The chance of a pattern of RRRRRRRRRRRR, BBBBBBBBBBBB, RRRRRRBBBBBB, RBRBRBRBRBRB or any other random combination of opposing ECs to repeat itself is:
(18/37)¹² = 0.486486486¹² = 0.000175731 or
0.000175731*100 = 0.0175731% or
1.75731/10000 or
1.75731 times every 10.000 outcomes or
1 time every 5690 outcomes.
We can arrive at a B&M casino table, look at the past history and bet immediately that the last pattern of 12 ECs won't repeat itself.
Why 12? Because there will be overlaps. Nothing guarantees two patterns back-to-back will not be identical except for the last bit, resulting in a LLLLLLLLLLLW. So a progression is necessary to act as buffer between losses; the longer the better and 12 steps seem adequate for the LW registry.
The negative progression I use on the following example is:
1-2-3, 2-4-6, 3-6-9, 4-8-12.
1st level: 1-2-3. If you win at step 1, profit is 1u and reset. If you lose at 1 and win at 2, profit is 1u and reset. If you lose at 1, 2 and win at 3, you break even and reset. If lose at 3 you move onto the next level:
2nd level: 2-4-6. Every time you win you stay at this level, resetting to 2, until you break even or reach a new high. Only then you reset to step 1 of the first level. If you reach step 6 and lose, you move onto the next level and stay there until you break even or reach a new high.
And so on.
You'll find out that betting for the repeat achieves the same results. Same odds. And that's what I did.
In practical terms:
You pick an Even Chance, say Even/Odd, note the last 12 outcomes and bet they will repeat in the same order for the next 12 spins. If spin#1 is Even, you'll bet Even for spin#13 and so on.
Full session from Spielbank Wiesbaden Table 2 from 2015, Jan 8th. attached.
OUT = outcome
Cy = cycle (of 12)
Dec = decision (odd/even)
L/W = reg.
Wa = wage
BR = bankroll
OUT Cy Dec L/W Wa BR
33 1 O
17 2 O
0 3 E
15 4 O
3 5 O
24 6 E
29 7 O
18 8 E
28 9 E
9 10 O
20 11 E
3 12 O
14 1 E L 5 -5
30 2 E L 10 -15
1 3 O L 15 -30
26 4 E L 10 -40
13 5 O W 20 -20
14 6 E W 10 -10
2 7 E L 10 -20
3 8 O L 20 -40
18 9 E W 30 -10
33 10 O W 10 0
28 11 E W 5 5 New High
32 12 E L 5 0
18 1 E W 10 10 New High
8 2 E W 5 15 New High
1 3 O W 5 20 New High
11 4 O L 5 15
18 5 E L 10 5
8 6 E W 15 20
8 7 E W 5 25 New High
17 8 O W 5 30 New High
9 9 O L 5 25
12 10 E L 10 15
7 11 O L 15 0
15 12 O L 10 -10
8 1 E W 20 10
23 2 O L 10 0
28 3 E L 20 -20
16 4 E L 30 -50
36 5 E W 15 -35
29 6 O L 15 -50
34 7 E W 30 -20
5 8 O W 15 -5
25 9 O W 15 10
26 10 E W 15 25
12 11 E L 15 10
9 12 O W 30 40 New High
36 1 E W 5 45 New High
12 2 E L 5 40
14 3 E W 10 50 New High
19 4 O L 5 45
2 5 E W 10 55 New High
2 6 E L 5 50
3 7 O L 10 40
8 8 E L 15 25
36 9 E L 10 15
12 10 E W 20 35
4 11 E W 10 45
29 12 O W 10 55
18 1 E W 5 60 New High
16 2 E W 5 65 New High
29 3 O L 5 60
18 4 E L 10 50
5 5 O L 15 35
8 6 E W 10 45
16 7 E L 10 35
29 8 O L 20 15
4 9 E W 30 45
6 10 E W 10 55
10 11 E W 10 65
27 12 O W 5 70 New High
28 1 E W 5 75 New High
1 2 O L 5 70
20 3 E L 10 60
4 4 E W 15 75
0 5 O L 5 70
7 6 O L 10 60
19 7 O L 15 45
19 8 O W 10 55
33 9 O L 10 45
36 10 E W 20 65
25 11 O L 10 55
32 12 E L 20 35
17 1 O L 30 5
17 2 O W 15 20
32 3 E W 15 35
22 4 E W 15 50
2 5 E L 15 35
13 6 O W 30 75
6 7 E L 5 70
14 8 E L 10 60
3 9 O W 15 75
33 10 O L 5 70
4 11 E L 10 60
23 12 O L 15 45
27 1 O W 10 55
7 2 O W 10 65
22 3 E W 10 75
26 4 E W 5 80 New High
27 5 O L 5 75
7 6 O W 10 85 New High
19 7 O L 5 80
4 8 E W 10 90 New High
14 9 E L 5 85
12 10 E L 10 75
7 11 O L 15 60
30 12 E L 10 50
6 1 E L 20 30
11 2 O W 30 60
15 3 O L 10 50
5 4 O L 20 30
26 5 E L 30 0
31 6 O W 15 15
11 7 O W 15 30
30 8 E W 15 45
24 9 E W 15 60
13 10 O L 15 45
9 11 O W 30 75
14 12 E W 15 90
19 1 O L 5 85
26 2 E L 10 75
33 3 O W 15 90
16 4 E L 5 85
25 5 O L 10 75
13 6 O W 15 90
36 7 E L 5 85
14 8 E W 10 95 New High
6 9 E W 5 100 New High
22 10 E L 5 95
11 11 O W 10 105 New High
36 12 E W 5 110 New High
29 1 O W 5 115 New High
3 2 O L 5 110
7 3 O W 10 115
17 4 O L 5 110
22 5 E L 10 100
31 6 O W 15 115
23 7 O L 5 110
31 8 O L 10 100
26 9 E W 15 115
29 10 O L 5 110
30 11 E L 10 100
34 12 E W 15 115
15 1 O W 5 120 New High
6 2 E L 5 115
24 3 E L 10 105
26 4 E L 15 90
29 5 O L 10 80
32 6 E L 20 60
35 7 O W 30 90
33 8 O L 10 80
18 9 E W 20 100
1 10 O W 10 110
32 11 E W 10 120
1 12 O L 5 115
20 1 E L 10 105
35 2 O L 15 90
36 3 E W 10 100
18 4 E W 10 110
4 5 E L 10 100
22 6 E W 20 120
9 7 O W 5 125 New High
12 8 E L 5 120
14 9 E W 10 130 New High
36 10 E L 5 125
5 11 O L 10 115
35 12 O W 15 130
2 1 E W 5 135 New High
16 2 E L 5 130
6 3 E W 10 140 New High
3 4 O L 5 135
31 5 O L 10 125
24 6 E W 15 140
3 7 O W 5 145 New High
32 8 E W 5 150 New High
10 9 E W 5 155 New High
20 10 E W 5 160 New High
3 11 O W 5 165 New High
18 12 E L 5 160
15 1 O L 10 150
31 2 O L 15 135
35 3 O L 10 125
21 4 O W 20 145
16 5 E L 10 135
34 6 E W 20 155
20 7 E L 10 145
15 8 O L 20 125
22 9 E W 30 155
22 10 E W 10 165
0 11 O L 5 160
7 12 O L 10 150
25 1 O W 15 165
15 2 O W 5 170 New High
11 3 O W 5 175 New High
23 4 O W 5 180 New High
2 5 E W 5 185 New High
3 6 O L 5 180
32 7 E W 10 190 New High
10 8 E L 5 185
9 9 O L 10 175
32 10 E W 15 190
35 11 O W 5 195 New High
13 12 O W 5 200 New High
19 1 O W 5 205 New High
23 2 O W 5 210 New High
36 3 E L 5 205
28 4 E L 10 195
27 5 O L 15 180
10 6 E L 10 170
9 7 O L 20 150
20 8 E W 30 180
30 9 E L 10 170
24 10 E W 20 190
25 11 O W 10 200
5 12 O W 10 210
7 1 O W 5 215 New High
17 2 O W 5 220 New High
18 3 E W 5 225 New High
13 4 O L 5 220
31 5 O W 10 230 New High
9 6 O L 5 225
22 7 E L 10 215
14 8 E W 15 230
20 9 E W 5 235 New High
26 10 E W 5 240 New High
28 11 E L 5 235
12 12 E L 10 225
17 1 O W 15 240
16 2 E L 5 235
17 3 O L 10 225
13 4 O W 15 240
18 5 E L 5 235
10 6 E L 10 225
2 7 E W 15 240
15 8 O L 5 235
21 9 O L 10 225
20 10 E W 15 240
1 11 O L 5 235
3 12 O L 10 225
35 1 O W 15 240
34 2 E W 5 245 New High
23 3 O W 5 250 New High
5 4 O W 5 255 New High
0 5 E W 5 260 New High
15 6 O L 5 255
9 7 O L 10 245
9 8 O W 15 260
1 9 O W 5 265 New High
17 10 O L 5 260
9 11 O W 10 270 New High
5 12 O W 5 275 New High
22 1 E L 5 270
7 2 O L 10 260
18 3 E L 15 245
13 4 O W 10 255
11 5 O L 10 245
Every EC is 18 numbers against 19. Since the Zero is always against us, when tracking or betting I treat it as a part of the other 19, an opposing outcome in respect to the previous. Not that it matters much...
When RRRBRBR0BBRRB
\ here Zero represents B as opposed to the previous outcome (R).
There is two things i like with this method.
1) There is no need for tracking and you can walk up to any table and start playing.
2) You use a very nice progression.
Cheers
Thank you!
IDK if a D'Alembert would make better, though...
Attached a PDF with the same session (less confusing).
How about GLC's 1-3-5-7-9-11-...... start progression after 4 virtual losses-from w/L registry column (right after loss -reset after new high)?
May be an interesting grind system :)
Grinding progressions seem to depend on series of WW to at least recover and I think this registry favours them.
OTOH waiting for 4 virtual losses can be unnerving at the B&M. They happen quite a bit, but in the meantime you could miss a few important Ws. You'll trade time for safety and probably have to increase wages for better profits.
Based on sample spins (from pdf) it appears about 1 unit profit every 10 spins (roughly 6 units per hour) with 1-3-5-7-9-... progression
Def a grind, but $30/hr at $5 table :)
Good signs but it needs further testing. Few zeros in the sample and I just detected a small error: where a new high is at 260 it should be a Loss.
Another possibility : combo of both systems -
Wait for 4 losses, then :
1-3-5- if lose all 3 then
2-6-10 - if lose all 3 then,
3-9-15 - etc......
Just my .02 :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 10, 12:50 PM 2015
Another possibility : combo of both systems -
Wait for 4 losses, then :
1-3-5- if lose all 3 then
2-6-10 - if lose all 3 then,
3-9-15 - etc......
Just my .02 :)
Thank you for the suggestion. When you win at 2 (2nd stage, 1st step), do you stay at that level or reset to 1?
Disclaimer: to everyone, this is in the Notepad section so don't bet for real yet.
You're free to discuss and tweak it.
You can use the progression and the EC you like most.
You could go for runs of 10 or 14 as well. Nothing's set in stone.
Also, there's some simple math to support the bet selection but this hasn't any HG pretensions. It will tank sooner or later.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 10, 01:15 PM 2015
Thank you for the suggestion. When you win at 2 (2nd stage, 1st step), do you stay at that level or reset to 1?
Personally, I wouldn't play any open ending progression, just another option.
I think the best option would be the 1-3-5 and stop on on +9 (hit and run method) :)
Do you think that this bet method has an advantage over simple ec, or is it all the same long term?
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 10, 02:17 PM 2015
Personally, I wouldn't play any open ending progression, just another option.
I think the best option would be the 1-3-5 and stop on on +9 (hit and run method) :)
Do you think that this bet method has an advantage over simple ec, or is it all the same long term?
Yes, we run these tests to see how High (or Low) it can go, but in the real world my usual goal is 10 units.
I think this can be a good method in the medium term. In the long term it will tank like the others. Being optimistic here, as short, medium and long terms are defined by Probability and ultimately Luck. The reason we should test systems for thousands of spins means any possible situation is more or less previewed, but a bad run might be lurking on the corner.
Attached another sample from today's session. I messed up with the files. There are 7 Losses in a row there but in the end it did very well.
Liked the tittle
think odd/even best e/c to play from its uneven distribution arond the wheel,especially the right side zero to 10,keep an eye as you could get to bet just 9 of the e/c numbers, see the left side of the wheels even numbers not hit in 21 spins,and there from one of atlantis's post 14- 4,10,34,32,10,19,30,31,31,31,32,23,36,36,3,9,9,25,33,29,4,28
just an observation
Yes, first we establish the betting method for all ECs, then we adapt it to our personal preferences / beliefs.
I prefer betting R/B because they're so easy to spot, but then they're also easily laid out on the wheel just like the L/H, and it's also my belief the O/E bets are tougher for the dealer to have an influence on the outcomes. Hence why the Zero is painted in that shiny green: much easier for them to aim at. It couldn't be any other way, though...
My only comment is that in your example the most loses in a row is, I believe 6. How many times have we seen 10 loses or 14 or more loses in a row. I would like to see how well this works under those circumstances. We all know they do happen more than we would like.
For 12 losses in a row it would mean two identical patterns-of-12 in a row if we're betting for the difference, or two mirror-imaged patterns-of-12 in a row if we're betting for a repetition, to happen. It's very unlikely to occur 2 times in a row in 5690 spins. However, a series of zeros hitting at the wrongest of times will ruin all expectations. Hence the long progression required.
If or when that happens, either we extend the progression or we accept the loss hoping we have already made a profit that'll cover it or we're about to in the forthcoming sessions.
1+2+3+2+4+6+3+6+9+4+8+12=60u
Thank you ps for your quick response.
You're welcome.
Long strings of losses with very few Wins in the middle means trouble. So we'll have to extend the present progression.
I'm thinking about 3 Sets of 4 Levels:
1st Set: 1-2-3, 2-3-4, 3-6-9, 4-8-12
2nd Set: 2-4-6, 4-8-12, 6-12-18, 8-16-24
3rd Set: 4-8-12, 8-16-24, 12-24-36, 16-32-48
It's so overkill it isn't funny. I attach the worst run so far, where it got to the 1st level of the 2nd set. It's volatile but the "highs get higher than the lows get lower", so to speak. After 316 spins session ended at a new high of 73 units.
I have been testing the progression with my own bet selection and i have to say that the original progression you post are very powerfull.
When i was up 40/50 units the progression bust - but the method did not tank - because i did not use the progression at this stage.
I come to a conclusion, when you are up you can only play with winnings and not apply the progression as you hit a bad strike.
This will keep us in the game longer.
So i am saying that we are only at risk at beginning of the game.
At least that is the idea.
Other idea is when you reach half the amount of money of the progression as winnings you can apply regression and play with half size the money.
Then you can not lose it all back to the casino.
(link:://i58.tinypic.com/6rmwzp.jpg)
Thanks for the test, Ego. Yes, we must think for ourselves when the time comes.
I picked the bad run from the last session and compared three different progressions.
The profits of the original are higher when the winnings are steady, but it's less safe than the other two.
Original Prog D'Alembert Oscar's Grind
L 5 -5 5 -5 5 -5
L 10 -15 10 -15 5 -10
L 15 -30 15 -30 5 -15
W 10 -20 20 -10 5 -10
W 10 -10 10 0 10 0
W 10 0 5 5 5 5
L 10 -10 5 0 5 0
L 20 -30 10 -10 5 -5
L 30 -60 15 -25 5 -10
W 15 -45 20 -5 5 -5
L 15 -60 5 -10 10 -15
L 30 -90 10 -15 10 -25
L 45 -135 15 -30 10 -35
L 20 -155 20 -50 10 -45
L 40 -195 25 -75 10 -55
L 60 -255 30 -105 10 -65
L 10 -265 35 -140 10 -75
L 20 -285 40 -180 10 -85
W 30 -255 45 -135 10 -75
W 10 -245 40 -95 15 -60
W 10 -235 35 -60 20 -40
W 10 -225 30 -30 25 -15
L 10 -235 25 -55 15 -30
L 20 -255 30 -85 15 -45
L 30 -285 35 -120 15 -60
W 20 -265 40 -80 15 -45
L 20 -285 35 -115 20 -25
W 40 -225 40 -75 20 -5
W 20 -205 35 -40 5 0
L 20 -225 30 -70 5 -5
L 40 -265 35 -105 5 -10
W 60 -205 40 -75 5 -5
W 20 -185 35 -40 5 0
L 20 -205 30 -70 5 -5
L 40 -245 35 -105 5 -10
L 60 -305 40 -145 5 -15
W 30 -275 45 -100 5 -10
L 30 -305 40 -140 10 -20
L 60 -365 45 -185 10 -30
W 90 -275 50 -135 10 -20
L 30 -305 45 -180 15 -35
L 60 -395 50 -230 15 -50
W 90 -275 55 -175 15 -35
L 30 -305 50 -225 20 -55
L 60 -395 55 -280 20 -75
W 90 -275 60 -220 20 -55
W 30 -245 55 -265 25 -30
L 30 -275 50 -215 30 -60
W 60 -215 55 -160 30 -30
L 30 -245 50 -210 30 -60
W 60 -185 55 -155 30 -30
L 30 -215 50 -205 30 -60
W 60 -155 55 -150 30 -30
W 30 -125 50 -100 30 0
L 30 -155 45 -145 5 -5
W 60 -95 50 -95 5 0
W 30 -65 45 -50 5 5
L 30 -95 40 -90 5 0
W 60 -35 45 -45 5 5
W 30 -5 40 -5 5 10
W 30 25 5 0 5 15
W 5 30 5 5 5 20
L 5 25 5 0 5 15
L 10 15 10 -10 5 10
W 15 30 15 5 5 15
W 5 35 5 10 5 20
L 5 30 5 5 5 15
L 10 20 10 -5 5 10
L 15 5 15 -20 5 5
W 10 15 20 0 5 10
W 10 25 5 5 10 20
L 10 15 5 0 5 15
W 20 35 10 10 5 20
W 5 40 5 15 5 25
L 5 35 5 10 5 20
W 10 45 10 20 5 25
L 5 40 5 15 5 20
W 10 50 10 25 5 25
W 5 55 5 30 5 30
W 5 60 5 35 5 35
Quote from: ego on Jan 11, 08:40 AM 2015
I have been testing the progression with my own bet selection and i have to say that the original progression you post are very powerfull.
When i was up 40/50 units the progression bust - but the method did not tank - because i did not use the progression at this stage.
I come to a conclusion, when you are up you can only play with winnings and not apply the progression as you hit a bad strike.
This will keep us in the game longer.
So i am saying that we are only at risk at beginning of the game.
At least that is the idea.
Other idea is when you reach half the amount of money of the progression as winnings you can apply regression and play with half size the money.
Then you can not lose it all back to the casino.
I keep thinking there may be some kind of flaw in my progression: each level is a marty and then there's a "linear escalade" from level to level. So far it seems logical, but my concept of staying at the level until break even or a new high is where I think it fails, because it's expecting a cluster of Wins that are "due". Either we change the concept or we improve the bet selection.
This does not change anything - but i like the perspective when you are at risk and when you are not at risk playing and to what kind of ratio.
Here is 29 sessions and aim to win +50 Euro each visit - during 4 days play you would be missing the first three bets and start using the progression into negative terrotorium/expectation.
+1
+0
+1
+0
+0
+1
+1
+1
+50 Euro
+0
+1
+1
+1
+1
+0 Negative session
+1
+50 Euro
+0 Negative session
+1
+1
+0
+1
+1
+0
+1
+50 Euro
+1
+0
+1
+1
+1
+1
+50 Euro
Hit and run does not change the flow of outcomes as your personal permeanenze is a long never ending session.
But it feels better then just playing no stop to have some kind of playing style.
So win or break even territorium and if to deep into progression accept a loss - that would be a nice idea.
That's a good strategy. I recall Pelayo's son saying in an interview that they used to lose one day per every week. Since they had a winning edge and what counts is the overall balance, they got used to it and just took the loss.
There is no flaw into this line of thinking with your method and it has been done before with test amazing test results ...
I think if you can win and break even and accept loses you might have winning method.
The Very Near Perfect System:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7709.msg70028#msg70028 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7709.msg70028#msg70028)
WOW lots of infinite progressions there LOL. I'll have to read that thread carefully later.
Thanks for the encouraging words!
Cheers.
P
nice idea, those numbers after 10th spin i play and 62 units up on the #2 19th spin, nice Jimmie B.
Now are we playing after the 12th spin for +1,then track another pattern of 12 and attack again
Nottophammer, which numbers are you referring to, exactly?
There's a point in tracking for new 12 ECs, after a plus for example.
The original idea is that any run of 12 even chances will be unique for 5690 spins:
BBBBBBBBBBBB \___ these two different runs of 12 ECs are perfectly legitimate to appear (although nightmarish to bet on).
BBBBBRBBBBBB /
So we are betting the next 12 are different than the previous. As we bet spin by spin we must not expect to win all the time, otherwise the second run will be a mirror image of the first...
O E O E O E O E O E O E
E O E O E O E O E O E O
... and a third run will be identical to the first...
O E O E O E O E O E O E
E O E O E O E O E O E O
O E O E O E O E O E O E
... and so on. It's not going to happen. So a number of losses are expected:
Likewise, and because losses are expected thus we can bet the previous 12 ECs will repeat, we must not expect to win all the time, otherwise every next 12 spins will be identical to the previous...
H H H L H L L L H L L H
H H H L H L L L H L L H
H H H L H L L L H L L H
... which is not going to happen.
All because we're betting continuously: 13th spin according to 1st spin, 14th according to 2nd, 15th according to 3rd, etc, etc, until the end of the session.
Expecting losses to occur is being realistic, but at the same time it doesn't seem very wise; afterall what we want here is to win as much as we can, and that is begging for Random to behave in a pattern closely to the examples posted above. Which aren't going to happen!
So, despite every outcome being independent, I dare to think it would be advisable to retrack for a new set of 12 ECs before betting. Remember we reach a New High after a cluster of Wins almost all the time. Clusters after clusters will not gonna happen unless we give Random some space.
Just a rambling.
Worst run today betting for the difference at Table 5. Ended at +45 after 130 spins. Highest +60, lowest -425!
So far the baddest runs happen by betting against the previous 12 spins. Betting for the repeats are a walk in the park by comparison. Curve fitting? It's going against the reasoning explained before:
By betting for the repeat we're ultimately expecting BBBBBBBBBBBB followed by BBBBBBBBBBBB followed by BBBBBBBBBBBB.
By betting for the difference we're ultimately expecting BBBBBBBBBBBB followed by RRRRRRRRRRRR followed by BBBBBBBBBBBB.
At least the latter example has some (good) variance, but tests results advise betting on the former. What the "#$%
Beginning to suspect when it comes to roulette, what seems absurd probably works!
Been trying this out 6 times in the last 2 days... so far, it sems to hold up, at least the way I play it: I start with playing REVERSE the color (of 12th number in history), when I reach a new high (or break even or get a win in any recovery bets) I switch to playing SAME color (as the 12th previous spin), when I reach a new high (or break even or get a win in any recovery bets) I then switch to even/odds (again, REVERSE then SAME), and finally switch again to high/low. If I get into recovery bets, I note when I was (red/black SAME for example) and after I get to at least even, I continue where I left off (so continuing my example, I just "finished" red/black same so I switch to even/odds REVERSE). I basically play to win once (or break even) with each of the 6 ways this can be played, and then I switch betting method completly. Highest I went so far is recovery level 2 (3-6-9), bet 2 so I guess luck has been on my side; had one session end after 6 spins, one after 7 spins, and one went to the 1st recovery (2-4-6) level for 3 spins. I'm licking this as a "bankroll padder", and I especially like that you just walk (or log in my case) to any table and just start betting right away! That's my 2 cents!
The following is the worst run of the attachment in reply #18 played according to the rules of Full TrioPlay.
We start in Basic Play where we increase our bet by +1 after each win; we remain at the same bet size after a loss. We start our count with 1,2. The left number or 1 represents our bet size and the right number or 2 represents the number of losses and always increases by 1 after each loss. It starts at 2 instead of 1 to give us a head start so we don't catch up to it too quickly. Because, once the left number is larger than the right number, we can't make that bet but rather we reset back to 1,2.
AP1 goes into effect once the left number subtracted from the right number = 5. You see that at the 7th decision down (L 2,7 -8) 7 â€" 2 = 5. When we go to AP1, we increase our bet (left number) by +2 instead of +1.
We go to AP2 when the right number is equal to 12. In AP2 we increase our bet size by +3 instead of +2. Once we go to AP1 or AP2 we stay at that level until we either reach a positive balance or the left number is greater than the right number. This is a sort of safety brake to keep our bets from escalating out of control.
L 1,2 -1
L 1,3 -2
L 1,4 -3
W 1,4 -2
L 2,5 -4
L 2,6 -6
L 2,7 -8 AP1 Up 2 after a win
L 2,8 -10
L 2,9 -12
L 2,10 -14
L 2,11 -16
L 2,12 -18 AP2 Up 3 after a win
W 2,12 -16
W 5,12 -11
W 8,12 -3
W 4,12 +1 +2 (Note that we only bet 4 because we never bet to reach more than +1)
L 1,2 -1 Basic
L 1,3 -2
L 1,4 -3
W 1,4 -2
L 2,5 -4
W 2,5 -2
W 3,5 +1 +3
L 1,2 -1 Basic
L 1,3 -2
W 1,3 -1
W 2,3 +1 +4
L 1,2 -1 Basic
L 1,3 -2
L 1,4 -3
W 1,4 -2
L 2,5 -4
L 2,6 -6
W 2,6 -4
L 3,7 -7
L 3,8 -10 AP1 Up 2 after a win
W 3,8 -7
L 5,9 -12
L 5,10 -17
W 5,10 -12
W 7,10 -5
L 9,11 -14
W 9,11 -5
L 11,12 -16 AP2 Up 3 after a win
W 11,12 -5
L 14,13 -19
W 14,14 -5
W 6,14 +1 +5 (Here's another case where we only bet enough to reach +1)
L 1,2 -1 Basic
W 1,2 0
W 1,0 +1 +6 Basic
L 1,2 -1
W 1,2 0
W 1,0 +1 +7 Basic
W 1,0 +1 +8 Basic
W 1,0 +1 +9 Basic
That should give you an idea how Full TrioPlay's progression method compares to others.
As you can see, we didn't go too deep in the hole. 19 units being the largest draw down and we still won 9 units.
I'm not saying Full TrioPlay is infallible, it certainly can have losing runs, but it does quite well compared to other bet methods I've played around with.
GLC
Quote from: Noreilles on Jan 11, 09:11 PM 2015
Been trying this out 6 times in the last 2 days... so far, it sems to hold up, at least the way I play it: I start with playing REVERSE the color (of 12th number in history), when I reach a new high (or break even or get a win in any recovery bets) I switch to playing SAME color (as the 12th previous spin), when I reach a new high (or break even or get a win in any recovery bets) I then switch to even/odds (again, REVERSE then SAME), and finally switch again to high/low. If I get into recovery bets, I note when I was (red/black SAME for example) and after I get to at least even, I continue where I left off (so continuing my example, I just "finished" red/black same so I switch to even/odds REVERSE). I basically play to win once (or break even) with each of the 6 ways this can be played, and then I switch betting method completly. Highest I went so far is recovery level 2 (3-6-9), bet 2 so I guess luck has been on my side; had one session end after 6 spins, one after 7 spins, and one went to the 1st recovery (2-4-6) level for 3 spins. I'm licking this as a "bankroll padder", and I especially like that you just walk (or log in my case) to any table and just start betting right away! That's my 2 cents!
Thank you for testing. Ego mentioned "bet for the regression" as well, and I've been thinking about that ever since.
Your method is very worth considering, and a good alternative to waiting for 12 new spins to let Random do its thing.
Yet personally I'm still not sure when to change bets. You see, Random doesn't care if we're winning or losing, so I'll eventually try it every 12 spins, like an extended version of the Author's System (bet same/opposite spin by spin ) regardless of the current bankroll status. Hoping he progression holds up, of course.
Cheers!
GLC, thanks for the progression. Does AP1/2 stand for "Advanced Play"? I'll read it more carefully later.
In the meanwhile, I tweaked my own progression (not tested yet):
There are 12 steps (because of the 12 spins), divided by four levels because we can't use a 12-step Martingale and a linear progression is still too risky and possibly ineffective, so it's a mix of both:
1-2-3, 2-4-6, 3-6-9, 4- 8- 12 \
| | | | > ---- every third step the same as in a linear progression
1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8-9, 10-11-12 /
so the next logical set:
5-10-15 6-12-18 7-14-21 8-16-24
and the next:
9-18-27 10-20-30 11-22-33 12-24-36
1-2-3 is conservative (a real marty would be 1-2-4, 2-4-8 etc), but when we win at the third step that level has paid for itself so it gives us a second opportunity. A more agressive marty would also pay for itself and profit one unit, though.
I think that GLC is actually talking about the Full Trioplay method.
I have looked around here and found a PDF that Bayes posted 5 years ago.
I have posted it with this message as attachment.
I think this is what GLC is talking about.
Another Bet Selection idea for this (someone may like it):
Start off betting for a match.
If win with a match - play next spin for a match.
If lose due to no-match - then play next spin for a no-match
In other words - follow the (w)ins or (l)osses.
However, If losing 4 times in succession continue with alternate match/no-match (or no-match/match) betting until a win occurs - then revert back to follow the win etc....
Or - If losing 4 times in succession continue with alternate match/no-match (or no-match/match) betting VIRTUALLY until a win occurs - then revert back to follow the win etc....
12 recorded Bet+Result Next bet +/-
========= ======== ======== ===
E E W for match +1
O E L against match -1
E E L for match -1
E E W for match +1
O E L against match -1
O O L for match -1
O O W for match +1
O O W for match +1
E E W for match +1
E O L against match -1
O E W against match +1
E O W against match +1
7W; 5L
Add in a suitable progression and maybe bet the R/B EC as well the same way to get occasional "double wins".
Regards,
A.
Quote from: SamNL on Jan 12, 12:23 PM 2015
I think that GLC is actually talking about the Full Trioplay method.
I have looked around here and found a PDF that Bayes posted 5 years ago.
I have posted it with this message as attachment.
I think this is what GLC is talking about.
Thanks, I'll delve into it later! Been busy doing some more tests...
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 12, 01:17 PM 2015
Another Bet Selection idea for this (someone may like it):
Start off betting for a match.
If win with a match - play next spin for a match.
If lose due to no-match - then play next spin for a no-match
In other words - follow the (w)ins or (l)osses.
Thanks. This sounds like the Author's System, which I just tested with the tweaked progression and the results are great! Not because of the progression really, but because the LW reg. is formidable.
Just take a look.
Attached a session from today's SBWB, with [Same As Last 12 / Different Than Last 12], [Same As Last 12 / Retrack 12], the Author's System and a variation.
I think I've went through a 1000 spins with the original bet selection, with both real and RNG tests and it always ends up in profit thanks to the progression, but the drawdowns of a bad run are scary. A less extreme LW reg is more convenient to play at the B&M IMO.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 12, 01:17 PM 2015
Another Bet Selection idea for this (someone may like it):
Start off betting for a match.
If win with a match - play next spin for a match.
If lose due to no-match - then play next spin for a no-match
In other words - follow the (w)ins or (l)osses.
However, If losing 4 times in succession continue with alternate match/no-match (or no-match/match) betting until a win occurs - then revert back to follow the win etc....
Or - If losing 4 times in succession continue with alternate match/no-match (or no-match/match) betting VIRTUALLY until a win occurs - then revert back to follow the win etc....
12 recorded Bet+Result Next bet +/-
========= ======== ======== ===
E E W for match +1
O E L against match -1
E E L for match -1
E E W for match +1
O E L against match -1
O O L for match -1
O O W for match +1
O O W for match +1
E E W for match +1
E O L against match -1
O E W against match +1
E O W against match +1
7W; 5L
Add in a suitable progression and maybe bet the R/B EC as well the same way to get occasional "double wins".
Regards,
A.
I see the difference: where the Author's blindly bets same/opposite at a steady pace, your method depends upon the wins and losses to go for the change, much like Noreilles has done with the original bet selection.
About betting double ECs for occasional double wins, we should account for the double losses, and lots of times there will be "double evens" so to speak. If the selection is backed-up by a trusty LW, I don't see why not.
Quoting myself to keep track of the original premises:
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 10, 11:05 AM 2015
The chance of a pattern of RRRRRRRRRRRR, BBBBBBBBBBBB, RRRRRRBBBBBB, RBRBRBRBRBRB or any other random combination of opposing ECs to repeat itself is:
(18/37)¹² = 0.486486486¹² = 0.000175731 or
0.000175731*100 = 0.0175731% or
1.75731/10000 or
1.75731 times every 10.000 outcomes or
1 time every 5690 outcomes.
Although an EC was accounted as 18/37 the premises are still inaccurate, because we're still tracking and betting continuously for exactly 12 spins, in fact ignoring the house edge. It's more important than it seems.
How many unique combinations of numbers, or patterns, in a run of 12 can we truly expect, excluding the house edge?
For a single number run there's two possible outcomes: R or B.
For a two number run it's 4: RR, BB, RB, BR.
For a three number run it's 8: RRR, BBB, RRB, BBR, RBB, BRR, RBR, BRB.
And so on. It's always doubling up: for 4=16, 5=32, 6=64 ... for 12'run = 4096.
Or for example, if for 3 = 8, then 12 divided by 3 = 4 and 8â´=4096.
One run of 12 (18/36)¹² = 0.5¹² = 0.000244141 is expected to be unique around 2.44141 in 10000 spins or 10000 / 2.44141 = once every 4096 spins.
Now, remember the 5690 spins? Those had the house edge included. 5690 - 4096 = 1594. That's a lot more then 2.7%. If we get around this problem maybe we could improve the LW.
We should anticipate something like this RRRRRRBBBBBB BBRRBBRRBBRR 0 RRRBBBRRRBBB.
If we can't track and bet continuously for every run of 12 spins, we'll have to skip an outcome for every 36..
In short, it´s two ( R or B) to the power of twelve (run). 2^12=4096.
Someone more versed in Math could try and find a meaning for that difference of 1594. It´s significant enough to probably explain why the "pattern-breaker" systems out there fail like the others.
I´ll do more tests when I have the time.
Psimoes,
Tnx for explain! Speaking of the patternbreaker. I still have that program from ophis to test a few systems like ken 4 numbers an saw etc, its a fine program ! does anyone still use this? And is it possible to update this with a few new systems?
R
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 10, 11:05 AM 2015
The chance of a pattern of RRRRRRRRRRRR, BBBBBBBBBBBB, RRRRRRBBBBBB, RBRBRBRBRBRB or any other random combination of opposing ECs to repeat itself is:
(18/37)¹² = 0.486486486¹² = 0.000175731 or
0.000175731*100 = 0.0175731% or
1.75731/10000 or
1.75731 times every 10.000 outcomes or
1 time every 5690 outcomes.
We can arrive at a B&M casino table, look at the past history and bet immediately that the last pattern of 12 ECs won't repeat itself.
Why 12? Because there will be overlaps. Nothing guarantees two patterns back-to-back will not be identical except for the last bit, resulting in a LLLLLLLLLLLW. So a progression is necessary to act as buffer between losses; the longer the better and 12 steps seem adequate for the LW registry.
The negative progression I use on the following example is:
1-2-3, 2-4-6, 3-6-9, 4-8-12.
1st level: 1-2-3. If you win at step 1, profit is 1u and reset. If you lose at 1 and win at 2, profit is 1u and reset. If you lose at 1, 2 and win at 3, you break even and reset. If lose at 3 you move onto the next level:
2nd level: 2-4-6. Every time you win you stay at this level, resetting to 2, until you break even or reach a new high. Only then you reset to step 1 of the first level. If you reach step 6 and lose, you move onto the next level and stay there until you break even or reach a new high.
And so on.
You'll find out that betting for the repeat achieves the same results. Same odds. And that's what I did.
In practical terms:
You pick an Even Chance, say Even/Odd, note the last 12 outcomes and bet they will repeat in the same order for the next 12 spins. If spin#1 is Even, you'll bet Even for spin#13 and so on.
Full session from Spielbank Wiesbaden Table 2 from 2015, Jan 8th. attached.
OUT = outcome
Cy = cycle (of 12)
Dec = decision (odd/even)
L/W = reg.
Wa = wage
BR = bankroll
OUT Cy Dec L/W Wa BR
33 1 O
17 2 O
0 3 E
15 4 O
3 5 O
24 6 E
29 7 O
18 8 E
28 9 E
9 10 O
20 11 E
3 12 O
14 1 E L 5 -5
30 2 E L 10 -15
1 3 O L 15 -30
26 4 E L 10 -40
13 5 O W 20 -20
14 6 E W 10 -10
2 7 E L 10 -20
3 8 O L 20 -40
18 9 E W 30 -10
33 10 O W 10 0
28 11 E W 5 5 New High
32 12 E L 5 0
18 1 E W 10 10 New High
8 2 E W 5 15 New High
1 3 O W 5 20 New High
11 4 O L 5 15
18 5 E L 10 5
8 6 E W 15 20
8 7 E W 5 25 New High
17 8 O W 5 30 New High
9 9 O L 5 25
12 10 E L 10 15
7 11 O L 15 0
15 12 O L 10 -10
8 1 E W 20 10
23 2 O L 10 0
28 3 E L 20 -20
16 4 E L 30 -50
36 5 E W 15 -35
29 6 O L 15 -50
34 7 E W 30 -20
5 8 O W 15 -5
25 9 O W 15 10
26 10 E W 15 25
12 11 E L 15 10
9 12 O W 30 40 New High
36 1 E W 5 45 New High
12 2 E L 5 40
14 3 E W 10 50 New High
19 4 O L 5 45
2 5 E W 10 55 New High
2 6 E L 5 50
3 7 O L 10 40
8 8 E L 15 25
36 9 E L 10 15
12 10 E W 20 35
4 11 E W 10 45
29 12 O W 10 55
18 1 E W 5 60 New High
16 2 E W 5 65 New High
29 3 O L 5 60
18 4 E L 10 50
5 5 O L 15 35
8 6 E W 10 45
16 7 E L 10 35
29 8 O L 20 15
4 9 E W 30 45
6 10 E W 10 55
10 11 E W 10 65
27 12 O W 5 70 New High
28 1 E W 5 75 New High
1 2 O L 5 70
20 3 E L 10 60
4 4 E W 15 75
0 5 O L 5 70
7 6 O L 10 60
19 7 O L 15 45
19 8 O W 10 55
33 9 O L 10 45
36 10 E W 20 65
25 11 O L 10 55
32 12 E L 20 35
17 1 O L 30 5
17 2 O W 15 20
32 3 E W 15 35
22 4 E W 15 50
2 5 E L 15 35
13 6 O W 30 75
6 7 E L 5 70
14 8 E L 10 60
3 9 O W 15 75
33 10 O L 5 70
4 11 E L 10 60
23 12 O L 15 45
27 1 O W 10 55
7 2 O W 10 65
22 3 E W 10 75
26 4 E W 5 80 New High
27 5 O L 5 75
7 6 O W 10 85 New High
19 7 O L 5 80
4 8 E W 10 90 New High
14 9 E L 5 85
12 10 E L 10 75
7 11 O L 15 60
30 12 E L 10 50
6 1 E L 20 30
11 2 O W 30 60
15 3 O L 10 50
5 4 O L 20 30
26 5 E L 30 0
31 6 O W 15 15
11 7 O W 15 30
30 8 E W 15 45
24 9 E W 15 60
13 10 O L 15 45
9 11 O W 30 75
14 12 E W 15 90
19 1 O L 5 85
26 2 E L 10 75
33 3 O W 15 90
16 4 E L 5 85
25 5 O L 10 75
13 6 O W 15 90
36 7 E L 5 85
14 8 E W 10 95 New High
6 9 E W 5 100 New High
22 10 E L 5 95
11 11 O W 10 105 New High
36 12 E W 5 110 New High
29 1 O W 5 115 New High
3 2 O L 5 110
7 3 O W 10 115
17 4 O L 5 110
22 5 E L 10 100
31 6 O W 15 115
23 7 O L 5 110
31 8 O L 10 100
26 9 E W 15 115
29 10 O L 5 110
30 11 E L 10 100
34 12 E W 15 115
15 1 O W 5 120 New High
6 2 E L 5 115
24 3 E L 10 105
26 4 E L 15 90
29 5 O L 10 80
32 6 E L 20 60
35 7 O W 30 90
33 8 O L 10 80
18 9 E W 20 100
1 10 O W 10 110
32 11 E W 10 120
1 12 O L 5 115
20 1 E L 10 105
35 2 O L 15 90
36 3 E W 10 100
18 4 E W 10 110
4 5 E L 10 100
22 6 E W 20 120
9 7 O W 5 125 New High
12 8 E L 5 120
14 9 E W 10 130 New High
36 10 E L 5 125
5 11 O L 10 115
35 12 O W 15 130
2 1 E W 5 135 New High
16 2 E L 5 130
6 3 E W 10 140 New High
3 4 O L 5 135
31 5 O L 10 125
24 6 E W 15 140
3 7 O W 5 145 New High
32 8 E W 5 150 New High
10 9 E W 5 155 New High
20 10 E W 5 160 New High
3 11 O W 5 165 New High
18 12 E L 5 160
15 1 O L 10 150
31 2 O L 15 135
35 3 O L 10 125
21 4 O W 20 145
16 5 E L 10 135
34 6 E W 20 155
20 7 E L 10 145
15 8 O L 20 125
22 9 E W 30 155
22 10 E W 10 165
0 11 O L 5 160
7 12 O L 10 150
25 1 O W 15 165
15 2 O W 5 170 New High
11 3 O W 5 175 New High
23 4 O W 5 180 New High
2 5 E W 5 185 New High
3 6 O L 5 180
32 7 E W 10 190 New High
10 8 E L 5 185
9 9 O L 10 175
32 10 E W 15 190
35 11 O W 5 195 New High
13 12 O W 5 200 New High
19 1 O W 5 205 New High
23 2 O W 5 210 New High
36 3 E L 5 205
28 4 E L 10 195
27 5 O L 15 180
10 6 E L 10 170
9 7 O L 20 150
20 8 E W 30 180
30 9 E L 10 170
24 10 E W 20 190
25 11 O W 10 200
5 12 O W 10 210
7 1 O W 5 215 New High
17 2 O W 5 220 New High
18 3 E W 5 225 New High
13 4 O L 5 220
31 5 O W 10 230 New High
9 6 O L 5 225
22 7 E L 10 215
14 8 E W 15 230
20 9 E W 5 235 New High
26 10 E W 5 240 New High
28 11 E L 5 235
12 12 E L 10 225
17 1 O W 15 240
16 2 E L 5 235
17 3 O L 10 225
13 4 O W 15 240
18 5 E L 5 235
10 6 E L 10 225
2 7 E W 15 240
15 8 O L 5 235
21 9 O L 10 225
20 10 E W 15 240
1 11 O L 5 235
3 12 O L 10 225
35 1 O W 15 240
34 2 E W 5 245 New High
23 3 O W 5 250 New High
5 4 O W 5 255 New High
0 5 E W 5 260 New High
15 6 O L 5 255
9 7 O L 10 245
9 8 O W 15 260
1 9 O W 5 265 New High
17 10 O L 5 260
9 11 O W 10 270 New High
5 12 O W 5 275 New High
22 1 E L 5 270
7 2 O L 10 260
18 3 E L 15 245
13 4 O W 10 255
11 5 O L 10 245
if the above was flat bet does it make +1
For flat betting it doesn't matter how many rows of wins or losses are in the LW registry (fourth column from left). You just have to count the total wins vs. total losses. If the goal is one unit we of course stop when in plus. For that we count the wins vs. losses like on the scoreboard in a football match.
Flat-betting is a good point. This is still a work in progress, so let's consider it for a moment:
The original idea is all about chances.
It's the same principle that says a single EC has the chance of appearing once every two spins, so on the second spin we'll bet for the opposite of the last outcome.
Chance is one thing, reality is another. A string of Reds when we're betting on Black means trouble. So we could bet for same as last instead, and a string of RB means trouble again. Roulette 101. Thousands of EC betting methods and progressions try to deal with those situations.
So, a run of 12 ECs has a chance of appearing once every 4096 spins, but nothing stops it from hitting much more than that.
Same principle, just on a grander scale. Megalomaniac, if it wasn't for the betting procedures.
We'd have to place ONE bet per run for it to be equally proportional. We can't do that. Or can we?
How about flat-betting every 12 spins? We keep the same tracking and betting procedure as before, but we also keep a score of LW of the last 12 decisions. If the wins are greater than the losses, we win our bet for the last run. If not, we start with a negative progression, only that each step will last 12 spins.
With the Baddest Run Yet all three progressions made a profit. Interestingly biggest drawdowns coincided at the same spin.
Answering my own observation, it's because at that point there are 26 losses against 13 wins. Flat-betting on the entire session wouldn't stand a chance and progressions profit because by the end the wins start to outweight the losses.
The clusters of wins and losses look like short cycles within a much longer cycle. Like harmonics of a fundamental frequency although they're anything but periodical, right? It's only noise.
not bad,
start BR 300
on an draw or near a draw I do not progress up.(did in first few sessions)
progression = 5-10-20-40----20-40-80
in testing I've not see more than 20 bet on step 1.
NH=new high
PR=progression up or down
300 PR up to 10
300 PR up to 20 ( after this I didn't progress on draw anymore)
420 NH
450 NH
440
490 NH
520 NH
530 NH
520
570 NH
570
610 NH
590
590
590
670 NH
660
700 NH
=====
+400
R
continue...
this one I progress up on draw:
700
720 NH
720
735 NH
735
775 NH
785 NH
785
785
785
945 NH
955 NH
965 NH
975 NH
1000 NH
Q:
say that we are on 1000 NH, on the next session we are @ spin 8 and progression = 20. (5,10,20)
now on spin 8 we are @ 1020 NH. Do you go straight back to base bet 5 units? or do you finish the session with 20?
because I think there are few options:
aggressive= on draw progress up + continue progression up to 12 spins
mild = on draw don't progress + back to base bet on new high IN session.
ps..
I think you created a monster! great job :thumbsup:
tested !and! survived a lot of spins from RNG willhell :xd:
We can also apply this on dozens an streets you think? On the other hand, why should we do that if this works great, think that we should stop searching for more and just test this until the titanic floats up again.
R
What's testing better? Betting for the previous 12 to repeat or betting the opposite?
hey psi.
what is the variation of the author system you posted? how to play?
cant find it here.
thanks.
Recent posts in this topic have reminded me of similarities with 2 other systems on the forum...
Warrior's "Perfect 10" System:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=233.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=233.0)
John Legend's "Spin 100" System:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=216.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=216.0)
Regards,
A.
Rg
Its not for repeaters etc , i bet ec example black 12 times, if its behind after the the 12 spins i go one progression up for 12 spins, its like betting against the difference on bigger scale and a decent progresion.
R
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 14, 03:07 PM 2015
It's the same principle that says a single EC has the chance of appearing once every two spins, so on the second spin we'll bet for the opposite of the last outcome.
And this principle is wrong. Damn it! Fell for it again! You all know where the error is, don't you?
Attention, please. Can't stress it enough: this is not a HG, nor even a system.
You can use the ideas and progressions and adapt them to your playing, but as it's written in the first or second post, nothing is set in stone.
Quote from: RFMAXX on Jan 15, 05:42 AM 2015
hey psi.
what is the variation of the author system you posted? how to play?
cant find it here.
thanks.
Here
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=14942.msg127550#msg127550 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=14942.msg127550#msg127550)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 14, 10:50 PM 2015
What's testing better? Betting for the previous 12 to repeat or betting the opposite?
Betting for previous 12 to repeat performed better. Goes against the reasoning posted one or two pages ago, and against the probabilities that say it doesn't matter. Not enough tests were done yet.
Remember the Author's System? Bet same/opposite? You could try it; bet same as last 12 spins, then opposite of last 12, instead of spin by spin.
Quote from: Rewster88 on Jan 15, 09:15 AM 2015
Rg
Its not for repeaters etc , i bet ec example black 12 times, if its behind after the the 12 spins i go one progression up for 12 spins, its like betting against the difference on bigger scale and a decent progresion.
R
Rewster, the original idea is: you arrive at a table and note the last 12 decisions: say spin 1 was Red, spin 2 was Black, spin 3 was Black..... ......... spin 12 was Red. Now you start betting Red at spin 13 if you decided to bet for "same", because spin 1 was Red, spin 14 bet Black because spin 2 was Black, spin 15 Black because spin 3 was Black..... spin 24 you bet red because spin 12 was Red, and so on until you end the session. If you decide to bet for "opposite" the idea is to bet against the outcomes in the same order as they appear. If spin 1 was Red, at spin 13 you bet Black, if spin 2 was Black, you bet Red, and so on. Of course you can bet for same/opposite every 12 spins as suggested above. Or even do what your gut feeling tells you to... it's like: "whatever floats your boat" yeah. If it's working for you, keep on!
You got the last progression right, but I don't understand the examples you posted, so I can't answer your question directly, but I say you can never be too cautious in a game of negative expectancy. Safety first.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 15, 06:14 AM 2015
Recent posts in this topic have reminded me of similarities with 2 other systems on the forum...
Warrior's "Perfect 10" System:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=233.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=233.0)
John Legend's "Spin 100" System:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=216.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=216.0)
Regards,
A.
Thanks.
Many of my posts in this thread are too obvious, as all I'm doing is putting my thoughts in order and trying to go back to basics. I suspected there was nothing new here.
This latest progression is akin to what I have been using for some time: initial bankroll is only 50 euros (10 units). If I lose it all, I buy-in 100 euros and start again, with doubled-up wages.
Psimoes,
I tested that about a year ago , its betting that the same pattern of 12 doesnt appear twice or opposit, Its good but it will happen, that time i tested it on last 13 with marti. What i now testing is choose 1 ec and bet it 12 times. After this i check if its positive or negative and than @ progression.
R
Quote from: Rewster88 on Jan 15, 01:02 PM 2015
Psimoes,
I tested that about a year ago , its betting that the same pattern of 12 doesnt appear twice or opposit, Its good but it will happen, that time i tested it on last 13 with marti. What i now testing is choose 1 ec and bet it 12 times. After this i check if its positive or negative and than @ progression.
R
Thanks. I see it now. Good idea. Do you keep betting on the same EC for the next round? Thanks.
sorry to say, but the willhell got me again. I was betting even ec. went up to 1200. then the magic happens( 13 odds, 2 evens, 9 odds, 1 even, 14 odds :question:) and I busted out. went from 5-10-20-40-80-100. so pretty aggressive. Maybe instead of 12 bet for 20 or 30 and make the progression less aggressive it will be a good system.
R
Sorry to hear. I keep telling this thing is no Holy Grail. And if such a thing existed, you'd need at least two to beat RNGs. LOL. Hoping it was fun money.
Well I was going to add that the 12-spin cycles were initially chosen because the original progression is 12 steps. And a pattern of 12 ECs hitting once every 4096 makes it bearable.
If we could use a 24-step marty, believe me, I'd choose 24-spin cycles instead. A bad run of LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW would profit 1unit.
I think true all systems over the past 3/4 years that i tested, still i think the maringale is the best, maybe if we test it more ways , like 8 blacks then progression of 12 steps example. It sounds noob, but still think with good stoploss wingoal target we can find a sollit way.
How about wait for 3 ec bet against, if lost wait for 4 ec bet against then 5,6 etc with progression.
R
Hi psimoes
Not wanting to read all old posts, but when you have your 12 spins, are you playing to win just the 1 unit and stop as soon as won,then chart another 12 spins, and win another unit, keep repeating till won enough units.
Rewster,
Changing patterns along the way is always a good idea as random doesn't behave the same forever.
I'm still working on the original bet selection and progression.
No system out there is a HG. I'm sticking to it. We can't use the same system on and on like robots expecting it won't tank because it will, at one time or another. And as soon as it tanks we shouldn't discard it promptly.
Using different methods per session, one at a time, is another way of changing patterns.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 15, 04:43 PM 2015
Hi psimoes
Not wanting to read all old posts, but when you have your 12 spins, are you playing to win just the 1 unit and stop as soon as won,then chart another 12 spins, and win another unit, keep repeating till won enough units.
Seriously, old posts? The entire thread is only five pages long. Bear in mind I'm not "playing"; I'm posting ideas in the notepad section. Don't let the current hype fool you, it's only tests done by me and other members and it's not finished. But it's a mess, I'll give you that.
Note last 12 spins, bet for or against, your choice, continuously. No stopping. For every next 12 spins you're betting for/against the last . Use the progression 1-2-3, 2-4-6, 3-6-9, 4-8-12 published earlier in the thread. Pay attention to the levels. I only commented on the 1 unit goal because you mentioned.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 15, 05:29 PM 2015
Seriously, old posts? The entire thread is only five pages long. Bear in mind I'm not "playing"; I'm posting ideas in the notepad section. Don't let the current hype fool you, it's only tests done by me and other members and it's not finished. But it's a mess, I'll give you that.
Note last 12 spins, bet for or against, your choice, continuously. No stopping. For every next 12 spins you're betting for/against the last . Use the progression 1-2-3, 2-4-6, 3-6-9, 4-8-12 published earlier in the thread. Pay attention to the levels. I only commented on the 1 unit goal because you mentioned.
Hey Psimoes,
What about waiting for 6 virtual losses then Martingale or other progression ? (sorry if this has already been mentioned) :)
Yes, you did mention waiting for Four virtual losses and I was about to give it some credit after watching the LW registry of that Bad Run (a long cycle of LLLLLLLLs before the Ws start hitting). So in fact, waiting for 7 virtual losses is indeed safer.
IMHO it can get boring pretty quickly unless you're playing some other method and taking notes at the same time. Say you're betting Same As Last Dozens or whatever, really, and always keeping an eye on the decisions. When opportunity calls, you change method, capitalize on it and get back to playing dozens. This can also be another way of change patterns of play.
Speaking of which:
Has any research ever been done on LW registries? Do they all look the same, or are there noticeable trends that depend on the type of bet selection? For Even Chances, that is.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 15, 06:47 PM 2015
Yes, you did mention waiting for Four virtual losses and I was about to give it some credit after watching the LW registry of that Bad Run (a long cycle of LLLLLLLLs before the Ws start hitting). So in fact, waiting for 7 virtual losses is indeed safer.
IMHO it can get boring pretty quickly unless you're playing some other method and taking notes at the same time. Say you're betting Same As Last Dozens or whatever, really, and always keeping an eye on the decisions. When opportunity calls, you change method, capitalize on it and get back to playing dozens. This can also be another way of change patterns of play.
Waiting for different "rare sequences" to emerge may be the best long-term system. If you had enough of these going at once, you could just bet when a trigger occurred.
Ex. - Waiting for 4-in-a-row from natural patterns: R/B/H/L/O/E
Waiting for 4-in-a-row from created patters (similar to the 12vs12 idea)
Waiting for 3-in-a-row from : Dozens/Columns
................etc.
The key would be to find the progression with the lowest risk/reward for these sequences, although a flat-bet would obviously be best :)
Yes, I'm aware of those. Four ECs in a row lie in the middle term where they're rare enough for us to bet for the changing of events, and hit often enough so we don't have to wait that much for a second opportunity and apply a progression.
Some people play like that at the B&M. They wait for four identical outcomes, say four reds, and bet black. A fifth red hits and they martingale on the black. A zero, then a sixth, seventh, eigth red hits and they walk away swearing. Yesterday some guy kept losing flat-betting 500 euros each time. In my view when lose the first bet they should better wait for another series of four and double their wages. The question is: knowing that all series of four have the same chance of appearing; after losing for the fifth red, should they wait for another series of reds, or would any other series of four, say EEEE, suffice?
Some punter once told me a good bet is to wait for the third dozen to repeat and bet on it for no more than two times, doubling-up the second bet. And reset regardless you win or lose. Third dozen only. Looks like sort of traditional at that casino.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 15, 08:12 PM 2015
Yes, I'm aware of those. Four ECs in a row lie in the middle term where they're rare enough for us to bet for the changing of events, and hit often enough so we don't have to wait that much for a second opportunity and apply a progression.
Some people play like that at the B&M. They wait for four identical outcomes, say four reds, and bet black. A fifth red hits and they martingale on the black. A zero, then a sixth, seventh, eigth red hits and they walk away swearing. Yesterday some guy kept losing flat-betting 500 euros each time. In my view when lose the first bet they should better wait for another series of four and double their wages. The question is: knowing that all series of four have the same chance of appearing; after losing for the fifth red, should they wait for another series of reds, or would any other series of four, say EEEE, suffice?
Some punter once told me a good bet is to wait for the third dozen to repeat and bet on it for no more than two times, doubling-up the second bet. And reset regardless you win or lose. Third dozen only. Looks like sort of traditional at that casino.
What about applying a cancellation progression to a four run sequence.
Ex.
RRRR - bet for Black
BBBB - bet for Red
HHHH - bet for Low
...etc.
....then use a simple cancellation progression(with proper MM)....kills 2 losses for every win :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 15, 08:35 PM 2015
What about applying a cancellation progression to a four run sequence.
Ex.
RRRR - bet for Black
BBBB - bet for Red
HHHH - bet for Low
...etc.
....then use a simple cancellation progression(with proper MM)....kills 2 losses for every win :)
Scratch the cancellation progression idea......it can run out of control like any other ec bet :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 15, 08:35 PM 2015
What about applying a cancellation progression to a four run sequence.
Ex.
RRRR - bet for Black
BBBB - bet for Red
HHHH - bet for Low
...etc.
....then use a simple cancellation progression(with proper MM)....kills 2 losses for every win :)
Sorry, must have some irrational thing against the Labby. Can't comment on that.
About that RRRR - bet for Black etc, then there comes the irritating bit that says for example BBBR have the same probability, so we'd bet Red (against the first Black). Then, the resulting four spins are now BBRR (if we won by betting for Red. If we lost it would turn BBRB instead). So these last four also have the same probabilities, so we bet Red against that first Black and so on. This way we can bet spin after spin. And then we realize we're in fact betting for Different Than the Fourth Last Outcome and will also realize there will be clusters of wins and clusters of losses. These would happen if we were betting for simpler runs such as BBBB RRRR OOOO EEEE etc, as well, only it would take so much time to wait for them to appear that we would in reality be betting for like just four or five times per session before leaving; after some 160 spins had passed. Longer runs such as RRRRRRRRRRRR or HHHHHHHHHHHH are rarer. Since it would take an eternity to wait for several of them before betting, and knowing that RRRBRBBBRRBBR has the same probability, why not betting continuously, spin by spin? Reminds of something? LOL
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 15, 08:41 PM 2015
Scratch the cancellation progression idea......it can run out of control like any other ec bet :)
Ya, figured. Don't know why, though.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 15, 09:08 PM 2015
Sorry, must have some irrational thing against the Labby. Can't comment on that.
About that RRRR - bet for Black etc, then there comes the irritating bit that says for example BBBR have the same probability, so we'd bet Red (against the first Black). Then, the resulting four spins are now BBRR (if we won by betting for Red. If we lost it would turn BBRB instead). So these last four also have the same probabilities, so we bet Red against that first Black and so on. This way we can bet spin after spin. And then we realize we're in fact betting for Different Than the Fourth Last Outcome and will also realize there will be clusters of wins and clusters of losses. These would happen if we were betting for simpler runs such as BBBB RRRR OOOO EEEE etc, as well, only it would take so much time to wait for them to appear that we would in reality be betting for like just four or five times per session before leaving; after some 160 spins had passed. Longer runs such as RRRRRRRRRRRR or HHHHHHHHHHHH are rarer. Since it would take an eternity to wait for several of them before betting, and knowing that RRRBRBBBRRBBR has the same probability, why not betting continuously, spin by spin? Reminds of something? LOL
After studying the created vs natural patterns, I've found them to be virtually identical when it comes to betting opportunities.
At this point, after reading thousands of posts on forums, I think that a winning system is actually (as you mentioned) an amalgamation of several methods or bets over an extended period of time. Winning by attrition. Although, I have to admit, the idea of a slow progression is always attractive.
Thanks for all of your hard work on these ideas-much appreciated!
Just my $.02 :)
No problem! You're welcome to comment any time. Cheers.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 15, 09:16 PM 2015
Ya, figured. Don't know why, though.
Just a quick note: There may be a secret in the large Labby (200+). After studying it, I found it to be very robust in trials (it beat nearly every sequence of ec), but tedious :)
Good discussion Psimoes :d
You could add a 'determinant' to you EC bet.
Example: You're betting Red/Black
If it is a Even number stay with
the same color, if Odd change to Black.
(two more cents) :)
how about betting TWO EC's ???????
O0
The barracudo not works here ?
Law,
by large labby you mean 200 flat bets and see result after it? if in negative +1 and positive -1 after every set?
R
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Jan 15, 09:32 PM 2015
Good discussion Psimoes :d
You could add a 'determinant' to you EC bet.
Example: You're betting Red/Black
If it is a Even number stay with
the same color, if Odd change to Black.
(two more cents) :)
Quote from: ddarko on Jan 15, 09:44 PM 2015
how about betting TWO EC's ???????
O0
How about using the same principle to create a system for inside bets?
Last four outcomes:
7 (RLO)
8 (BLE)
21 (RHO)
31 (BHE)
Bet all single numbers different than RLO (20, 22, 24, 26, 28)
Bet all single numbers different than BLE (19, 21, 23, 25, 27)
Bet all single numbers different than RHO (2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
Bet all single numbers different than BHE (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
Something like that.
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 15, 09:22 PM 2015
After studying the created vs natural patterns, I've found them to be virtually identical when it comes to betting opportunities.
Which means you could chart all 16 different patterns, note when each one appears and bet accordingly.
Say last outcomes were R B R R R B R B R .
1st is RBRR - Write it down.
2nd is BRRR - Do the same.
3rd RRRB
4th RRBR
5th RBRB . RBR started as on 1st. Ended differently.
6th BRBR
7th RBR - Here one still to appear. 1st already started with RBR and ended with R; 5th already started with RBR and ended with B. If we apply the hotters vs. sleepers we'll bet for the continuity of 5th, since 1st is sleeping. We'll bet the next outcome is B.
Next spin: R. !"#$ Lost. 7th is completed - RBRR. Same as 1st. Write it down. RBRR is hot.
8th BRR -2nd already started with BRR, ended with an R. Now what? 1st and 5th were different, so we'll bet 8th is different than 2nd. We'll bet B.
Next spin: B WIN! 8th is completed - BRRB.
9th RRB - Same as 4th started. There's none identical pattern yet, so now what? Either we don't bet and write the decision down for future referencing, or we gamble a bit. If we bet R and win, that'll be a repeat of 4th. If we bet B and win, that'll be another unique pattern. Also, 10th starting with RBR would be hot, like 7th, 5th and 1st already. So we'll bet R.
Next spin: R. WIN! 9th is completed - RRBR. Same as 4th. RRBR is hot.
Something like that.
Quote from: Rewster88 on Jan 16, 04:06 AM 2015
Law,
by large labby you mean 200 flat bets and see result after it? if in negative +1 and positive -1 after every set?
R
I was just referring to a standard Labby with 200 lines (reset after each new high). The difference would be risk vs reward with the standard Labby gaining 1 unit per spin :)
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 16, 08:17 AM 2015
Which means you could chart all 16 different patterns, note when each one appears and bet accordingly.
Say last outcomes were R B R R R B R B R .
1st is RBRR - Write it down.
2nd is BRRR - Do the same.
3rd RRRB
4th RRBR
5th RBRB . RBR started as on 1st. Ended differently.
6th BRBR
7th RBR - Here one still to appear. 1st already started with RBR and ended with R; 5th already started with RBR and ended with B. If we apply the hotters vs. sleepers we'll bet for the continuity of 5th, since 1st is sleeping. We'll bet the next outcome is B.
Next spin: R. !"#$ Lost. 7th is completed - RBRR. Same as 1st. Write it down. RBRR is hot.
8th BRR -2nd already started with BRR, ended with an R. Now what? 1st and 5th were different, so we'll bet 8th is different than 2nd. We'll bet B.
Next spin: B WIN! 8th is completed - BRRB.
9th RRB - Same as 4th started. There's none identical pattern yet, so now what? Either we don't bet and write the decision down for future referencing, or we gamble a bit. If we bet R and win, that'll be a repeat of 4th. If we bet B and win, that'll be another unique pattern. Also, 10th starting with RBR would be hot, like 7th, 5th and 1st already. So we'll bet R.
Next spin: R. WIN! 9th is completed - RRBR. Same as 4th. RRBR is hot.
Something like that.
I was just thinking list each pattern (natural and artificial), and then flat bet after a run of 4 against the 5th. Slow progression over time if necessary. Just my $.02 :)
One thing comes to mind: it's easier to bet RRRR will not continue, than some other run like BRBB. We pick the first decision of the BRBB because we don't know what a fifth decision would be, in case BRBB would continue.
We could only chart the symmetrical runs RRRR, BBBB, RRBB, BBRR, BRBR and RBRB, as those are easier to bet against.
For RRRR the next logical step is R. To bet against it we bet B.
For BBBB -> B. Bet R
For RRBB -> R. Bet B
For BBRR -B. Bet R
For BRBR -> B. Bet R
For RBRB -> R. Bet B
I'm making this up as I write along. A concept of hot runs seems interesting.
We could also chart for runs of three, as they're only 8.
We could chart for dozens/columns.
There can only be 27 runs of three dozens (3^3).
For runs of two dozens there are only 9 possible outcomes (3^2).
1 1
2 2
3 3
1 2
1 3
2 1
2 3
3 1
3 2
I'm going to test some permanences to see how dozens behave.
Here. Looks like a good bet for double dozens. L4 only once during 134 spins.
10 1
31 3 13 Next time 1 hits, bet 2+1
10 1 31 Next time 3 hits, bet 2+3
23 2 12 W Next time 1 hits, bet 3+1
27 3 23 Next time 2 hits, bet 1+2
23 2 32 W Next time 3 hits, bet 1+3
28 3 23 L Next time 2 hits, bet 1+2
11 1 31 W
34 3 13 W
6 1 31 L
8 1 11 W
3 1 11 L
25 3 13 W
18 2 32 W
21 2 22 W
0 0 0 L
19 2 22 L
5 1 21 W
24 2 12 W
29 3 23 W
30 3 33 W
13 2 32 W
10 1 21 W
10 1 11 W
11 1 11 L
33 3 13 W
16 2 32 W
33 3 23 W
7 1 31 W
2 1 11 W
15 2 12 W
7 1 21 W
30 3 13 W
29 3 33 W
35 3 33 L
7 1 31 W
20 2 12 W
11 1 21 L
25 3 13 W
36 3 33 W
20 2 32 W
35 3 23 W
19 2 32 L
6 1 21 W
20 2 12 W
36 3 23 W
16 2 32 L
26 3 23 L
19 2 32 L
16 2 22 W
36 3 23 W
30 3 33 W
1 1 31 W
2 1 11 W
33 3 13 W
23 2 32 W
32 3 23 L
29 3 33 W
31 3 33 L
6 1 31 W
1 1 11 W
16 2 12 W
20 2 22 W
32 3 23 W
20 2 32 W
2 1 21 W
17 2 12 L
15 2 22 W
10 1 21 W
10 1 11 W
11 1 11 L
29 3 13 W
16 2 32 L
35 3 23 W
27 3 33 W
35 3 33 L
17 2 32 W
7 1 21 W
32 3 13 L
4 1 31 W
32 3 13 L
15 2 32 W
12 1 21 L
22 2 12 W
8 1 21 L
4 1 11 W
2 1 11 L
14 2 12 W
28 3 23 W
33 3 33 W
8 1 31 W
20 2 12 L
24 2 22 W
33 3 23 W
1 1 31 L
36 3 13 W
14 2 32 W
22 2 22 W
19 2 22 L
13 2 22 L
21 2 22 L
36 3 23 W
17 2 32 L
35 3 23 L
26 3 33 W
7 1 31 W
14 2 12 W
8 1 21 W
13 2 12 L
3 1 21 L
33 3 13 W
0 0 0 L
7 1 31 L
17 2 12 W
6 1 21 L
26 3 13 W
27 3 33 W
28 3 33 L
12 1 31 W
36 3 13 L
16 2 32 W
29 3 23 W
21 2 32 L
19 2 22 W
13 2 22 L
17 2 22 L
18 2 22 L
16 2 22 L
34 3 23 W
23 2 32 L
4 1 21 W
11 1 11 W
0 0 0 L
Here is my try at runs of 3 ECs.
There are eight possible outcomes:
OOO(O)
EEE(E)
OOE(E)
EEO(O)
OEO(E)
EOE(O)
OEE(O)
EOO(E)
Between brackets are their logical followers. The non-symmetrical ones OEE and EOO get a mirror-image (OE gets followed by EO and EO followed by OE).
We track last three outcomes and after that we bet and track continuously. Zeros are ignored. We bet for the pattern to brake. As example, when last three were OEO, we bet O on the next spin against (E) to brake the run.
Lots of Wins in a row there. Didn't do any progression yet. Probably an Up-As-You-Win-Down-As-You-Lose would do great.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 16, 12:30 PM 2015
Here is my try at runs of 3 ECs.
There are eight possible outcomes:
OOO(O)
EEE(E)
OOE(E)
EEO(O)
OEO(E)
EOE(O)
OEE(O)
EOO(E)
Between brackets are their logical followers. The non-symmetrical ones OEE and EOO get a mirror-image (OE gets followed by EO and EO followed by OE).
We track last three outcomes and after that we bet and track continuously. Zeros are ignored. We bet for the pattern to brake. As example, when last three were OEO, we bet O on the next spin against (E) to brake the run.
Lots of Wins in a row there. Didn't do any progression yet. Probably an Up-As-You-Win-Down-As-You-Lose would do great.
How about looking for the pattern to change (brake) OR run ?
O0
Working on it. Stay tuned.
Edit - Well, for that you just have to invert the Ws and the Ls, paying attention to when the zeros hit, as those are always L.
I'm working runs of two of the same ECs.
OO(O)
EE(E)
OE(O)
EO(E)
We'll bet at the same time with the runs of three. When they conflict, we don't bet. We bet only when they overlap.
Off topic
Isee your looking Jimmie B look at reply 87, you get numbers like that now and again, lovely
So far the best results are achieved by tracking last three and betting for continuity, and at the same time tracking last two and betting against...
With ECs the best we can hope for is 18 Ws vs 19 Ls (including Zero) per 37 spins.
We don't necessarily need to increase the rate of Ws per Ls, although it's preferable.
We need the Ws and Ls to appear more regularly and less clustered:
LLLLLLLLWWLLWWWWLLWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW - Here marty gets killed.
We must shift the Ws and Ls so they appear like this:
LLLWWLWLWLWLLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLWWWLWLWLLLW - Here we're banned from the casinos for winning too much!
LLLLLLLLWWLLWWWWLLWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW - Here marty gets killed.
LLLWWLWLWLWLLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLWWWLWLWLLLW - Here we're banned from the casinos for winning too much!
WHAT IF after 19 spins the L/W shows 6 w's to 13 L's something like in reply 20 14L,5w is it Go,Go,GO
Notto, I'm on another register now. Sorry. This would probably deserve its own thread so as to not confuse other people.
Here's the results from comparing the two different approaches:
L3F = Last three For
L3A = Last three Against
L2F = Last two For
L2A = Last two Against
Betting L3A+L2A results in maximum 4 Losses in a row!
Edit - file updated (less confusing).
Here's the registry from L3A+L2A. 37 Wins vs 28 Losses. Even flat-betting is highly profitable!
L3A
+
L2A
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
Excellent Work-Thanks so much!!!
Now the question is how does it hold up over 1000s of spins? :)
Thanks! Yep, guess this one should move on to the Testing Zone.
thelaw, do you understand the concept?
L3A + L2A are betting "against". They survived 7 Evens in a row because at the beginning and the end of that streak they entered into conflict so the only option was No bet. This resulted in only 4 losses. I tried including a "control group" that is betting "for" every next spin (same as last spin). This one conflicted with the other two groups and vetted the bets, so the streak was avoided. This control group lessens the winnings a bit and there were still 4 losses earlier in the session, but because here was a zero. Otherwise maximum Ls with a control group included: 3!
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 16, 04:56 PM 2015
Thanks! Yep, guess this one should move on to the Testing Zone.
thelaw, do you understand the concept?
L3A + L2A are betting "against". They survived 7 Evens in a row because at the beginning and the end of that streak they entered into conflict so the only option was No bet. This resulted in only 4 losses. I tried including a "control group" that is betting "for" every next spin (same as last spin). This one conflicted with the other two groups and vetted the bets, so the streak was avoided. This control group lessens the winnings a bit and there were still 4 losses earlier in the session, but because here was a zero. Otherwise maximum Ls with a control group included: 3!
Can you give an example in real time with spins/numbers (just long enough to explain system)?
ex.
1. 32 R H E no bet (tracking)
2. 17 B L O nb
3. 07 R L O nb
4. 12 R L E nb
etc......
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 16, 04:15 PM 2015
Excellent Work-Thanks so much!!!
I totally agree with thelaw here.
You're doing some excellent work psimoes! :thumbsup:
Also a big thank you from me as well.
Also agree too!
Good work and an interesting selection criteria betting against the L3 and L2 pattern when they agree.
Hope the good results are maintained during the tests!
O
O
E
E
E
O W
O
E
O
E L
E W
E
O W
E
O L
E L
O L
O W
E
O
E L
O L
O W
E
O
O W
O
E W
O
O W
O
O L
O L
E W
O
E L
E W
E
E L
O W
E L
E W
E
O W
O
E
O
O W
A.
First Off: thanks for this. Could someone please explain the new l3a + l2a rule?
Why no Bet sometimes? Example: e,o,e next Is o and a loss in psi pdf.
Example from atlantis: o,o,e,e,e bet o and Win. Then no Bets Following behause New tracking.
Don't get it 😛
Quote from: RFMAXX on Jan 17, 09:46 AM 2015
First Off: thanks for this. Could someone please explain the new l3a + l2a rule?
Why no Bet sometimes? Example: e,o,e next Is o and a loss in psi pdf.
Example from atlantis: o,o,e,e,e bet o and Win. Then no Bets Following behause New tracking.
Don't get it 😛
Hi RFMAXX,
If I understand psimoes bet selection correctly (I hope I do) you are looking first at the PATTERN made by the last 3 O/E results.
You look to see what result would cause a symmetrical pattern of 4 to form eg:
Last 3 results:
oeo===> so an "e" result next spin will create the balanced pattern of 4 : "oeoe"
Secondly, we now look only at the last TWO results also -
The last 2 results were:
eo====> so if chop continues it must naturally be an "e" also...
When both are in agreement like that - you always bet for the OPPOSITE result to occur (against the "e" forming)
So in this case a bet is placed on ODD.
When both are not in agreement it is a no-bet.
The latest last 3 string and the last 2 string are then analysed after EACH SPIN to see if another bet, or a no-bet is indicated.
The bet (if indicated) is always AGAINST the last 3 and last 2 strings to achieve their balanced harmony.
Psimoes says that this is producing the better results compared to other options.
Hope that helps!
Examples:
eeo - no bet
ooo - bet e
ooe - no bet
eoe - bet e
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 17, 10:17 AM 2015
Examples:
eeo - no bet
ooo - bet e
ooe - no bet
eoe - bet e
A.
As promising as this looks surely it needs the no bets to somehow become bets to make it complete ?
O0
Quote from: ddarko on Jan 17, 10:35 AM 2015
As promising as this looks surely it needs the no bets to somehow become bets to make it complete ?
O0
e
o
o no bet
e no bet
e no bet
o no bet
o no bet
e no bet
o bet ODD
e L - bet EVEN
e W - no bet
e bet ODD
o W - no bet
o no bet
o bet EVEN
e W - no bet
o bet ODD
e L bet EVEN
e W - no bet
Well if you're going to bet every spin - you will get the expected results.
By not betting every spin and betting only when intimated by the formula, psimoes is trying to find an optimum way to negate and eliminate the long losing runs that can all too often sadly occur on the EC bets and thus capitalise on the win/loss ratio either using flatbetting or with some suitable type of progression.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 17, 10:51 AM 2015
Well if you're going to bet every spin - you will get the expected results.
I see it a different way, if your betting on say half the spins, your halfing your chances to win ?
& yes, lose.....
I'm not knocking the method, it just seems half complete to me......
O0
Quote from: ddarko on Jan 17, 10:55 AM 2015
I see it a different way, if your betting on say half the spins, your halfing your chances to win ?
& yes, lose.....
I'm not knocking the method, it just seems half complete to me......
O0
OK. Fine. In that case to get more bets you can use it applied to the other ECs: R/B and H/L as well......
Use separate banks for each EC?
:)
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 17, 11:08 AM 2015
OK. Fine. In that case to get more bets you can use it applied to the other ECs: R/B and H/L as well......
Use separate banks for each EC?
:)
A.
That could well be an option ;) nice out of the box thinking !!!!
O0
Ran a few short tests (nothing definitive) using the following betting patterns :
EEE-bet O
EOE-bet E
EEO-bet E
EOO-bet E
OOO-bet E
OEO-bet O
OOE-bet O
OEE-bet O
Looks like 25% win across the board flat betting :)
Hi thelaw,
Remember it is continuous tracking and betting - not just recording sets of lines of three results...
I'm chuckling a little coz in some strange way it reminds me a bit of that crazy iceman/winwithmath/wendell hidden math dimensional idea from years gone by. :twisted:
:lol:
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 17, 11:42 AM 2015
Hi thelaw,
Remember it is continuous tracking and betting - not just recording sets of lines of three results...
I'm chuckling a little coz in some strange way it reminds me a bit of that crazy iceman/winwithmath/wendell hidden math dimensional idea from years gone by. :twisted:
:lol:
A.
Do you mean that after say EEE-bet O then you re-track (so if we had EEEE we wouldn't bet the second EEE pattern after the first loss)?
I ran continuous betting based on last three results (so 100 spins=97bets-3 to start tracking):)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 17, 12:03 PM 2015
Do you mean that after say EEE-bet O then you re-track (so if we had EEEE we wouldn't bet the second EEE pattern after the first loss)?
I ran continuous betting based on last three results (so 100 spins=97bets-3 to start tracking):)
No - I believe you tested it right in accordance with the pdf file psimoes posted.
As I look at it, He doesn't seem to stop after the first loss of such a pattern you mention under the L3A+L2A heading.
However, the difference is you would not get anywhere near 97/100 bets testing O/E under his new idea because of the "no bets" from when L3A and L2A don't match.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 17, 01:47 PM 2015
No - I believe you tested it right in accordance with the pdf file psimoes posted.
As I look at it, He doesn't seem to stop after the first loss of such a pattern you mention under the L3A+L2A heading.
However, the difference is you would not get anywhere near 97/100 bets under his new idea because of the "no bets" from when L3A and L2A don't match.
A.
I have started to see that a run of EEEEEEE or EOEOEO can add up a large number of losses, which may mean a deep draw-down for the Bankroll :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 17, 01:58 PM 2015
I have started to see that a run of EEEEEEE or EOEOEO can add up a large number of losses, which may mean a deep draw-down for the Bankroll :)
Yes - right. I agree we need some guidance on that. We need to see what psimoes proposes is best to do in such an event...
Ideas, anyone??
A.
The first thing that springs to mind:
If we get something like:
EEEEE or OOOOO it means we have 2 consecutive L's in our registry. (LL)
Same with:
OEOEO or EOEOE
as thelaw mentions.
We could STOP betting until pattern changes eg:
EEEEE (LL- stop) EEEO (restart here)
or alternate between L2F+L3F and (bet FOR the match) and L3A+L2A eg:
EEEEE(E) delivers a W after the 2L's - now switch back to L3A+L2A.
If the run continues you will get alternate W's and L's eg:
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEO = LL(first 2 losses) then WLWLWLWLWW
instead of a larger string of losses. Not too bad!
If the pattern immediately ends after the 2 initial losses then the unwelcome streak ends anyway and we have a new pattern formed after our 3 consecutive losses eg:
EEEEEO = L-L-switch-L-switch
Therein lies the quandary to ponder; STOP after 2L's or use switch betting after 2L's until streak pattern breaks...
A.
WOW thank you all for the nice words!
Atlantis, you understood the method correctly and brought new ideas to the table. Special thanks for that!
thelaw, your observations are right. It does lose when facing a long streak or a long series of chops.
In all honesty, I tried all possible combinations in that session. L3F+L2F, L3F+L2A, L3A+L2A, L3A+L2F and L3A+L2A achieved the best results for THAT session, as you can see in the pdf file. So I curvefitted the results. It it was just a lucky session and bad results from other sessions will prove it, my choice of L3A+L2A goes down the drain. Sorry for doing one test only and jumping to conclusions too early.
L3F+L2F will profit from those streaks and chops all the time. But that doesn't mean it will keep on winning for ever, as random will eventually catch up and there will be series of ECs that will beat L3F+L2F.
Curiously, L2F alone is what my variation on my favourite EC bet selection, the Author's system, is all about.
Well, what can we do to stop losing runs? Atlantis ' idea of a safety break is good, as well as changing from L3A+L2A to L3F+L2F after a series of losses. We don't even need to identify which patterns are going on. The Ls justify the changing of direction.
I thought about a "Control Group" consisting of betting Same As Last Spin at the same time as L3A+L2A.
Now there would be L3A+L2A+L1F! It's not getting any simpler, is it? In the case of a long streak of EEEEEEEEEE where L3A+L2A would both agreed with betting against, thus losing, L1F would contradict both. As there wouldn't be unanimity the conclusion would be No Bets. This would avoid long losing streaks.
Anyway, if we look at L3A+L2A or L3F+L2F we soon will see there will only be a limited selection of patterns where they both agree:
OEO(E)
EO(E)
EOE(O)
OE(O)
EEE(E)
EE(E)
OOO(O)
OO(O)
We can see right there they're the symmetrical ones in all 8 possible combinations. The remaining 4 will be the asymmetrical types, where both do not agree on which the next outcome could be, and cancel each other out, thus No Bets:
OEE(O)
EE(E)
EOO(E)
OO(O)
OEE(O)
EE(E)
EOO(E)
OO(O)
Later...
Now with L1A added to antagonize L3F and L2F and see which patterns remain "bettable". For L3A+L2A, L1F is selected.
OEO(E)
EO(E)
O(E)
EOE(O)
OE(O)
E(O)
EEE(E)
EE(E)
E(O)
OOO(O)
OO(O)
O(E)
For the next, L1 is superfluous, since L3+L2 don't match already, invalidating all bets.
OEE(O)
EE(E)
EOO(E)
OO(O)
OEE(O)
EE(E)
EOO(E)
OO(O)
So an antagonizing L1A or L1F limits our bets even more. All we have left are the series of chops and they must go for at least 3 spins before we bet for/against. There we go again, waiting for specific events before we bet LOL. At least we're trying to justify our bet selections with a little more reasoning...
Now, do we really need L1A or L1F? If we select L3F+L2A, as on the following examples, we avoid all symmetrical runs such as streaks and chops and bet only when the outcomes are seemingly chaotic, like the 4 asymmetrical patterns where L3 and L2 agree:
OEO(E)
EO(O)
EOE(O)
OE(E)
EEE(E)
EE(O)
OOO(O)
OO(E)
OEE(O)
EE(O)
EOO(E)
OO(E)
OEE(O)
EE(O)
EOO(E)
OO(E)
In the pdf file with the session I tested there were more LLLLLL in a row, choosing the above option.
So, what do you guys think is more favourable?
Rewster88 and RFMAXX, I hope your answers have been adressed by now, but if you, or anyone else, still need more explanations don't hesitate to ask.
Edit - currently testing T2 today's SBWB permanences.
Hello
Here's a thought.
I have done a lot of testing with EC bets and found what is called the Arcsine Principal or something to that effect. I am not a math person.
Years ago, I ran across this principal in a thread by Beretta and just last year Bayes did a thread on it.
It basically says that if you are betting a "trend" then the probability that the "trend" will continue is slightly higher than betting that it won't. I don't know the degree of probability.
So instead of betting "O" against EEE you would bet that another "E" is spun. Then if the streak continues you would win each and every one of them until the trend is broken.
If you have "OEO" you would bet an "E" so that the chopping streak will continue.
In other words, bet with the trend.
Just something to consider.
Cheers
Nick
Nickmsi, thank you for a most interesting contribution! I'll read about it later. I'm not a "math person" either despite posting a lot of numbers LOL. Just find it fascinating among other areas. Which I was more educated on the matter.
That validates L3F+L2F; and L2F alone as my preferred choice for betting on ECs. Too bad it still loses to adverse runs of two, so I'm always looking for ways to improve it.
And I guess that validates betting for the same as last 12 outcomes too, unless that Arcsine Principal is only valid for higher resolution analysis i.e. spin by spin. If it's valid for longer cycles as well, it would confirm the fractal properties of chaos. That might explain why stiff patterns in betting methods get counter-intuitive after a while. Like the human brain detects the longer cycle trends and predicts they'll reflect in the shorter cycles. Sorry I digress.
I'm not a "pattern breaker" myself either, (as L2F proves). Last comparison, though, favoured betting against the trend. Maybe I was being too ambitious.
Anyway already started testing L3+L2+L1 so I'll finish it and post it right away.
In the meanwhile previous results are attached. Comparisons later.
Cheers.
Here's the comparisons. 5 zeros in around 90 spins. Interesting enough, L3A+L2A+L1F still lose the least, with 4 losses in a row (1 zero included).
Edit - I realize I have been automatically charting zeros as losses without putting much thought on it. When L3A+L2A or whatever don't agree on the next outcome, we don't bet. If the next outcome is zero, we avoid the loss.
Also, why not bet (or no bet) according to L2+L1 only? Comparison attached. Same session.
...
Sorry, last comparison updated and attached for future reference.
Betting L2F+L1F and L2F+L1A look very promising. Maximum 3 losses in a row. This time some zeros were avoided with No Bet.
Possible outcomes:
EE(E)
E(E)
OO(O)
O(O)
EO(E)
O(O)
OE(O)
E(E)
Hi psimoes,
Another way using a Grid Matrix of 3x3 using: L3a+L2a formula
Track 9 results to start
Base betting decisions the same except VERTICALLY. Look at last 3 vertical in each column to decide bet using L3a+L2a methodology...
I also used the alternate switching idea with L3F+L2F if there are 2 L's in a row in a column (but only without any no bets in between the L's in that column)
OEE
EEO
OOO Initial matrix of 9 results for O/E
EEO L; nb; nb -1
EEE W; W; W +2
OOO nb; nb; W +3
OOO W; W; nb +5
OOO nb; nb; nb +5
OOE L ; L; W +4
EEO W; W; nb +6 * stop here?
EEE nb; nb; L +5
EEE nb; nb; W +6
EOE L; W; nb +6
EOE L; nb; L +4
OEE L*; nb; L +2
EOE nb; nb; W* +3
EEO W; L; L +2
OEE nb; W; nb +3
EEE nb; nb; W +4
OOE nb; W; nb +5
OEE W; nb; L +5
OOE nb; L; L +3
EEE W; L; W* +5
OEO nb; L*; L +2
OEO W; nb; nb +3
col1 registry: LWWLWLLLWWWW
col2 registry: WWLWWLWWLLL
col3 registry: WWWLWLLWLWLLWL
W* AND L* show the switch bets won or lost using L3F+L2F combo formula.
I know its only a small sample. Thoughts?
A.
I think that too many members are wanting to bet every spin and to make too much quickly. slowly, slowly catchee monkey. Albert Einstein (Fantastic person of many sayings) said do not expect to do the same thing over and over and get a different result. I myself play chains of 4 on E/C`s. Wait for 4 of any same - bet 1 unit - Stop. Wait for next 4 of any same - bet 2 units etc. etc. or any staking plan you like. I have found this method with 4 to be very sound and can average 8 to 10 units per hour (Live play) Because you are betting say 4 reds, then 4 high, then 4 odd etc. etc. you soon have a winner. It may be slow and not very exciting but if you were playing say 1 unit = £5
it can easily rack up decent winnings.
Hi Atlantis
Great idea and great results. Flat-betting, a plus of 6u would be nice stopwin. If we can in fact move the wins and losses out of their clusters to a more regular distribution, and that matrix method looks very promising for that; then why not applying a 4-step marty? Even with the last losing run of the 2nd column, at the end of the session there would be a profit of 13 units.
As to the matrix method per se I think it does need more than one favourable session so we can test not only the overall results, but specifically if it diversifies the triggers. You see, with L3F+L2F the triggers are all the symmetrical runs of three OOO EEE EOE OEO. It does very well until it comes acros something like OEOOOEOOOE...
Another thought is L3A+L2A only seems to make sense when in conjunction with L1F otherwise a run of EEEEEEEE would kill it. This combination achieved the best results so far when tracking and betting in the conventional manner. Applying it to the matrix would mean putting it out of context, thus not taking real advantage of its "winning power". In other words it's kind of missing the point. Hence why changing to L3F+L2F seems to make sense after two Losses in a row as you applied to good effect.
Now, if we still need to change strategy to improve LW with the matrix, we have to question the usage of the matrix in the first place; why not going L3F+L2F until 2 Losses in a row then moving to L3A+L2A until another 2 losses in a row. Just to simplify the betting procedure... We wouldn't then need L1F/A since the safety break is already accounted.
IDK if this makes sense. Need coffee. BRB
bleep24, we reached that conclusion a few pages back. Just one question: after 4 of the same, do you bet For or Against? Thanks and welcome to the thread.
Later.
Hi psimoes,
Quote
Now, if we still need to change strategy to improve LW with the matrix, we have to question the usage of the matrix in the first place; why not going L3F+L2F until 2 Losses in a row then moving to L3A+L2A until another 2 losses in a row. Just to simplify the betting procedure... We wouldn't then need L1F/A since the safety break is already accounted.
OK. I think your idea is good. Will certainly try it that way -switching after 2 L's.
And I agree with bleep24 when he says - there is no need to bet every spin. Even with the matrix notation idea we do not have to bet every spin. Also we do not need to play every column. In fact you could have partners playing another column each and each player playing their own progression...
As a progression you mentioned simple marti but maybe the "best of 5" or "best of 7" bets before +1/-1... or something like that or "guetting"?
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 18, 10:52 AM 2015
Also we do not need to play every column. In fact you could have partners playing another column each and each player playing their own progression...
As a progression you mentioned simple marti but maybe the "best of 5" or "best of 7" bets before +1/-1... or something like that or "guetting"?
A.
Yes, a separate bank for each column! On progressions, everyone's afraid of the martingale and I never played it lighthearted myself. I did say 4-step but it's crazy. 1-2-3 or 1-2-4 STOP is more reasonable.
I think we should always look at the LW and choose the prog that fits better, instead of picking one that somebody said "it works OK". For example, something like LLLWLLWLLLW, a marty eats it for breakfast; for something like LLLLLLLLWWWWW, after a first virtual Win a Paroli works wonders.
On the matrix, we're just re-arranging the bets and random will probably catch up, sooner or later. So I propose testing in the following manner:
Instead of using random spins we'll see what series of outcomes make it win 100% and what series make it lose 100%. Always betting say L3F+L2F.
Then we will use the same series of outcomes to bet conventionally, again L3F+L2F. We will use different starting points until the WWWWWLLLLL overlap. If, at all. Then, we'd note the difference in spins and try to rotate the LW by say 90º.
It's a technique unrelated to roulette. It's kind of crazy trying to adapt it to the game but you never know.
It's about using two identical bet selections but starting them at different points. If they overlap at 0º or 360º we get double wins of units but also double units of losses. If we get to to shift by 180º the Wins are cancelled by the Losses. If we could make the LW to rotate by 90º, instead of this WWWWWLLLLL, we get this WLWLWLWLWL. Just an idea. I don't know if it's feasible.
Edit- made some corrections there. Will be out for a few hours. later.
Hi Psimoes,
I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on. My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin. Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1 - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe. The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.
Good Luck, Bleep24 (Brian)
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 17, 10:08 PM 2015
Sorry, last comparison updated and attached for future reference.
Betting L2F+L1F and L2F+L1A look very promising. Maximum 3 losses in a row. This time some zeros were avoided with No Bet.
Possible outcomes:
EE(E)
E(E)
OO(O)
O(O)
EO(E)
O(O)
OE(O)
E(E)
I agree - the results on the sheet you posted in those 2 categories are good. :)
Should not be dismissed if it continues to hold up well.
A.
Yeah, but it's only one session. There's some work to do. When I have the time I will run more tests.
Cheers.
Quote from: bleep24 on Jan 18, 12:21 PM 2015
Hi Psimoes,
I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on. My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin. Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1 - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe. The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.
Good Luck, Bleep24 (Brian)
I think it's a fine method. Do you play this at a B&M casino, or online only? And do you have separate banks for all three ECs? What do you think of RBRB having the same chances to appear as RRRR or BBBB? Sorry for all the questions. Cheers.
Quote from: bleep24 on Jan 18, 12:21 PM 2015
Hi Psimoes,
I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on. My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin. Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1 - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe. The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.
Good Luck, Bleep24 (Brian)
Hi!
Did a test of this i put my bets after a chain of 4 against continuing the chain like H,L,H,L bet L once, R,R,R,R bet B etc etc
wlllwwlllw
wl:lwlww
wwlwlwlwll
lwlwwll:
wlwllwwlww
27 w ,23 l
Nice!
agesta
Hi!
One more test.
lllllwl:
llwll:wl
wwllwllllw
wllllwlwlw
:lllwlll
29 l
21 w
agesta
Hi psimoes, agesta, bleep24
Matrix betting vertically using bleep24 idea against 4 in row pattern continuing on symmetricals:
OOOO - bet E
EEEE- bet O
OEOE - bet E
EOEO - bet O
EEOO - bet O
OOEE - bet E
OEEO - bet E
EOOE - Bet O
I use same grid results as posted before:
col1 col2 col3
OEE
EEO
OOO
EEO
EEE W
OOO
OOO L L
OOO W W
OOE
EEO W W
EEE
EEE W W W
EOE
EOE L
OEE W L
EOE W
EEO W
OEE W
EEE W
OOE
OEE W
OOE L
EEE L L
OEO W W
OEO
16W; 7L
Regards,
A.
Hi!
One more test now with trioplay progression
wwll:lwl
llwlllwllw
llwl:lll
wlllllwwll
lwlwwlwlw
ll:
24 w
30 l
+7
-14 one time in the trioplay
I will do the same with the matrix play from Atlantis tonight
agesta
Atlantis, agesta, thanks.
Hey people, you won't believe this:
Next to the matrix, I added DTL 12 numbers.
We've got to benefit from this, but atm I'm still like wth...
Here's how it's developing:
Remember how the thread started? We note the last 12 spins and bet against them spin by spin.
If spin #1 was O, we bet spin #13 is E, if spin #2 was E, we bet spin #14 is O and so on.
I took the grid posted by atlantis, applied the method and made a comparison:
ALL results matched.
Now, how can we capitalize on it?
In the attachment, there's four groups of columns. First is atlantis' L4A. We can only bet when last 4 spins were symmetrical, so the empty spaces are No Bets.
Second is the 12 spins bet minus the Ws and Ls of the 1st group. We bet on all spins, resulting in more Wins, but more Losses as well. Too many.
Third group is the 12 spins bet in reverse. Previous Wins are now Losses; previous Losses are now Wins. This is easily achieved by betting Same As Last 12 instead of Different Than Last. Looks a bit better now.
Finally, there's Third group and First group together. SAL12+L4A results in a lot more Wins this time. Maximum Losses in a row is 3. 63 spins, 38 Wins, 25 Losses.
Method of operation proposed is simple:
We bet spin by spin. Every time L4A determines No Bets, we bet Same As Last 12.
That's it!
Hey psimoes,
Good stuff and seem very interesting indeed.
This combo might be the ticket !?
I'll be trying it soon.
Q. How are you handling the green 0 in the tracking and if lost during betting?
Atlantis.
Hi Psimoes,
I only play Live on-line. I only use 1 bank. I have run a session from Wm. Hill using chops as well as 4 of a kind.Here is the result:
WWWLWWLWWWWWWWLWLWLLWLLWLLWLLW Using only 4`s - WWWWWWWWLWLLW Both look good. On this basis you could flat bet but the winnings are not going to amount to much. Combining 4`s and chops looks good but entails more recording. Total 76 spins.
Cheers,
Bleep24 (Brian from a snowy Guisborough)
Just tried the
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 19, 04:46 PM 2015
Here's how it's developing:
Remember how the thread started? We note the last 12 spins and bet against them spin by spin.
If spin #1 was O, we bet spin #13 is E, if spin #2 was E, we bet spin #14 is O and so on.
I took the grid posted by atlantis, applied the method and made a comparison:
ALL results matched.
Now, how can we capitalize on it?
In the attachment, there's four groups of columns. First is atlantis' L4A. We can only bet when last 4 spins were symmetrical, so the empty spaces are No Bets.
Second is the 12 spins bet minus the Ws and Ls of the 1st group. We bet on all spins, resulting in more Wins, but more Losses as well. Too many.
Third group is the 12 spins bet in reverse. Previous Wins are now Losses; previous Losses are now Wins. This is easily achieved by betting Same As Last 12 instead of Different Than Last. Looks a bit better now.
Finally, there's Third group and First group together. SAL12+L4A results in a lot more Wins this time. Maximum Losses in a row is 3. 63 spins, 38 Wins, 25 Losses.
Method of operation proposed is simple:
We bet spin by spin. Every time L4A determines No Bets, we bet Same As Last 12.
That's it!
Thanks for all your work on this.
Just did a quick test on rxtreme:
Starting BR: 500 End:533 (1 unit bets)
Bets won 39, bets lost 33
Longest losing run: 4 (simple progression, bet 16 units once)
Long
Second test using real live numbers, 7 losses in a row which wiped out the marty.
Still think there's merit somewhere here though.
Hi atlantis. Interesting would be an understatement from me. I'm astonished. Results with real spins are disappointing for now though LOL. I'm trying L4A on the columns and L12F on the rows, and there's too many Losses already! We gotta find a better bet. But, if you watch L4F and L12F you'll see they always match! What we can learn from this is how to deal with the other runs. When OEOO hits, L4F determines No bets because it has nowhere to go, but L12F shall tell us what must be the next outcome. So we could see what goes after an asymmetrical run. At least I hope so.
Ignore the Zero or do as I said earlier in the thread: every EC is 18 numbers against 19 because Zero is always against us. So if you're betting E and lose because of the Zero, just assume O has hit instead.
Ignoring is much simpler and quicker: Tracking and betting 12 spins we'll count 1,2,3,4,5,0,6,7,8,9... and OOE0E = OOEE...
It could probably mess with the results either way, though. Damn it.
Thanks guys for testing. Damn it. What a huge disappointment. But I think we're onto something here. Never heard of this before. Either it's really simple or there's some predictability about random we've just discovered. Crazy stuff.
E O E <---- spin #3
O O E
O O O
E E E
E O E W W W <---- spin #3
O O O W W L
O O O W W W
O O E L L W
E O E W W W <---- spin #15
E O O L W W
O O O W W W
Those are taken from SBWB Table 3 today. A Win happens when the outcome at say spin #15 is identical to spin #3. With this same example, could the next logical step to EEOE be E?
Regards to all.
Hi!
Another matrix!
Track 6 spins like this
rrb
brb
now bet that the vertical matrix in the columns will continue, in this example
first c bet r
second c bet r
third c bet b so
rrb
brd
rrb
I did a test of this, my w/l ended like this.
wll
llw
wll
w--
w--
wwl
wll
:
lww
wwl
:
lll
-ll
-ww
lww
-ll
-lw
wlw
:
:
31 w
21 l
8 no bet because of the zeros
+8 units flat bet
5 losses in the row at one time
This is no worse or better than any other matrix it is easy to play.
I will to some more test with trio play
Agesta
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 19, 06:09 PM 2015
Hi atlantis. Interesting would be an understatement from me. I'm astonished. Results with real spins are disappointing for now though LOL. I'm trying L4A on the columns and L12F on the rows, and there's too many Losses already! We gotta find a better bet. But, if you watch L4F and L12F you'll see they always match! What we can learn from this is how to deal with the other runs. When OEOO hits, L4F determines No bets because it has nowhere to go, but L12F shall tell us what must be the next outcome. So we could see what goes after an asymmetrical run. At least I hope so.
Ignore the Zero or do as I said earlier in the thread: every EC is 18 numbers against 19 because Zero is always against us. So if you're betting E and lose because of the Zero, just assume O has hit instead.
Ignoring is much simpler and quicker: Tracking and betting 12 spins we'll count 1,2,3,4,5,0,6,7,8,9... and OOE0E = OOEE...
It could probably mess with the results either way, though. Damn it.
Hi psimoes. Thanks for clarity over the 0.
Now in my test last night using your idea of L4A and if no bet then L12F I got a discouraging result:
LWL
LLW
LLL
LLW
WLW
LLL
LLW
LLL
LLL... stopped here...
I'm not so sure the matrix idea is making any appreciable difference at all; so today I will revert to your ORIGINAL idea of tracking 12 outcomes - but I will use the previous L3A+L2A instead of L4A and if there is no bet then I will follow your idea of the L12F instead.
I'm still interested in bleep24 idea of differential betting + breadwinner - if I could get my head round it. His results were good, but sometimes I'm a bit thick until the penny finally drops... :)
Good Luck,
A.
UPDATE: As I thought a much better outcome without matrix using same O/E results using L3A+L2A and L12F:
wwlwl::lwwlllwwlllwlwwl
Tried an example using ALL 3 EC (L3A+L2A else L12F)
1. ROH
2. REH
3. BEL
4. BOH
5. BOH
6. REL
7. BEH
8. ROH
9. ROL
10.BEL
11.REL
12.REL - 1ST 12 TRACKED RESULTS
1. REH WLW
2. ROH LWW
3. BOL WLW
4. REL LLL
5. ROL WWL
6. ROH WWW
7. BEL WWL
8. BEL LLW
9. BOH LWL
10.BEH LWL
11.REL WWW
12.BOH LLW
COL1= WLWLWWWLLLWL
COL2= LWLLWWWLWWWL
COL3= WWWLLWLWLLWW
A.
Phew! Trying to leave no stone unterned here. I debugged the thing now. It´s dead simple. Don´t have much time. So, about runs or patterns, the "next logical step" is always identical to the first; the step after is always identical to the second and so on. So we can forget the "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical" runs. For instance:
OOE next step O (For)
OEOO next step O (For)
EOO next step O (Against)
EOEOOOEOEOOE next step E (For)
OEOEOEEOOEOO next step E (Against)
Cheers. Later.
Continuing, the thing with the runs of spins is that there's no need in trying to find a pattern there. It's even useless. If we look at a run of 4 spins, say RRRR and try to "guess" its logical following step, we don't look at them like RRRR is 1234 and with a next step added it's 12345. Wrong. It's all about 1234123412341234 etc. If aim at a run of 3 spins such as RRR it'll be regarded as 123123123 etc. So the next logical step for RRRR is obviously R. The next logical step for BRRR is B. This way we can track any type of run, not only streaks or chops. As long as it's an equal number of spins, every run has the same chance of hitting, the same chance of repeating or the same chance of breaking.
We have been looking at "symmetrical" runs because they're so easily identifiable. We have been avoiding the "asymmetrical" types because we didn't know how to bet for or against them. Now we know and it's been the same since the first post: bet same or opposite to last (number of spins per run).
About the grid, three columns and runs of four means nothing but the following: Say we detected a "pattern" of 4 reds in the same column and we'll bet for the continuity. Say also, that all the spins in the other columns are blacks, for understanding sake.
RBB
RBB
RBB
RBB
This is the same as RBBRBBRBBRBB.
At first it seems to beat random, but it's just complicated. Random will catch up and eventually there will be a series of outcomes that will cause that betting scheme to lose. In the example above, betting RED will be at spin#13. Red is the same outcome as in spin #1. Not exactly because the run is all red. Big deal you would say. What about when the results matched and there were patterns like OEOE or OEEO? The thing is because a run of four spins is an even number and since we're betting only for the Symmetrical runs, the "next logical step" is always identical to the first. No wonder the Ws and Ls of L4F matched L12F. They had to match! This was really immature on my side. Sorry for the hype.
Now we know what to bet for all runs.
For runs of three:
OOO(O)
EEE(E)
OEO(O)
EOE(E)
OEE(O)
EOO(E)
OOE(O)
EEO(E)
We can bet continuously most of the time, if not all time, after noting the first three outcomes. If it started with say, OEE, we bet the next spin is O. (If) we lose we take note and wait for the next time OEE shows up.
Now first four spins are OEEE. New run of three is EEE. We bet E. We lost again. Now it's going OEEEO. New run is EEO. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE and we bet E. Win! Newest run is now OEE! Will it break again? Let's keep betting for the repeat. Bet O. Win! New run is now EEO. Again. Nevermind, bet for the repeat. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE. Again. What now? It's up to the player...
Betting like above has the same chances of winning and losing as betting just for the more noticeable outcomes OOO EEE OEO EOE. Choosing to bet only on the latter we're limiting our chances to win, but we're also less exposed to losses. It's perhaps the reason why the simple bets of our past studies, such as L2A+L1F have been getting favourable results.
There's something about the grid not yet explored: it's betting vertically and horizontally at the same time, with the same type of bet selection. Such as betting for the continuity of runs of four. We note the first four outcomes and bet on the fifth, the 6th, 7th and so on continuously until 12 spins had passed, forming the three columns. After that we're able to bet vertically. If both horizontal and vertical bets agree, we bet. If not, we skip the spin. I'm going to test this with real spins. Fingers crossed.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 20, 11:48 AM 2015
Now we know what to bet for all runs.
For runs of three:
OOO(O)
EEE(E)
OEO(O)
EOE(E)
OEE(O)
EOO(E)
OOE(O)
EEO(E)
We can bet continuously most of the time, if not all time, after noting the first three outcomes. If it started with say, OEE, we bet the next spin is O. (If) we lose we take note and wait for the next time OEE shows up.
Now first four spins are OEEE. New run of three is EEE. We bet E. We lost again. Now it's going OEEEO. New run is EEO. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE and we bet E. Win! Newest run is now OEE! Will it break again? Let's keep betting for the repeat. Bet O. Win! New run is now EEO. Again. Nevermind, bet for the repeat. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE. Again. What now? It's up to the player...
I like it! ;)
Optionally just bet every third result back...
We can probably dispense with the matrix and the symmetry; apart from what you just stated of course.
Just need an appropriate and good EC progression to suit.
Good work.
A.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 20, 12:01 PM 2015I'm going to test this with real spins. Fingers crossed.
Nope. Not worth posting. Just to say Col.1 had mostly Losses (incl. six in a row) and Col.2 & 3 had mostly wins. Lots of No Bets, though. Too many.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 20, 11:48 AM 2015
Now we know what to bet for all runs.
For runs of three:
OOO(O)
EEE(E)
OEO(O)
EOE(E)
OEE(O)
EOO(E)
OOE(O)
EEO(E)
We can bet continuously most of the time, if not all time, after noting the first three outcomes. If it started with say, OEE, we bet the next spin is O. (If) we lose we take note and wait for the next time OEE shows up.
Now first four spins are OEEE. New run of three is EEE. We bet E. We lost again. Now it's going OEEEO. New run is EEO. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE and we bet E. Win! Newest run is now OEE! Will it break again? Let's keep betting for the repeat. Bet O. Win! New run is now EEO. Again. Nevermind, bet for the repeat. Bet E. Win! New run is now EOE. Again. What now? It's up to the player...
Attached. Same usual LW trends...
How about flat betting? Can't remember of a losing session, from all posted...
Hi psimoes,
Thx for your new sheet. :)
Do you think we should bet each of the 8 "triads" (for want of a better word) with its own separate progression then?
From your results it seems it would pay dividends; producing a profit for each individual triad pattern (would help to avoid the rising progressions on longer runs of L's that you can get with a single progression)
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 20, 02:48 PM 2015
Hi psimoes,
Thx for your new sheet. :)
Do you think we should bet each of the 8 "triads" (for want of a better word) with its own separate progression then?
From your results it seems it would pay dividends; producing a profit for each individual triad pattern (would help to avoid the rising progressions on longer runs of L's that you can get with a single progression)
A.
Hi atlantis. I wish we could use separate progs for each of the 8 triads, yes. Comparing strings of losses per triad vs. continuously, results resemble the grid's!
But it's only one short session. Who knows how it will develop. Only after a great number of trials we should make a decision. It should be easy to code some tracker for it, I think. Afterall the bet is on same as the antepenultimate, quite simple. When/where to apply progression is the complex part, I presume.
TRACK 12 NUMBERS. (BET=L3A+L2A ELSE L12F)
=======================================
1 E E W O L E L E W E W
2 O O W O W O W O W O W
3 O O W E L O L O W O W
4 O O W O W E L O L O W
5 E E W E L O L O L E W
6 O O W E W O W O L E L
7 O O W O W E L O L O W
8 E O L O W O W E W O L
9 E E W E W O W E L E W
10 O O W O W E L E W E W
11 O O W E L O L O W E L
12 O E L E W E L O L E L
@1U @1U @1U @2U @2U
R/TOT = +8 +12 +8 +8 +16
60 SPINS (12 tracked) Profit = +16
Highest bet = 2u
NOW REAL MONEY SESSION (BET=L3A+L2A ELSE L12F)
==================================
1 E E W E W E W O L O W @2U
2 E E W O W E L E W E W @2U (+13) d to 1u
3 O O W W O W O L O W @1U
4 O O W E L O L E L E L
5 E E W O L O W O L E W
6 O O W O W O L O W E L
7 O O W E L E W E W O W
8 E E W E W O L E L E W * STOPPED HERE +15u
9 E O L O W E L O L
10 O O W O W E W E W
11 O E L E W O L O L
12 O E L E W E W O W
@1U @1U @1U @1U
R/TOT = +6 +11 (*0) +11 +9 +15
68 SPINS (12 tracked) Profit = +15
Highest bet = 2u
Stake unit assessed after each 12 spins +/- 1u (or reduce when reach new high in a set)
A.
Hello atlantis! Sorry, how exactly are you betting?
If L3A+L2A means the first and second outcomes in a run of three must exactly match, those will be OOO EEE OOE EEO.
TRACK 12 NUMBERS. (BET=L3A+L2A ELSE L12F)
=======================================
1 E E W
2 O O W
3 O O W \___ match bet E
4 O O W /
5 E E W
6 O O W <--- should be a Loss instead ?
7 O O W
8 E O L <---- L12F here. Bet E and Win?
9 E E W \___ don't match so next bet L12F
10 O O W /
11 O O W
12 O E L <------ L12F. Bet O and Win ?
And you started betting real money? Congrats, but you know what could happen...
@ALL: Thanks for your contributions. Really appreciated. Sorry if some replies haven't been adressed individually.
Here is explanation as to how I played:
TRACK 12 NUMBERS. (BET=L3A+L2A ELSE L12F)
==============================
1 E E W opp of 3 odds @ spin 10,11,12 (l3a+l2a)
2 O -> O W l12a (same as spin2)
3 O O W opp of spins 12,1,2 (l3a+l2a)
4 O -> O W l12a
5 E E W l3a+l2a
6 O -> O W l12a
7 O O W l3a+l2a
8 E -> O L l12a
9 E E W l3a+l2a
10 O -> O W l12a
11 O O W l3a+l2a
12 O -> E L l12a
I'm moving on to dozens system now though.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Jan 22, 11:12 AM 2015
I'm moving on to dozens system now though.
A.
That's the spirit for long-time winning (I think). Thanks!