful session in the books!
You play this in a no 0 wheel? Is there a version of this for a european/french roullete? What you do when a 0 comes ?
Well, Vladir, therein lies the rub. I have played at Betvoyager in the past on the no-zero table. Unfortunately, they are no longer accepting deposits from US players, even though they have taken my money in the past. I had to deposit with them via a circuitous route that involved Webmoney (and I think the Russian mafia, but I can't prove it :-P).
Now, as I am clearly excited about my results, I sent real money back to my Webmoney account for the purpose of depositing into my BV account, but it was refused. I have already paid a fee to get my money turned into Webmoney, I really don't want to pay a fee to get it back out.
I am searching for a US-ok casino that accepts Webmoney, even if I have to play on the European (or preferably French) tables. When tracking and a 0 hits, just ignore it. When it hits during a bet, increase both sides of the bet by 1 ONLY ON THE EC THAT YOU ARE BETTING ON. If you are not betting on a particular EC, you snuck by.
Hope that helps.
If anyone can help me with my own problem about funding my account, please PM me!
i want help also-lol
Quote from: Tomla021 on Mar 01, 11:24 PM 2012
i want help also-LoL
Get VPN. It assigns you ip address from many countries that are ok for gambling like UK for example.
Its 9$ a month.
Regards
Update on a session, now that I have a minute to play again:
91 spins, loss -105 units. All the losses came from one EC (E/O). The swap happened at the same moment that the trend switched from win to lose. This was a worst case scenario when it comes to the change of a trend happening at the worst possible moment. Fortunately, the other two ECs ate up nearly half of the total loss from that EC.
Regarding the VPN, Robeenhuut recommended link:://overplay.net (link:://overplay.net/) to me. They seem to be the first choice of most of the reviews I have read online, and I am looking forward to opening an account with them shortly when I have some playing money.
For anyone who knows, even if I can get Betvoyager to open me with the VPN, are there going to be additional problems in the future. For instance, will I need to verify my information before I can withdraw funds? Will my US ID cause trouble? Can I still use my Webmoney account, or will I need a new one since I originally registered with a US address? Anyone who has dealt with this matter before, we would love to hear from you! It is getting absolutely ridiculous here in the US regarding personal freedoms!
A near duplication of the last session:
100 spins, lost -102 units. The same E/O EC tanked while the other two plugged along to cover about half of the total loss from that EC. Irritating, but not troubling. Keeping at it!
Still at it colbster?
I have stopped for the time being because I am tired of playing with fake money. This system wins nicely, but my stupid government thinks that I can't make an informed decision to gamble. I am trying to get some funds deposited with BV, and until that happens, I am in a holding pattern.
Nothing has deterred me from the system - the system is strong! I can't wait to get some real dollars playing it.
omg not a usa guy? same here...what a pain
that really sucks, lucky for me i live close to atlantic city. usa guys got the bad end of the stick
Quote from: Colbster on Mar 12, 05:10 PM 2012
I have stopped for the time being because I am tired of playing with fake money. This system wins nicely, but my silly government thinks that I can't make an informed decision to gamble. I am trying to get some funds deposited with BV, and until that happens, I am in a holding pattern.
Nothing has deterred me from the system - the system is strong! I can't wait to get some real dollars playing it.
Hello
I play it differently. I use 12345... progression for all 3 Ec's I just alternate bets. If a last spin is REH i bet opposite BOL. No matter what result the next bet is REH of course with progression for all Ec's. If i win i stay at 1 or decrease by 1 if my bet is bigger, if i lose i increase by 1. You have a option to swap at level 10 as Colbster suggested. In my opinion its the safest way to play it - you can get into trouble if you get opposite sequence of chops. If you have 4 or 5 consecutive losses on 1 EC you can repeat not alternate your bet on this EC to break up a losing streak. I pulled myself from about 70 or 80u down few times but i suggest a modest win goal of about 20 and stop loss of 40. But its up to you. Generally you want to avoid situation that you bet for example 2,3 and 15 and few loses on a biggest bet will get you into a bigger hole. The wins on smaller bets wont offset loses on a bigger bet. My biggest bet was 16 when i was down 80u. Your bankroll will of course depend on your stop loss.
Regards
I like this method. No more development's here?
Quote from: vladir on Mar 23, 11:53 AM 2012
I like this method. No more development's here?
That its because this system may works. A tracker or software its needed. O0
Find attached the RX code.
Please check its accuracy and upload your version if mine is not ok.
Only no zero wheel.
RNG ok.
Thank you very much Boatran8 8)
Better with all 3 ECs at the same time.This is how this system works.
here it is!
3 ECs
Swap step 5. reset step 10...
There are bugs in the previous file as I can't find someone to clarify the method... So do not pay attention to the results. Sorry
I won't publish new files until it's clear. You may PM me your skype pseudo should you would like to make it clearer to me and then I'll be able to work on an RX file for testing purposes.
I finally managed to sort it out as per the original instructions.
However my bogus versions worked even better.
We can tweak it now if you want...
Find the final RX code attached...
I wonder if we can apply the same scheme to dozens or columns for instance.
What would it look like then ?
Quote from: boatran8 on Mar 25, 08:43 AM 2012
I finally managed to sort it out as per the original instructions.
However my bogus versions worked even better.
We can tweak it now if you want...
Find the final RX code attached...
Hello
It does not work. It wont load.
Regards
I don't like that appears the same bet in opposite chances for example:
bet1 1 unit in Red,Black,Odd,Even in no roulette zero, its the same as don't bet. I spect you can fix it.
But the dgt file and the system works for me.
Very good work. Many many many thanks :) my friend.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Mar 25, 03:10 PM 2012
Hello
It does not work. It won't load.
Regards
Unzip the archive. Put the file in the designer directory of RX.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Mar 25, 03:10 PM 2012
Hello
It does not work. It won't load.
Regards
It works. It goes down very consistently. Does it mean we should play it opposite?
Quote from: marivo on Mar 25, 08:19 PM 2012
It works. It goes down very consistently. Does it mean we should play it opposite?
Well, I recommend to play in the short run, never in the long run.
For example:
stop-win: 5 units
Stop-loos: 20 units
You can't play with those limits or this concept is pointless. The only way for this to work is to let the trend in one direction or the other correct itself. According to the post that Boatran put, he is swapping at level 5. I'm ok, but not thrilled, with that change. I prefer level 10 for the swap because it gives you a ton of time for the chopping to help you gain profits at the lower levels to offset whatever losses you might have in those sessions that do go south. A stop loss that low doesn't allow you to work up the progression anywhere near enough to swap with any sort of recovery time. A stop loss of 20 is completely antithetical to my approach and cannot/will not work.
Hello
In my LAST VERSION of the RX code I posted, the swap is at ten... It plays strictly conforming to the original rules. You can compare with the Excel tracker.
Quote from: boatran8 on Mar 26, 04:39 AM 2012
Hello
In my LAST VERSION of the RX code I posted, the swap is at ten... It plays strictly conforming to the original rules. You can compare with the Excel tracker.
Did you see the chart i posted?
Quote from: marivo on Mar 25, 08:19 PM 2012
It works. It goes down very consistently. Does it mean we should play it opposite?
I have tried with the opposite. It goes down as well.
My advice is that you learn RX coding to be able to make the tweaks you want...
Or request my coding skills into RX for a particular system, as I can't code all the systems of the forum (cf Sniper's request).
Quote from: boatran8 on Mar 26, 05:53 AM 2012
I have tried with the opposite. It goes down as well.
If you bet on EC as it is the case in this system and if you bet according to RX code suggestion and the chart goes down consistently, isn't it logical it would go up if you bet the opposite what RX code is suggesting? Or i don't understand what this chart is actually showing...
Quote from: marivo on Mar 26, 09:04 AM 2012
If you bet on EC as it is the case in this system and if you bet according to RX code suggestion and the chart goes down consistently, isn't it logical it would go up if you bet the opposite what RX code is suggesting? Or i don't understand what this chart is actually showing...
It shows you that like most of the systems posted here its long time loser. But if you incorporate win goal and stop loss smartly you have a shot at making some profit long term.
Software testing will tell you only part of the story.
For me its just another tool. Nothing will replace pen and paper because some dynamic systems can not be coded period. But it takes lots of time and most people are not willing to do it.
Regards
Quote from: boatran8 on Mar 25, 02:11 PM 2012
I wonder if we can apply the same scheme to dozens or columns for instance.
What would it look like then ?
You could use a Win/Loss differential bet on the dozens or columns, I suppose. You would have to code the spreadsheet to move up after 2 losses and down 1 on a single win. Then, the various bets would have to be bet differentially against one another. Fascinating idea, but it would take some might complex rules.