Here is a simple system that I use based on knowing that I will double my bankroll roughly every 1000 spins. I play it RNG only. 200 Unit bankroll will double in approximately 1000 spins. May not seem like a lot per spin, however a large enough unit makes this very worthwhile.
Here are the charts, one in Roulette Simulator, on on RX real money spins. The charts have similar but different upward and downwards trends, with an overall upward trend, the very interesting thing is the dollar amounts are similar within the spin range. For example the RX and the RS around the 150 spin mark both show around +40 units, with multiple similarities throughout. Largest amount bet is 18 units on RS and 8 units on RX real money spins. RX shows a just over 8% win rate, higher than house edge and over 1000 spins.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/24/source3f7c8.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/FExiQ)
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/24/source39da0.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/FEQsy)
Here is the system:
Bet 1 unit on any dozen or column. I usually just play the middle dozen continuously If you lose four times in a row, increase the bet by 1 unit. Stay at that unit level until at new high or four losses. If four losses add one unti, stay at that level until new high or four losses.... and goes on and on . RS was up to 18 units, and the RS real money went to 8 units. If you don't get four losses in a row, do not increase the unit bet, You may get a win on the fourth bet but not be at a new high, you would stay on that unit bet and only increase it once you had four losses in a row.
Nice! My like button is not working, but seems good! :)
Look forward to having a go of this.
It looks like a nice simple system. I’ll let you know how it goes. Thanks for sharing Mako :)
Looks like it almost past -200 units on the first chart, so that looks like a bad sign.
What am I missing here? :question:
Quote from: thelaw on Nov 24, 05:06 PM 2018
Looks like it almost past -200 units on the first chart, so that looks like a bad sign.
What am I missing here? :question:
1. A 200 unit draw down is nothing. It's insignificant. if a system truly has an edge, then you can expect much larger draw downs than just that. And furthermore, you can't avoid them.
2. The system above is going to tank down far more than just 200 units. It will eventually wipe out your entire bankroll.
Also, just because a session ends it doesn't mean that your draw down does. Losses carry forward, regardless of the session length.
This is what I have been saying on this forum the way to win this roulette game - check my last few post of the 2 links I posted. People don't understand the math at all behind such systems play, yet they make useless comment as if they understand the math when clearly they don't.
For those interested and those who ask for guidance on pm, if you learn the real math behind the 2 links and properly understands both of them what they truly mean, then you can begin to design systems just like this one that works based on empirical evidence.
I do not know if Nimo's method gives a net positive edge.
What I do know is his method has the similar basis as what I posted.
And his method can be robustly tested to confirm if it's a winner or not.
Nimo has posted one of his methods.
Use this example to properly understand the math that my 2 link mean. Then with this new knowledge about math, go find the systems play that work. Instead of the thousands of systems that don't work because there is no basis for the design.
The so-called self proclaimed roulette experts(I won't name them) are clearly no expert at all. Their math knowledge is shallow, OPINION formed based on the posts the make. Don't be foolish to be misguided by their false expertise.
It does not matter what the self proclaimed roulette experts say.
Systems players should NEVER ignore the math of roulette - 37pockets with unfair payout of 35 for European wheel.
The ONLY way for systems play to get around this unfair payout is this statement below.
Turbo made this claim -
RANDOM HAS LIMITS.
Proof it with empirical evidence.
Is this claim true ?
That is your ONLY aim.
If you can get hold of this empirical proof you have found the way to win this roulette game.
If you have not found the empirical proof it does not mean TG's claim is not true.
It merely means the proof you seek is beyond you.
If you found this empirical proof and still don't know how to win, it clearly means you don't understand the math behind the 2links I posted.
The best and clear help I have given on forums.
Lucky
In one link i got a screenshot. What it indicates?
Second one is for a formula to calculate max losing or winning streak. Problem is formula deliver a “most likely†thing. This most likely and actual streak has big difference and enough to make u lose. Personally i dont accept any math formula which gives a result (likely). Real math is exactly not likely.
I like target betting. Its just another way.
This post is the real math.
2 words -
skew and
kurtosisWatch this video to learn the math.
@Madi, I won't explain further than what I have written. Properly understand it what the math says. Most people have ingrained bias
OPINION that has nothing to do with the math - that's what blocks them from what the MATH says.
Quote from: LuckyfellaThe picture shows a graph of 25000units profit played over 272spins on RS at 5units betsize (steve has to approve the pic for you to see it)
The MATH involves your understanding of the word LIMIT
Most people understand LIMIT as the common basic -
20reds in a row
Or #20 sleeps for 400+ spins
Or 12repeaters in 37spins
If you understand it this way, your understanding is limited
Ofc it shows variance is a huge monster that kills your br
Reconfigure your understanding of LIMIT
Example
If you are betting opposite red=black, don't think of how many total consecutive reds
Instead think of how many consecutive blacks
(minimum gap is one example, google to read up on TGs work)
Plot the frequency distribution to reveal the details for target betting
Read my post on how to properly use positive and negative progression
The ONLY way to win is to mathematically reconfigure RANDOM to reveal the LIMIT
The best help I have given on any forum
I'm guessing this is the link that Luckyfella is referring to.
"Skewness is a measure of symmetry, or more precisely, the lack of symmetry. A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it looks the same to the left and right of the center point. Kurtosis is a measure of whether the data are heavy-tailed or light-tailed relative to a normal distribution."Again, that is implying that the past spins will point to some kind of trend that can be exploited, which just isn't true.
1. My first question for Lucky is, how is this not gambler's fallacy stuff?
2. What is it that the experts are saying that you feel is wrong?
3. Are you sure that you're not the former poster Alabalaha?
Quote from: The General on Nov 24, 08:07 PM 2018
I'm guessing this is the link that Luckyfella is referring to.
1. My first question for Lucky is, how is this not gambler's fallacy stuff?
2. What is it that the experts are saying that you feel is wrong?
3. Are you sure that you're not the former poster Alabalaha?
Caleb and Steve, for the last time, if you post relevant math I will respond.
If you post the usual shit, I won't respond.
Enjoy your "trolling activity". :thumbsup:
Quote from: luckyfella on Nov 24, 08:13 PM 2018
Caleb and Steve, for the last time, if you post relevant math I will respond.
If you post the usual shit, I won't respond.
Enjoy your "trolling activity". :thumbsup:
Luckyfella,
I'm not trolling. I'm just asking some questions. Why do you feel that all of the experts are wrong?
QuoteOfc it shows variance is a huge monster that kills your br
This one comment above, and your temper really reminds me of Albalaha.
For those interested, ignore the 'trolling activity' that must come whose sole purpose is to divert your attention from the relevant math that I posted.
Learn and properly understand the math from the video I posted.
It is the most basic math without which your systems play will have no chance to win in this unfair payout roulette game.
Have a good day everyone.
Its easier to call it trolling instead of answering simple questions that lead to revealing blatant mistakes and misunderstandingd
Hi Nimo,
if you post the spin data I will work out and post results of the math shown in the link from luckyfella.
Tnx
P.S.: my rating button never worked, same problem like ignatus
Turner you may as well put me on moderation as I was trolling for the naysayers to come and give their negativity.
Luckyfella is correct. It doesn't matter what is posted, they will come in with a condescending tone and blatantly say it's wrong, it will lose etc etc.
Luckyfella is also correct regarding TG's random has limits. In every case I have played this method I know that I will be at so many units within so many spins like clockwork.
Also having posted it, a friend of mine saw it and gave me a suggestion that I implemented increasing the win rate to 15% instead of 8%. If I didn't post it, I wouldn't have seen what he saw and now we both earn more from it. That is why the negativity should not be here at all. Why should anyone post anything that could possibly be improved upon when it's it's shot down right from the start.
Here is the chart from this morning's play, REAL MONEY RNG William Hill. I'm using $10 units. I wanted to make $1000 for this session.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/25/source.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/FSjFU)
Quote from: Nimo on Nov 25, 10:36 AM 2018
Turner you may as well put me on moderation as I was trolling for the naysayers to come and give their negativity.
Luckyfella is correct. It doesn't matter what is posted, they will come in with a condescending tone and blatantly say it's wrong, it will lose etc etc.
Luckyfella is also correct regarding TG's random has limits. In every case I have played this method I know that I will be at so many units within so many spins like clockwork.
Also having posted it, a friend of mine saw it and gave me a suggestion that I implemented increasing the win rate to 15% instead of 8%. If I didn't post it, I wouldn't have seen what he saw and now we both earn more from it. That is why the negativity should not be here at all. Why should anyone post anything that could possibly be improved upon when it's it's shot down right from the start.
Here is the chart from this morning's play, REAL MONEY RNG William Hill. I'm using $10 units. I wanted to make $1000 for this session.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/25/source.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/FSjFU)
Have to agree with everything Nimo has said here.
We all want to discuss roulette and systems. Isn't that what the forum is for. All the same negativity from one or two guys spoils this forum for everyone else. We all no the risks etc and don't need someone to explain in every new system post.
I like reading all the old posts most of them unfortunately spoilt by the same few people.
This puts people off posting. Me for one.
Nimo, thanks for your post and system. I will definitely have a play with it when I have time. Please don't be put off from posting. I for one want to learn from you more experienced guys.
Quote from: Nimo on Nov 25, 10:36 AM 2018
REAL MONEY RNG William Hill. I'm using $10 units. I wanted to make $1000 for this session.
Keep posting these every day. That's the only way (or closest way) to prove that your method works .
If it fails, at least you had the courage of your convictions, which is more than most members here. :thumbsup:
Hi :) I coded this one now,
and yes? it's good, for short hit-n-run sessions (less than 1000 spins or so) ...but eventually it will get into a hole, it can't recover from... (as you can see in the chart?) ..i *think* the code should be correct, otherwise, let me know, so i can correct it?
Cheers O0
RX Nimo-Dozens
system "Nimo Dozen System"
// © ignatus 2018 ©
method "main"
begin
while starting a new session
begin
put 0 to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
Set List[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,
26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,
51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]
to Record "progression" Data
Set List[1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
to Record "Spin count" Data
Copy List[2nd dozen] Record "doz" Layout
end
while on each spin
begin
if any dozen bet won each
begin
if Bankroll >= Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
begin
clear Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 100% Bankroll to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
end
else
begin
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
end
end
if Record "Spin count" Data index >= 5 each
begin
add 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 1 on Record "Spin count" Data index
end
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
add 1 on Record "Spin count" Data index
If Record "Spin count" Data Index >
Record "Spin count" Data Count
Begin
clear Record "doz" Layout
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
Put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout
End
If Record "progression" Data Index >
Record "progression" Data Count
Begin
clear Record "doz" Layout
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
Put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
End
{if total bankroll >= 300 each time
begin
stop session
end
}
if total bankroll <= -2000 each time
begin
stop session
end
end
END
Maybe i underestimated this method? Now, tested again, the drop came at 20 000 spins...
so i made the progression longer (now 100 steps), and put the stoploss at -5000u, see how far it can go.. 8)
RX-code Nimo-dozens 2
system "Nimo Dozen System"
// © ignatus 2018 ©
method "main"
begin
while starting a new session
begin
put 0 to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
Set List[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,
26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,
51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,
76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100]
to Record "progression" Data
Set List[1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
to Record "Spin count" Data
Copy List[2nd dozen] Record "doz" Layout
end
while on each spin
begin
if any dozen bet won each
begin
if Bankroll >= Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
begin
clear Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 100% Bankroll to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
end
else
begin
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
end
end
if Record "Spin count" Data index >= 5 each
begin
add 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 1 on Record "Spin count" Data index
end
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
add 1 on Record "Spin count" Data index
If Record "Spin count" Data Index >
Record "Spin count" Data Count
Begin
clear Record "doz" Layout
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
Put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout
End
If Record "progression" Data Index >
Record "progression" Data Count
Begin
clear Record "doz" Layout
put 1 to Record "Spin count" Data Index
Put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
End
{if total bankroll >= 300 each time
begin
stop session
end
}
if total bankroll <= -5000 each time
begin
stop session
end
end
END
Luckyfella,
No answers?
Quote from: The General on Nov 25, 04:33 PM 2018
Luckyfella,
No answers?
Give it a rest eh?
It may come as a great shock that he doesnt have to reply. You sound like a defense lawyer.
He has said in so many words that he isnt going to answer.
There is no one worse than you for ignoring questions you find uncomfortable.
Quote from: Shogun on Nov 25, 11:01 AM 2018We all want to discuss roulette and systems. Isn't that what the forum is for. All the same negativity from one or two guys spoils this forum for everyone else.
I agree to the point that it clearly isnt working. The "forumtard" and "gamblers fallacy" posts roll on, with no one taking on the "advice given"
Listen.....I also tend to agree with most of what Steve and Caleb say and in many ways it isnt negativity. Its just not having any effect so I really dont see the point of keep ramming it down peoples throats who clearly dont want to listen, like some roulette version of a door knocking Jehovahs witness
More often than not, they correct butI just think they are wasting their time and just winding people up
My 2 peneth
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 05:56 PM 2018
Give it a rest eh?
It may come as a great shock that he doesnt have to reply. You sound like a defense lawyer.
He has said in so many words that he isnt going to answer.
There is no one worse than you for ignoring questions you find uncomfortable.
"Its easier to call it trolling instead of answering simple questions that lead to revealing blatant mistakes and misunderstanding." -Steve
Quote from: The General on Nov 25, 06:24 PM 2018
"Its easier to call it trolling instead of answering simple questions that lead to revealing blatant mistakes and misunderstanding." -Steve
People dont have to answer, period....get over it - Turner
Turner,
Trying contributing for a change instead trying to stir shit up.
Quote from: The General on Nov 25, 06:27 PM 2018
Trying contributing for a change instead trying to stir shit up.
lol.....do you...Caleb, actually realise you just said that?
Thats made my night
Sharing a little knowledge can save some newbies a lot of money.
Quote from: The General on Nov 25, 06:36 PM 2018
Sharing a little knowledge can save some newbies a lot of money.
newbies?, you mean forumtards?
You are talking to Uncle Turner now lol....give me a break!
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 06:42 PM 2018
newbies?, you mean forumtards?
You are talking to Uncle Turner now lol....give me a break!
Quote from: PassionRuleta on Nov 25, 06:39 PM 2018
General, well why do not you start yourself to share a little of your knowledge? :twisted: :wink:
Here's an example of a positive contribution.
"1. A 200 unit draw down is nothing. It's insignificant. if a system truly has an edge, then you can expect much larger draw downs than just that. And furthermore, you can't avoid them.
2. The system above is going to tank down far more than just 200 units. It will eventually wipe out your entire bankroll."
People understand that roulette has a house edge
People understand there is a risk to playing roulette
They play and create systems because they want to
We can stand to not hear Caleb repeat himself for decades on end.
Fun fact: when Caleb plays he will likely lose $2.70 per $100 on the single zero wheel
As he’s said before his drawdowns are more severe then system graphs here
So I ask, if people like playing strategies, and it’s working for them, and they constantly have positive graphs, then why bother them?
So if he has draw downs but ends positive then to me it’s the same as any old system.
Quote from: The General on Nov 25, 06:49 PM 2018Here's an example of a positive contribution.
"1. A 200 unit draw down is nothing. It's insignificant. if a system truly has an edge, then you can expect much larger draw downs than just that. And furthermore, you can't avoid them.
2. The system above is going to tank down far more than just 200 units. It will eventually wipe out your entire bankroll."
did I comment on that? No
I mentioned you pressing for an answer. People dont have to answer. It was a simple point, now blown out of all proportion
I dont need the violins on how you are a great contributor, or the tardy comments because I asked you to stop pressing for answers
It was simple guidance on how to continue harmoniously
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 06:12 PM 2018
Its just not having any effect so I really dont see the point of keep ramming it down peoples throats who clearly dont want to listen, like some roulette version of a door knocking Jehovahs witness
More often than not, they correct butI just think they are wasting their time and just winding people up
My 2 peneth
Is there something you can do to put an end to this repetition, pls ?
Passion and Lucky,
I have a suggestion for you both. Raise your bets!
By the way, link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=21087.msg213159;topicseen#msg213159
Good luck.
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 06:12 PM 2018
I agree to the point that it clearly isnt working. The "forumtard" and "gamblers fallacy" posts roll on, with no one taking on the "advice given"
Listen.....I also tend to agree with most of what Steve and Caleb say and in many ways it isnt negativity. Its just not having any effect so I really dont see the point of keep ramming it down peoples throats who clearly dont want to listen, like some roulette version of a door knocking Jehovahs witness
More often than not, they correct butI just think they are wasting their time and just winding people up
My 2 peneth
Spot on. Totally agree.
I hope I did not step on any toes. I consider them very knowledgeable and respect there opinions.
:)
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 06:12 PM 2018
Listen.....I also tend to agree with most of what Steve and Caleb say.....
More often than not, they correct.....
My 2 peneth
I have to make this post to clarify any ambiguity.
Steve and Caleb repeatedly quote the same math of 37 pockets with unfair payout of 35 for European wheels.
That is the math of the roulette game offered by casinos.
This repeated exercise to quote this math do not in any way make them experts in math.
Nor their repetition exercise make them experts in winning at this game of roulette.
Quote from: luckyfella on Nov 25, 10:34 PM 2018
I have to make this post to clarify any ambiguity.
Steve and Caleb repeatedly quote the same math of 37 pockets with unfair payout of 35 for European wheels.
That is the math of the roulette game offered by casinos.
This repeated exercise to quote this math do not in any way make them experts in math.
Nor their repetition exercise make them experts in winning at this game of roulette.
Ok, pretend that neither Steve or myself have said anything to you. Why do you believe that all of the other experts are wrong?
Quote from: luckyfella on Nov 25, 10:34 PM 2018This repeated exercise to quote this math do not in any way make them experts in math.
I'm not an expert in math. My math skills are basically first year college for applied physics, which is nothing special.
The math for roulette is just really simple.Quote from: luckyfella on Nov 25, 10:34 PM 2018Nor their repetition exercise make them experts in winning at this game of roulette.
Repeating anything makes no difference to someone's experience. We all know this. It was a stupid comment. But as it so happens, we both are experts.
Make it simple....
The math and logic we explain is really simple. It is not being understood.
If you don't want to listen, I do not care. It's your money.
But I do care when you MISLEAD others, which can harm them through financial loss.Get used to it. When you speak bullshit, someone will eventually be there to call you out on it. It will happen on any well-run forum, or anywhere in life.
But if you want to discuss systems without anyone on your thread quoting math and logic, which contradicts what you say, then do it in the system player board. Outside that area, we have free speech to call bullshit when we see it. Calling bullshit is not trolling. Trolling is something different.
Just imagine what would happen if truth was too offensive to be allowed.
QuoteGet used to it. When you speak bullshit, someone will eventually be there to call you out on it. It will happen on any well-run forum, or anywhere in life.
But if you want to discuss systems without anyone on your thread quoting math and logic, which contradicts what you say, then do it in the system player board. Outside that area, we have free speech to call bullshit when we see it. Calling bullshit is not trolling. Trolling is something different.
Amen! :thumbsup:
Lucykfella, you often denounce "math" we quote, as if it were inaccurate. But you have not showed anything to prove it is inaccurate.
Discussions with you end with nonsense like "you guys just don't know better". So the discussions end in a stalemate.
I dont believe you are an expert in roulette on any level. Firstly because there's nothing to indicate you are. And secondly, things you say are often either incorrect or contradictory. But I've been here before, with you and others. Just do what you are going to do. But don't complain when people explain your mistakes. It isnt trolling. General is asking simple questions you avoid. And I have little doubt if you do answer them, they'll be dismissive and evasive... and ultimately end in a stalemate as I've explained. But as long as people speak nonsense, and others who see through it are willing to call you out on it, expect the discussions to continue.
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 07:06 PM 2018
did I comment on that? No
I mentioned you pressing for an answer. People dont have to answer. It was a simple point, now blown out of all proportion
I dont need the violins on how you are a great contributor, or the tardy comments because I asked you to stop pressing for answers
It was simple guidance on how to continue harmoniously
Is there something you can do something to put an end to this, pls ?
Quote from: Turner on Nov 25, 05:56 PM 2018
Give it a rest eh?
It may come as a great shock that he doesnt have to reply. You sound like a defense lawyer.
He has said in so many words that he isnt going to answer.
There is no one worse than you for ignoring questions you find uncomfortable.
Lucky, you don't need to answer any questions. But people are allowed to ask questions. And when you avoid the questions, people are allowed to point that out. The same would happen in any logical discussion.
I dont think Caleb is trolling in this instance. If anything he is being persistent in the discussion, as he is allowed to be. That's not to say he hasn't behaved in ways consistent with the definition of trolling, on previous occasions.
If you don't want to answer his or anyone's questions, just say that. Then if they keep asking the question repeatedly, it may be what I'd consider trolling.
It is important to be careful with the trolling rules. It is not wise to be too precious or sensitive about it. Otherwise we lose the balance that ensures productivity. In the system player's board, it's a different matter.
-Forum Runners-
** 'knowing about math' is not the same as "knowing math"
- this is where and why the debate goes in circles
- majority on here will cling on to and follow the 'knowing about math' position and hence will have similar longterm results as what the so called professors and gurus are rightfully claiming
**nothing is random
- I get it, gambling is not for everyone, it takes more than just Systems/BR/MM ....the psychology of the player is where it’s won or lost
....and am not really interested in the cyclic debates with Caleb and comp either ::)
-Best Wishes-
@ Nimo,
Here is my Rx very short version.
[reveal]
system "Nimo Dozen System"
// Coded by: nOrMy2o0o
method "main"
begin
while starting a new session
begin
put 0 to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 1 to Record "progression" Data
put 0 to Record "lost count" Data
Copy List[2nd dozen] Record "doz" Layout
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
end
while on each spin
begin
if any dozen bet won each
begin
if Bankroll > Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
begin
clear Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 100% Bankroll to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 1 on Record "progression" Data
end
put 0 to Record "lost count" Data
end
if any dozen bet lost each
begin
add 1 to Record "lost count" Data
end
if Record "lost count" Data >= 4 each
begin
add 1 on Record "progression" Data
put 0 on Record "lost count" Data
end
put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "doz" Layout list
end
END
[/reveal]
Quote from: Nimo on Nov 24, 01:18 PM 2018Bet 1 unit on any dozen or column. I usually just play the middle dozen continuously If you lose four times in a row, increase the bet by 1 unit. Stay at that unit level until at new high or four losses. If four losses add one unti, stay at that level until new high or four losses.... and goes on and on . RS was up to 18 units, and the RS real money went to 8 units. If you don't get four losses in a row, do not increase the unit bet, You may get a win on the fourth bet but not be at a new high, you would stay on that unit bet and only increase it once you had four losses in a row.
You could extend the basic idea to other bets, but the delay (losses in a row) before increasing by 1 unit would have to be adjusted proportionally depending on how many numbers you bet. For a dozen/column the number of losses is a "cycle" (3 spins) + one third of a cycle (1 spin). i.e. number of losses before increase = cycle length + 1/3 * cycle length.
Now using that formula you can find the number of losses before an increase for a double street, quad, street, split and single.
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/9Qh14x56/nimosystem.png)
All the rules stay the same. For instance if you're betting on a street you wait until 16 losses in a row (no less) and then increase the stake on the street by 1 unit. Stay at that level (2 units) until either a new high or another 16 losses in a row.
With Zero and BV No Zero, both RNG 8)
I know I'm new here but I have considerably tested many permutations of negative progression leverage type betting such as this system, mostly on baccarat so thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
I tested the OP's system, admittedly on one of those free roulette softwares. First I just did it straight up the way he outlined it..then I instituted a 100 unit stop loss from any unit high point. The results were pretty much the same as all the permutations of Stetson Bailey's leverage systems I have tried on baccarat.
In those cases I often got ahead (sometimes they would tank early on but not usually).. but eventually the house edge catches up to you and the systems all failed...usually in between the +500 and +900 units range. Playing the OP's system straight up I was up +525 units before it crashed and burned...with the 100 unit stop loss I made it to +632 units before the same happened (in the 2nd case I stopped when it went from +632 to below even). The good news is had I stopped when I was ahead both times and had been playing with real money, betting $10 a shot I would have banked some really nice coin.
Of course the above is not overly scientific but the results seem pretty consistent. My personal opinion is the house edge will always get you in the long run but used with some caution these things can make you some pretty good money if you know when to stop. I do like the nature of his progression as it does not overly escalate the bets too quickly and I think I will give it a go on baccarat where ostensibly it should work as well or better given the extra 1.5% or so you pick up against the house... so thank you for posting your system 8)
In addition to what I posted above, there is the frequency distribution of the 1st repeat. You may want to explore that - there is a popular thread on this forum that discussed this in it's own unique way.