Just finished this and have not much time left. Would be interested to know how many spins it takes before it tanks. Will explain the bet selection tomorrow. Test away, tweak away.
Progression: 1-2-3 2-3-6 3-6-9 4-8-12
5-10-15 6-12-18 7-14-21 8-16-24
9-18-27 10-20-30 11-22-33 12-24-36
or: 5-10-15 10-20-30 15-30-45 20-40-60
25-50-75 30-60-90 35-70-105 40-80-120
45-90-135 50-100-150 55-110-165 60-120-180
Thanks.
When you get a chance explain how to play it. I see the progression but how is it played. When you you move up etc
Great work!!! Looking forward to more testing :)
Btw - tested a bunch of the same patterns from the Odd/Even thread, with failures across the board, hence no more posts from me on that thread.
One last thing, I always ask myself a simple question about any system or progression :
In all the decades that Roulette has been studied, what are the chances that someone missed this?
The strategy presented above is similar to the Ching-a-Ling System - worked for several months and then tanked (although the author claims he is still ahead).
Might work with a good stop-loss........just my $.02 :)
Thanks again for all the hard work! :)
One more thought.... What about dividing the wheel into thirds and playing those numbers as dozens?
May be more complicated, but have a better hit ratio :)
Progression without a high quality bet selection will always fail.....; Unless we have eveidence of the high quality of the
bet selection it is a waste of time and energy to test anything at this point. Just my 0.02
Bet selection:
For a run.of-two dozens there are nine possible outcomes - 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33.
We arrive at a table and note the last two outcomes. spin #1: 8 (1st dozen). Spin #2: 1 (1st dozen). Dozen 1 followed dz1. This is a mini-trend. Next time dz1 hits, we bet it gets followed by dz1.
8 1
1 1
Since the last outcome was dz1, we can bet right away. We will bet that new dozen (dz1) is followed by dz1.
6 1 W 5 10 New High
Since the last outcome was dz1, we can bet right away. We will bet that new dozen (dz1) is followed by dz1.
10 1 W 5 20 New High
Since the last outcome was dz1, we can bet right away. We will bet that new dozen (dz1) is followed by dz1.
31 3 L 5 15
Number 31 hits. belongs to dz3. It's a Loss. Next time dz1 hits we bet it will be followed by dz3.
Now we don't bet because we must know which dozen comes after dz3.
25 3
Number25 hits. belongs to dz3. Next time dz3 hits, we bet it will be followed by dz3. We will bet right away, since dz3 has just hit.
11 1 L 10 5 Lowest
Number 11 hits. Belongs to dz1. Next time dz3 hits, we will bet it is followed by dz1.
Now since dz1 was the last outcome, we bet it will be followed by dz3.
30 3 W 15 35 New High
Number 30 hits. belongs to dz3. It's a Win. Next time dz1 hits, we will bet again it will be followed by dz3.
Now since dz3 is the last outcome, we bet it will be followed by dz1.
35 3 L 5 30
35 hits. It's dz3. A loss. Next time dz3 hits, we bet dz3.
35 3 W 10 50 New High
dz3 hits. Win. Keep betting dz3 is followed by dz3.
7 1 L 5 45
dz1 hits. next time dz3 hits we will bet dz1 follows it.
Now dz1 is the last outcome. We will bet it's followed by dz3.
31 3 W 10 65 New High
Win. Dz3 hits. We are betting dz3 is followed by dz1. Bet dz1.
8 1 W 5 75 New High
Win. Dz1 hits. We are betting dz1 is followed by dz3. bet dz3.
29 3 W 5 85 New High
Win. Bet dz1
0 ZERO L 5 80
Loss. Keep betting dz1.
9 1 W 10 100 New High
Win.
Dozen 2 hasn't hit yet. When it hits wait to see which dozen follows, so that next time dz2 hits you know what dz to bet.
Hey There,
Not to pile on here, but I just did a quick count of hits in the sample, and it comes out to about 1/3 (expected average for dozens).
GLC has suggested to look for a sample with a win rate of only 17% to test dozens progressions.
This will definitely average out over time. The only question is how many spins needed to hit average.
Just my $.02 :)
Progression: 1-2-3 2-4-6 3-6-9 4-8-12
5-10-15 6-12-18 7-14-21 8-16-24
9-18-27 10-20-30 11-22-33 12-24-36
or: 5-10-15 10-20-30 15-30-45 20-40-60
25-50-75 30-60-90 35-70-105 40-80-120
45-90-135 50-100-150 55-110-165 60-120-180
Progression corrected.
Start betting 1 unit. If you win, keep betting 1u. If you lose, move up to the next step. Bet 2u. If you win, reset to betting 1u. If you lose move up to next step. Bet 3u. If win reset to 1u. If lost, move to second level and bet 2u. If win keep on that level until break even or new high. if lost, move up to the next step of that level and bet 4u. If win reset to first step of that level and bet 2u until break even or new high. And so on.
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 21, 09:49 AM 2015
Hey There,
Not to pile on here, but I just did a quick count of hits in the sample, and it comes out to about 1/3 (expected average for dozens).
GLC has suggested to look for a sample with a win rate of only 17% to test dozens progressions.
This will definitely average out over time. The only question is how many spins needed to hit average.
Just my $.02 :)
Hello! I don care much about the bet selection, to be honest. It's based on stiff patterns and will eventually tank. I'm more interested to know for how many spins the progression will stand on its own. It's originally intended for EC bets, but like all progressions for ECs it performs well with dozens.
For wheel sectors it's an idea not yet tested. Good point.
The bet selection was originally intended for Double Dozens. Flat-betting preferable.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130555#msg130555 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130555#msg130555)
For Single Dozens, Ls become Ws (except when Zero hits) and Ws become Ls. So a progression is needed.
Quote from: Chris555p on Jan 21, 12:39 AM 2015
Progression without a high quality bet selection will always fail.....; Unless we have eveidence of the high quality of the
bet selection it is a waste of time and energy to test anything at this point. Just my 0.02
Wait... do you really believe there are "High Quality" bet selections? That will never fail a progression?
BTW as it isn't mentioned anywhere in the spreadsheets, It was the full session at SBWB Table 3 from 01.20.2015. Sorry.
Minimum BR for that session would have to be Lowest drawdown + next stake (spin #161) = 320 + 135 = 455 (91u).
Thinking of running more tests everyday at the same table to see if the progression holds up. One full session a day. Should I continue with the 865 profit? Or should I start from zero?
Duhhhh. Did I say everyday? Tanked already LOL!
Forget it. Not even trying separate banks for all 9 outcomes.
Still interested to know what is a "High Quality" bet selection...
FTR it was table 3 from SBWB yesterday - 235 spins, 231 bets, 150 Ls, 75 Ws, 6 zeros. Flat betting either on SDs or DDs would break even except for the 6 losses due to the zeros. No surprises.
Of course there are such bet selection; However, u will probably not find it freely on display
on public forums.
OMG I'M CONVINCED!
(link:://m.memegen.com/b6x9hq.jpg)
Quote from: thelaw on Jan 21, 09:49 AM 2015
GLC has suggested to look for a sample with a win rate of only 17% to test dozens progressions.
A win rate...if consistent at half the expected rate is profitable with most progressions...
The key to progressions is the consistency of the win rate...you have to take the variance out of the equation as much as possible. 3 wins in a row and then a streak of 12 losses surely wreaks havoc with a dozen/column progression. Then look at the same win rate as 1 win against 4 losses...and then repeat a couple times (very manageable and profitable). The trick is to manage the attack...and that can sometimes be quite the trick.
If your attack is well thought out and played you will make money on both examples...that's your target...make money regardless of how the wheel screws you over.
Control the variance and you can control the game for the most part. Big bankrolls and discipline are a necessity along with the ever present bet selection issues...but if you can forecast the variance to a certain degree and have countermeasures in place in case that well laid plan fails (as it still will from time to time) you will be successful in the long run. With progressions the win rate is always higher...but the losses can be catastrophic if you don't think it thru on the way into the abyss (not all progressions have to have you in profit with a single win)...it takes alot of work to be successful and I think someone also posted something to the effect of "more to it than you will find on an online free forum". There's alot of truth to that line of thought.
There is alot of good information on the forums...it's sifting thru the other 99.8% that is the issue
Quote from: rouletteKEY on Jan 24, 03:48 PM 2015
...it takes alot of work to be successful and I think someone also posted something to the effect of "more to it than you will find on an online free forum". There's alot of truth to that line of thought.
Won't agree with it until the claims are substantiated.
"You won't find it on a free forum" like in "yes there is but it'll cost you"? Either it's naiveness or spam-the-scam.
Quote from: psimoes on Jan 30, 10:37 PM 2015
Won't agree with it until the claims are substantiated.
"You won't find it on a free forum" like in "yes there is but it'll cost you"? Either it's naiveness or spam-the-scam.
Nice job cherry picking that post to take that completely out of context
No...not at all like "yes there is but it'll cost you" as you suggest ***Side Note (also certainly not... that I would propose to sell anything roulette or gambling inspired if that was the next divergent thought)
More like this...there's no free lunch and if you think you can come on a forum and glance thru a few hundred or thousand posts and find that miraculous key to wealth and success you are naive and you are the likely candidate to get scammed if that is where you want to take this.
It's hard work to be a self-made success at almost anything and should we collectively choose a game of chance with the highest house edge to try to conquer it's gonna take work. Of course this thread is about progressions and somehow none of my comments regarding variance or progressions were mentioned. Which is odd...because usually when I talk about progressions blood starts shooting out of unintended orifices of all the flat bet only crowd...which seems to be the majority. Don't get me wrong I get the whole flat-bet thing...it's just not for me...I prefer thought out progressions and know that the possibility exists that I go down in flames...and I accept that risk.
The "more to it than you will find on an online forum" is my belief...and a belief shared by others because honestly if someone researches and plays for thousands of hours to become proficient...why in the world would they post all their work for free? and beyond that...why would they mentor, write a book or do anything else to give away the proverbial golden goose on the internet of all things? If you have a truly proficient method of play...anything you do to try to sell the method or system or whatever you want to call it would simply short-change the seller if it was really worthwhile.
If it makes you feel better take the word free out of the "online free forum" sentence. Let me spell it out....more to it than you will find on a forum.
What claims did you need substantiated? Trying to see what you thought was a claim that needed substantiated...grasping at straws here
1. win rate profitability potential?
2. consistency of win rate and variance?
3. need for big bankrolls and discipline?
4. thinking out an attack?
5. takes work to be successful?
6. a lot of good info on the forums...problem being sifting thru the other stuff?
If you are just upset because I think it takes work to be successful we can just end it here...I won't change my mind on that or waste time substantiating the value of hard work
Hmmm at first I was reading your reply and thinking "WTH is he talking about, is he calling me lazy or what", but I see where you're coming from.
It's all because I quoted the entire sentence. Sorry about that.
...it takes alot of work to be successful and I think someone also posted something to the effect of "more to it than you will find on an online free forum". There's alot of truth to that line of thought.
Now that makes more sense. I even agree it takes a lot of work to be successful. If you read my Even Odds thread You'll see I'm not averse to hard work as I went to great lengths testing and comparing different bet selections and by putting a lot of thinking into it.
More to the point, what I don't agree with is the idea of "High Quality bet selections" posted here:
Quote from: Chris555p on Jan 21, 12:39 AM 2015
Progression without a high quality bet selection will always fail.....; Unless we have eveidence of the high quality of the
bet selection it is a waste of time and energy to test anything at this point. Just my 0.02
This is so self-contradictory it's kind of absurd - assuming a HQ bet selection that never fails exists, how do we have evidence of it unless we test it? And if/when there is the evidence, why test it anyway?
If the poster is being sincere, there's naiveness in assuming there are bet selections that never fail in a game of negative expectation. We all went through that. AP is a different story, but then we're not talking about bet selections, are we?
And here:
Quote from: Chris555p on Jan 22, 03:21 PM 2015
Of course there are such bet selection; However, u will probably not find it freely on display
on public forums.
First, saying "of course" is no real argument. Then, "not find it freely" is kinda smelly. The whole HQ bet sel. term sounds like
the hi-fi vendors that say "See? Gold-plated connectors at the back. This stereo system is High-End". Either the poster believes in the marketing blurb of the commercial betting systems or he is selling them. IDK.
This is where I'm coming from by stating "won't agree with it until the claims are substantiated". So, not cherry-picking to avoid your comment regarding variance. If you read here:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130569#msg130569 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130569#msg130569)
... and here:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130650#msg130650 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15232.msg130650#msg130650)
You'll see I reached the same conclusions as yours. So I didn't comment on your comment. Plus you'll have to agree it's still kind of vague, isn't it? Aknowledging the need to reduce variance is just recognizing the problem. HOW to reduce it is the solution. And HOW does one do that? There's the substance to the HQ bets claim that I require.
Still working on the "shifting the bet selections by 90º" thing. It's my off-the-wall idea, but who knows it might work.
Just for the record I'm not naive anymore into thinking there's a Holy Grail somewhere in a public forum. There's none, anywhere.
That would be akin to a human being able to run forever. Some run to catch the bus and be happy. Some jog in the morning, some run the marathon. There's no Forrest Gump. I mean, there's one out there, it's documented, but he seems to suffer from some kind of brain damage.
What we do in a public forum is learning how to run that extra mile. But there will come the time where we reach the point of no return.
Regards