I have been studying this system off and on for about a year now. It is written in English which is obviously not the author's native language. He does a pretty good job, but there are still a lot of points that are a little hard to get a handle on.
I think that I have finally understood how to play his ultimate method with the 3 recovery banks and initial tests are showing a win each time. I don't have the exact method of distributing losses between the banks yet, but that's just a matter of taking more time.
My question is, "Does anyone know anything about this system?" The authors tend to think it's the definitive system for Even Chances and it does seem to stay steady and keep our bank requirements down and yet net wins. My wins in testing so far have been rather small for the amount of playing you have to do, but consistency is the name of the game.
I'm open to any input.
Thanks,
George
Google's only mention was your post on this forum.
Is it worth sharing with us? Then you'll get some feedback!
Georgey- Short-bread.
I have I missed something here, or are you about to post up names, play system, style?
I read, but there's no bet, no MM, no design?
Enlighten please.
Oh ..................and can you put the kettle on for a brew to go with these Crisy-Biscuits...... Tar.
Okay guys, I wasn't baiting you, I was looking for input from you. This system has been around for a long time and I thought some of you might be familiar with it. If not, I can understand why.
It is a very difficult system to learn. And as you will see, the author's presentation is not at all clear in many places. Here is a link to the system. Please read and I'll begin posting what I think he is trying to tell us to the best of my understanding.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/very-near-the-infallible-method/msg5228/#msg5228 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/very-near-the-infallible-method/msg5228/#msg5228)
Good luck and I'll be back as soon as I have time.
Geo
For those of you who don't want to read the whole system, and it is a little long, here's a summary of it.
It's morphed out of the Garcia system. In the Garcia system you wait until you have 2 in a row of the same color. You then bet for a change of color for up to the next 3 spins. Our progression is 1-3-7 or the 1st 3 steps of the grand martingale. Once we lose this 3 step progression, we will have 11 units to recover. We will have 5 of the same color in a row at this time. We divide the amount lost by 3 and try to recover it by betting that the color will continue to streak for another 3 spins.
So, if you have a large enough bank, and can stay playing until you have 8 in a row of a color, you will have recovered all of your losses and be ahead of the game.
The authors have changed this quite a bit because they didn't like the odds of being able to hang in there until the next time 8 in a row came around because it could be a very, very long wait.
The major changes they have made is that instead of 1-3-7 they have changed this to 1-1-1. Instead of having the losses divided into 3 banks of 1 each, they have divided them into 3 banks but each bank is dividing into sub-categories. Bank 1 is divided into 3. Bank 2 & 3 are divided into 2 each. So that's 7 sub-categories to divide our losses into. By using 7 instead of 3 it prevents our recovery bet sizes from increasing too quickly.
Also, instead of playing for a color to streak to 8 times before we are fully recovered, they have us betting some of the banks on chops and some on streaks.
We can think of the system as being played by 3 different people. The 1st person plays for a color streak of 2 in a row to chop on the 3rd spin. If he wins, that unit goes into profits. If he loses, that unit goes into the 1st subcategory in recovery bank #1.
If there isn't a chop on the 3rd spin, the 2nd player bets 1 unit that there will be a chop on the 4th spin. If there is, he puts that unit in profits. If the streak continues, it means he lost and the lost unit will go into recovery bank #2 subcategory 1.
If the streak continues to 4, the 3rd player bets 1 unit that there will be a chop on the 5th spin. If there is, he puts that unit in profits. If the streak continues, it means he lost and the lost unit will go into recovery bank #3 subcategory 1.
Once we get to 5 in a row of a color, we stop betting and wait for a break in that color and a new 2 in a row to form. Then we start over.
Once the game gets rolling and each recovery bank gets more and more chips, they are divided equally between each subcategory. If the recovery banks start getting too large and unbalanced, they can share recovery units between them. Everything is done to keep the bets as low as possible.
At times, each player will be making a bet on the next spin. 1 player for the break in the original streak and the other players for recovery of already lost units. Some bets will be opposing and will need to be bet differentially.
You can play until all recovery banks are empty or until your profits reach a certain level.
As you can see from this summary there are a lot of rules. The way I am trying it is to simplify it and only play for player #1. That way I can learn all the different bets he has to make to recover his losses. I'm thinking that if it works when all three players play together, it should work if only 1 of them play. I'll learn each player's bets separately and then I'll play the 1st 2 players together until I can do that smoothly. Then I'll play the 2nd and 3rd players together until I can do them smoothly and finally I'll put them all together until I can do all three smoothly.
And who decided that only 3 players can play at a time? Why not 4,5 or 6 or even more? Oh well, that's probably too complicated to be realistic.
Although, the only advantage I see to playing 3 instead of 1 player is so they can share recovery units if they get too large.
I'm thinking of starting out with 1 player and if his recovery bank gets too large, then I can bring in the 2nd player also and split the recovery units between 5 bets and if those get too large, I can bring in the 3rd player and split into 7 bets.
I know. I'm going crazy again. It's my ADD kicking in. Causes my mind to sniff out every nook and cranny.
More later if anyone's still interested.
I was just hoping that since the system has been out there for a while, maybe someone already had experience with it or knew someone who has and could give us a prognosis.
More than likely, nobody has ever taken the time and effort to learn the system to give it a fair shot.
And once again, I like the fact that if it wins, it can be played on baccarat and craps also. Heck, you could even play against a friend flipping a coin. Any even chance bet will work.
George
Thanks for offering the link.
After a quick flick through the document I knew I'd probably get more sense out of your summary!
Good of you to take the trouble to put that together for us. :thumbsup:
Okay, Here's player #1's play.
The #1 player only plays for a break of 2 in a row of a color. Example: we have RR and we bet 1 unit for RRB. If he wins, his 1 unit bet goes directly into profits.
If he loses he will have gotten RRR and his 1 unit loss goes into his 1-1 recovery bank. If this happens multiple times, and it will happen every time an RR goes to RRR instead of RRB player #1s recovery banks of 1-1; 1-2 and 1-3 will all have units in them to be recovered. He will keep these sub-categories as balanced as possible with the larger units in 1 & 2. In other words if there are 10 recovery units they would be apportioned 1-1=4; 1-2=3; 1-3=3.
We can only bet to recover the units in bank 1-1 when we have RRB. At this time we will bet the units in recovery bank 1 sub-category 1 for another chop to occur. That is for RRBR to develop.
If we win the recovery bet for 1-1 we will have RRBR and we will bet recovery bank 1-2's units for another chop to spin. In other words we will be betting for RRBRB to form. If we win this bet, we will stop betting and wait for another RR or BB to develop.
We will try to recover the units in bank 1-3 whenever we have RRBB formed. At this time we will have lost the recovery bet for 1-1 which was betting for RRB to become RRBR instead it became RRBB. At this time we will bet the units in bank 1 sub-category 3 for a chop to form or for RRBB to become RRBBR. If we lose and it becomes RRBBB, we stop betting and wait for a change in color and a new 2 colors in a row to form.
Of course, anytime we lose a recovery bet, the lost units will be divided as equally as possible between the 3 sub-banks in our #1 recovery bank.
Example:
Red
Black No bet
Red No bet
Red Bet 1 unit for the next spin to be Black
Black Win +1 goes to profits
Black Bet 1 unit for the next spin to be Red
Black Lose -1 unit. Put loss in Bank 1-1
Red No bet
Red Bet 1 unit for the next spin to be Black
Red Lose -1 unit. Put loss in Bank 1-2
Black No bet
Black Bet 1 unit for the next spin to be Red
Black Lose -1 unit. Put loss in Bank 1-3
Red No bet
Red Bet 1 unit for the next spin to be Black
Black Win +1 goes to profits. For next spin bet 1 unit from bank 1-1 on Red
Black Lose -1 unit. Put loss in Bank 1-1. Bet 1 unit for break of streak and 1 unit from bank 1-3.
Red Win +1 unit goes to profits. 1 unit recovered from bank 1-3. Bet 2 units on Black from bank 1-1.
Black Win +2 unit recovered from bank 1-1. Bet 1 unit from recovery bank 1-2 on Red
Red Win +1 unit recovered from bank 1-2
Because we won 3 units betting for a 2 in a row color to break and all losses were recovered, we are at +3 for this small series. As you can see, every unit won playing for the 1st break of a streak goes directly into profits. All losses go into our recovery banks and will be recovered unit for unit.
The safest way to play this is to reset after reaching +1 over-all rather than try to recover all units in our recovery banks.
Be patient with me. I'm not that much further down the road to understanding this thing than you are. If make a mistake, point it out and we'll learn together.
Please ask any questions since I'm not always that clear in my explanations.
This idea of presenting each player separately was a stroke of genius because it's really going to make learning this system much easier. Who was that masked man any way?
Like I said, if all three win when put together, this one should win when played by itself. We'll see.
Player #2 coming soon. 2 & 3 are easier because they only have 2 subs in their banks.
Please read these explanations 2 or 3 times and try a few spins to get a good feel for how to play them.
Thanks,
George
George
Player #2.
Player #2 Waits until there are 3 in a row of a color before he bets for a chop. In other words, when RRR spins he bets 1 unit that the next spin will be Black. If he wins, that unit goes into profits. If he loses, he waits for the next 3 in a row of a color to bet again for a chop. Anytime he wins when betting for a 3 in a row to change color, those are the only units that go into profits.
Player #2's recovery bank only has 2 sub-categories designated as 2-1 and 2-2.
After player #2 has played for a while, he will have units in both banks 2-1 and 2-2. He bets to recover these lost units at exact times.
When a RRBB sequence developes he will bet the units from recovery bank 2-1 for a Black to spin. In other words he will bet for RRBBB.
If RRBBB does not form, but instead RRBBR forms, he will have lost that recovery bet and the lost units will be divided up between the 2 banks. Since he lost that recovery bet attempt, he will have RRBBR and he will stop betting. If he has RRBBB he will bet 1 unit for the break in the 3 in a row and he will bet recovery bank 2-2 also for the break of 3 in a row.
This is pretty straight forward, but if we are playing both player #1 and #2 at the same time, you can see how it could get a little confusing. And to add player #3 will take some real concentration. I think it's maybe only feasible on an on-line live dealer table.
Example:
B
B No bet
B Bet 1 unit for Red, 3 in a row to break (Also if there are any recovery units in 2-2 we bet them for the chop also.)
R Win +1 unit into profits and recover any units in bank 2-2. No bet for next spin.
R Bet recovery bet 2-1 for Red to continue.
R Recovery bet 2-1 wins. Bet +1 for 3 in a row to chop and the units in recovery bet 2-2 for chop also.
B Both bets win. At this point player #2 will have cleared all recovery units and be + profits.
A simple example. Short and sweet.
Remember, player #2 only plays when there is 3 in a row and when BBRR forms. When we have BBRR we play for Red to continue which will recover the units in bank 2-1.
When we have 3 in a row our next bet is for the break of color which will result in +1 to profits on a win and also the recovery of units in bank 2-2 if there are any.
BBRR bet recovery bet 2-1 for BBRRR to form.
BBRRR bet for chop to win and chop for recovery bet 2-2, that is BBRRRB.
That's it for player #2.
#3 on it's way.
George
Player #3
RRRR or BBBB These are the 4 in a row results that bring player #3 into the game. Player #3 will be playing 1 unit for the break of 4 in a row. Any wins go directly into profits.
Once the game is well under way, there will be recovery units in both #3 banks, 3-1 and 3-2.
The recovery of bank 3-1 happens when we have BBRRR. We will be betting for a continuation of the 3 in a row to 4 in a row or for BBRRR to become BBRRRR.
If we have BBRRRR we bet recovery bank 3-2 for a chop. In other words we have BBRRRR and we are betting for BBRRRRB to form.
Example:
B
B
B
B We bet 1 unit that 4 in a row will break (if there were recovery units in bank 3-2 we would bet them also).
R Win. +1 goes directly into profits. No bets for next spin.
R No bets
R Bet recovery of bank 3-1 for 3 in a row to continue to 4 in a row
R Bet wins. Bet 1 unit for 4 in a row to break.
B Bet wins. +1 goes into profits.
I know that these are presented in rapid fire, but if you study the posts, assuming I haven't made any mistakes, you will be able to understand and play all 3 players separately.
I suggest that we test player #1 until we know exactly how to play it and can get a feel for how it performs.
Then we can attack player #2 and then player #3.
Eventually we can put them all together.
We may discover that it's too complicated to learn and play to be realistic. I'm thinking that if it works, we can find a way to play it. Maybe we'll have to form teams and each person play a different player's bets. Maybe 2 people can do this.
It should be doable at home on the internet.
Finally, maybe some ambitious programmer can come to the rescue with a program that will speed things up a lot.
Cheers,
George
Dear George,
this method should be renmed as very near fallible method. It has no merit.
In my next post I'll try to put together a longer series of hand picked spins that will incorporate all of the bets of the individual players so we can start testing it to see how it performs.
The system will need to perform well on player 1 or I doubt that it will retain our interest long enough to finally be able to put all three together for some real testing.
We'll see.
I am not an expert on this system. I don't even know for absolute certainty that I have understood everything exactly. I think I have but am not sure. I know that some of you will be able to contribute as much or more than I can and will find and help us correct any mistakes.
It will mean having to read pages 44-48 of the link which talks about the different bets.
The author has some pretty strict rules for dividing up the recovery units among the 3 banks of each player and later we can focus on them when we start putting it all together.
For now the over-riding priciple of keeping the recovery banks in equilibrim should be adequate.
George
Quote from: albalaha on Mar 20, 11:06 PM 2011
Dear George,
this method should be renmed as very near fallible method. It has no merit.
Dear Albalaha,
I appreciate your assessment. Can you please share with us your how you have come to your conclusions?
If in fact you are correct, and can convince us of this fact, it will save us a lot of time and effort.
Like I said in the beginning. I would like any input from anyone who has knowlege about this system since I have only been able to struggle through a few hundred spins and even though it did okay, a few hundred spins is meaningless.
Thanks,
George
Quote from: albalaha on Mar 20, 11:06 PM 2011
Dear George,
this method should be renmed as very near fallible method. It has no merit.
Not saying you're wrong...but
precisely how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Testing? Gut feeling? Reading tea leaves? Or...?
Such revelations from a "professional" could save a lot of time.
Hey Esoito,
I had this method way back and used and tested it but can't get a regular profit like all other so called systems. Not at all workable. Any doubts?
Quote from: albalaha on Mar 21, 12:24 AM 2011
Hey Esoito,
I had this method way back and used and tested it but can't get a regular profit like all other so called systems. Not at all workable. Any doubts?
Ah. Thanks for that info.
No doubts, as it's been tried and tested 'in the field' so to speak, and found wanting. :thumbsup:
It is "very near infallible system", even "infallible roulette system" by izak mattaya does not work.
Dear Al,
Thanks for that information. Just to make sure, was it this full version that you tested or one of the adjustments prior to the final system with 3 separate banks.
If it's this exact system it will save us a lot of time. Although, since I've invested quite a bit of time on it, I may play around with it just a little bit. I think that I already have some ideas to maybe make it a little more stable.
Thanks again for your input.
George
i GLC,
I saw your post yesterday: I immediatly read the document and coded it. It does loose, but, when testing manually, it can take a long time before you find that it is a loosing system. The probability of ending a 250 spin session in the plus is higher than 99%, it's the <1% that kills it!
great reddwarf
Dear All,
Probability of losing a five step martingale is also very low and chances to win are big but practically that method is unplayable. If this method is a 99% winner as reddwarf said, nothing can equal it because it even defeats the house edge which is 2.7%. If he is correct, we should leave discussing anything else and focus on this very method.
I hope reddwarf should elaborate a session with this system and show the reasoning of him saying so (99% chances of win).
Hi Albalaha,
I'm willing to do this, but I do not see the reason why we should: there is still a progression in it, albeit a very complicated one. Although the winning probability is very high, the loss is also extremely high (with very low probability), still making it a negative expectation system
The thing is, it's rather easy to create systems with very high winning probability (right now I'm running a simulation with a system that wins 99.74% of the time, but oh boy when it looses, most people have to sell their house afterwards!)
On the other hand, it is a nice system to study anyway, just work through the examples of GLC and the pdf.
Also it did make me think if it would not be possible to combine some of the principles used in creating this system, but that's a topic for a different thread.
reddwarf
The first director of the Casino de Monte Carlo was named FranÃÆ'Ã,§ois Blanc. On the wall, behind his luxury desktop above his head it could be read in golden letters:
"Wheater it comes out red or black, Blanc always wins"
link:://:.sistemas-ruleta.com/jugadores/el_senior_garcia.php (link:://:.sistemas-ruleta.com/jugadores/el_senior_garcia.php)
Read this interesting link. Maybe it can enlighten you about GarcÃÆ'Ã,Âa system. Try to have a translator handy.
It could be a winner for a long time but probably you should think about moving on to the Casino or stay in front of the laptop long long hours.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Hi Carpanta,
did you ever try this system? I advise you to do try it! The story must be an roulette myth, unless a couple of thousand units is considered a small betting amount.
Again a very high win percentage and a low loss probability, but now and then, the losses are very large:
win probability: 99.51% (session length om maximal 181 spins, increasing the session length will not make it a winner!).
It is also very easy to understand why it can not be a winner: the first part of the method is an UeberMartingale, als we al know, a Martingale does not alther the expectation value (stays-2.7%), So the first part is even worse. the second part, where we try to recoup is kind a a flatbet.
Now think of the garcia method consisting of two independant methods: 3 step UeberMarty: a sure looser
and the second part: a flatbet consisting of 3 spins: also a sure looser (Ok, the betting amounts for the flabet will vary, but that does not make it a winner)
reddwarf
Dear Carpanta,
I can not stop but laugh. I have herwith attached the "Garcia System" for everyone to see. Nothing extraordinary about it. I have a compilation of more than 200 famous systems of roulette. Most of them are far from being called a winner.
A interesting: "most of them:, so this means that some of them are consistent winners?
reddwarf
The word "consistent" has nowhere been used.
ok, clear :thumbsup:
reddwarf
I wouldnt waste my time with this sistem. I was largely discussed in spanish forums over the years and discarded.
Original version produces huge bankroll drawdowns from time to time and it is impossible to recover from them.
The almost flat bet variant was also tested. I dont know the results but the its thread was left unconcluded.
Dear Albalaha, it is my pleasure to make you so cheerful everytime i write a post ;D
Cheers,
Carlos.
Dear Carpanta,
First you wrote:
QuoteRead this interesting link. Maybe it can enlighten you about GarcÃÆ'Ã,Âa system. Try to have a translator handy.
It could be a winner for a long time but probably you should think about moving on to the Casino or stay in front of the laptop long long hours.
Cheers,
Carlos.
When I uploaded your dream system u say:
QuoteI wouldnt waste my time with this sistem. I was largely discussed in spanish forums over the years and discarded.
Original version produces huge bankroll drawdowns from time to time and it is impossible to recover from them.
The almost flat bet variant was also tested. I dont know the results but the its thread was left unconcluded.
What exactly you want to do, to waste our time?[/size]
Reddwarf,
I want to thank you for taking the time to code this system. I have some questions please.
Did you code the whole system. I mean all 3 players?
I wonder how it performs if we reset everything after reaching +1.
Another question, do you think it would make any difference if we added more players to the mix.
In other words no matter how many times in a row a color hits, every time we lose a unit, we create a new recovery bank.
Also, we could create 3 sub-categories for all banks instead of 2 for all but the 1st one.
Do any of these ideas matter or is it just adding complication.
Would a stop loss matter.
If nothing will make a difference, why do we think anything we do will win long term?
Thanks again and I really do appreciate the time and effort you have put in to help us.
Cheers,
George
Dear Albahala,
I'm not going to answer you anymore. YOU are a waste of time for me from now on. A lost case.
Be happy,
Carlos.
Hi GLC,
Yes, I used the 3 player system. I actually resetted as soon as I was in the plus. My guess is that adding more players will:
1. make the system really complex
2. extend the duration of a session
However, I will try to implement some of the changes you suggested (more subcategories) this week.
I'll post the results.
reddwarf
Quote from: carpanta on Mar 21, 03:58 PM 2011
Dear Albahala,
I'm not going to answer you anymore. YOU are a waste of time for me from now on. A lost case.
Be happy,
Carlos.
Dear Carpanta,
I would get nothing demeaning you and so would you. So, let's not pull legs of each other and participate in meaningful discussions.[/size]
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 22, 03:50 AM 2011
Hi GLC,
Yes, I used the 3 player system. I actually resetted as soon as I was in the plus. My guess is that adding more players will:
1. make the system really complex
2. extend the duration of a session
However, I will try to implement some of the changes you suggested (more subcategories) this week.
I'll post the results.
reddwarf
Hey reddwarf, If you don't think they are of any value, no need to waste time on them. I have done a couple of tests and I like the way this plays. I know that it will run across a losing pattern, but I think that I can incorporate some stop gap measures to keep from giving it all back in 1 fell-swoop. Every system loses at some point. I'm not too worried about that. The question is if we can stay ahead of losses or not.
We'll see. If you have any more info that you think will help guide us, we are listening.
George
Hi GLC,
Thanks. I'd rather not test.
I do agree with you that the method has some very nice features: a very slow buildup of money on the carpet etc.
I do not have any additional info. Personally I think that it is a long term loser, on the other hand, if you are not too greedy and use it only once and leave when in the plus, it might be a rewarding one.
In general what `i like about it: most of the systems here fight the streaks, this one basically uses some of them. Somehow I feel that with this system the probability of reaching say 500 units is larger than with other systems. I should check if this is true (if so, than this method should be really close to a bold play strategy). But I will not ;)
reddwarf
grts reddwarf
Moderator's Advisory
A couple of you are letting things get to you. (Hint: a and c)
Just agree to disagree and leave it at that, please! :thumbsup:
Life's too short...
Reddwarf,
Thanks for your input. I will test this until I see what a losing session looks like. I have tested enough of these things to be able to tell if, when the loser hits, it is exactly like other ones, or I feel like I have a little more control with this one.
Usually, when a loss starts with 99% of the systems it drives you so quickly into the hole, that you feel like you're totally out of control and before you know it your so deep that short of very large bets, the grind out seems insurmountable, and it may indeed be.
I will, from time to time, report my findings. Till I have any, stay tuned.
Geo
Update time.
My initial findings are very good.
I am approaching this system with these parameters. I follow the author's suggestion of having a 50 unit bank. I play the system with a little tweak. It doesn't make that much difference since there are a lot of tweaks that can be made without altering the final outcome, in my opinion.
I play until I reach +5 units.
I have played sessions so far and won all 6.
Largest draw down so far is -16.
Largest bet 6 units.
I know that a few of you have warned that in the long run this system will fail.
You may be right, but so far I feel very confident playing this system. Movement is gradual. Bet sizes rise slowly so there are no violent swings.
A 50 unit bank can easily be $500. That means a 5 unit win is $50 units. This can be accomplished in and hour easily. Always may be a little too confident, but unless you start out really bad, you should get there.
More later,
George
3 more sessions to +5
Largest draw down -10
Largest bet 3 units
Most spins for a session 26
I've been playing around with this system and I think I have discovered the very near infallible way to play it.
This system can be played on single zero or double zero roulette although single zero is preferable. En prison rules are a bonus.
This system can be played on bacarrat, craps (pass/don't pass line), flip a coin, a series of foot races between Flatino and me, a series of boxing matches between Chris and me (just kidding). In short any even chance bet no matter what the game. It would be complicated, but it just may be teaked to work with Blackjack.
Summary of the package is:
We are going to play the 3 recovery bank method.
We are going to play a series of mini-games to keep our bets low.
We are going to incorporate a progression.
So, here's what you need to know. We will be playing exactly the way the author has presented using the 3 recovery banks method. This is somewhat complicated and will take some effort to understand. A link has been provided above for you to be able to read the original document. I have presented some clarifying posts above that should help you decipher what the author is saying since English isn't his 1st language.
We will follow the author's suggestion on page 55 regarding win target and stop loss.
We are going to play to +10 units or -10 units.
We will end the game if the amount won + the next bet is >= +10.
We will end the game if the amount we are down + the amount of our next bet is <= to -10.
This will keep our games short and keep our bets low.
We will base our progression on my stretched Oscar's Grind or pluscoup. This means that we won't raise our bet size until we have won 2 games.
Let me elaborate. In the original pluscoup, we stay at the same level until we win and then we increase our bet by 1 unit. We play at 2 units until we win again and then we go to 3 units. At any time we are at a new high bank level, we start over at 1 unit. We never bet more than necessary to win 1 unit.
To stretch this pluscoup all we have to do is increase the number of wins needed before we can increase our bet size. For this system I recommend that we increase our bet size after 2 games won at a level. Once we reach +1, we reset to 1 unit.
Each game is treated like a unit. Our 1st game will be played at a 1 unit level. If we win game #1, we will be at +1 and our 2nd game will be at 1 unit also.
If we lose our 1st game we will be at -1 and we will play game 2 at 1 unit also. If we lose game 2, we will be at -2 and we will play game #3 at 1 unit. (remember, we don't increase our bet size until we win 2 times at a level. These wins don't have to be consecutive.) If we lose game #3 we will be at -3 and our next game still be at 1 unit. If we win our 4th game and lose our 5th game and win our 6th game we will be at -2 and since we have won 2 games at level #1, games 4 & 6, we will play our 7th game at 2 units. If we win our 7th game we will be even and will play our 8th game at 1 unit because we never bet more than needed to reach +1 on a win.
Note: Remember each â€Ã...“gameâ€Ã, is played to + or â€ââ,¬Å" 10 subunits so when we are at +1 in our stretched pluscoup, we are really at +10 units because our pluscoup is based on games which are based on subunits. I say subunits because our pluscoup is based on units represented by games and games are based on units which represent the size of our bets. I'm laboring on this point becuase it's a new concept on this forum as far as I know.
That's it. It apprears to be complicated, but is really made up of a lot of easy to understand pieces that are very hard to teach in a few words.
As with all these roulette systems, once you understand the fundamentals of roulette systems, you can pretty much figure out how to play a system if you know what fundamentals the author is employing.
Same here. If I say that you can play any even chance bet method with this system, just base the system on games so that a game = a unit in your bet method, you should be able to incorporate that without the author having to explain every nuance of what he means.
If I say you can play this system using a basic labouchere bet method starting with a line of 1, you should be able to make the adjustment with almost no explanation from me. As a matter of fact, I like to play this system with a labby as well as the stretched pluscoup.
I know that many or none of you will want to take the time to explore this system. I'm fine with that. It does have a lot of learning to do and you need to believe in it to make the effort. No sweat off my back. Take it or leave it.
I'm going to start playing it on my airball machine. If I ever change my mind on whether or not I feel that it's a winning system, I'll update this topic. If I continue to win with it, I will let you know from time to time.
If I continue to win with it, I will check in with our brother Thomas Grant and see if he's still helping us poor US based players play on the internet.
If anyone has a valid question, please ask.
If anyone has a criticism, feel free to make it.
If anyone wants to use this idea of creating bet methods based on games representing units, be my guest. I personally think it's a stroke of genius and am going to post a new topic under money management so the whole world can take advantage of it.
All right, it's late and I've probably had too much coffee and getting a little carried away. To tone it down a bit, I think this new idea is at least worth thinking about.
LOL,
George
I have been playing this system a slightly different way than it was presented by the author.
It's a simpler way I think.
Here are some points:
1. We are still going to wait for a series of 2 to form.
2. We are still going to have multiple recovery banks.
3. We will still share units between banks.
4. Any time we reach a new high overall bankroll, we will zero out all the banks.
5. We will still need pen and paper.
6. There is no limit to the number recovery banks.
7. All losses will be divided evenly between the banks.
We start by waiting for a series of 2 colors in a row. We make a bet of 1 unit for a chop. If we get a chop we put that unit in our profits category. Since this is our 1st bet, there are no losses to recover so we wait until we have another series of 2. We make a bet of 1 unit for a chop. If we lose the chop and the series goes to 3, we put the unit we just lost in recovery bank #1 and we bet 1 that unit for a chop to recover the 1 unit we just lost. If we lose the recovery bet, we place the unit we just lost trying to recover in a 2nd recovery bank. We wait for a series of 2 to form and try again.
We will always bet the exact same way. We have a series of 2 or more. We bet 1 unit for a chop. If we lose that bet, that unit is added to the recovery banks. If we win on the chop bet and we have no losses to recover, we just wait for another series of 2 to form. If we win on a chop and we do have losses to recover, we bet the units in bank #1 for a 2nd chop, we bet the units in bank #2 for a 3rd chop and we bet the units in bank #3 for a 4th chop. If we win all 3 bets we stop betting and wait for a series of 2 to form. When we win 3 recovery bets in a row, we re-distribute our units in our banks.
Anytime we lose a recovery bet, the units lost will be divided between all the recovery banks.
We will start with 3 recovery banks. The number of units in each bank will be equal. If there are odd units we will add them to the lowest banks working our way up.
Anytime our 3 banks reach a level of 4 units in each, we will create 3 more banks and divide our 12 units equally between the six banks giving us 2 units in each bank.
Any time our six banks reach a level of 6 units each we will add 3 more banks and divide the 36 units by 9 banks giving us 4 units each.
Anytime the 9 banks reach a level of 9 units each we will add 3 more banks and divide our 81 units by our 12 banks and distribute our units as evenly as possible. The lower banks get the odd units, etc...
We will reduce the number of banks and number of units in the banks in the same order that we increased them.
If at anytime we reach a new high water mark in our bankroll, we zero out all recovery banks and start fresh.
That's it. This actually works pretty well, and it keeps our bets low.
You may think it's more work than it's worth, and I might agree with you. To each his own.
I know that I sound like a broken record, but please test any system before playing for real money and only bet money you can easily afford to lose.
George
For all the work this takes, the profits are slow and the drawdowns are difficult to recover from.
The terrible twos are what kill.
This needs a lot of chops to run smoothly.
It could be a good system to use right after seeing a 37 unit cycle of a lot of 3-4 & 5 streaks.
G
Hi GLC,
This does not suprise me, it's still random play - hence a looser in the long run.
grts reddwarf
Some people just can't let dead dogs lie.
I'm one of them.
This system up to this post is way too complicated, but once again I have simplified it considerably.
We are going to bet 1-2 for chops. Every time we win a unit on a chop, we will put that unit into our profits bank.
Every time we lose, we will put those 3 units into our recovery bank. If we lose because we got say RBRBRRR then we put those 3 units into our recovery bank and we start betting from our recovery bank for the streak to continue. Any time we lose twice in a row betting for a chop we go into recovery mode.
Our recovery bank can be divided into 3, 4, 5 or 6 bets depending on the number of units in the bank to be recovered.
If we have from 0-50 units, we will divide our recovery bank into 3 equal bets. Any odd units will remain in the recovery bank to be recovered with the next series. In other words if I have 10 units to recover, I would divide them into 3 bets of 3 units. The remaining unit will be left in the bank to be recovered at a later time. And believe me it won't be much later.
If we have from 51-100 units, we will divide our recovery bank into 4 equal bets.
If we have from 101-200 units, we will divide our recovery bank into 5 equal bets.
If we have from 201-400 units, we will divide our recovery bank into 6 equal bets.
As soon as we have a loss while in recovery mode, we stop betting from the recovery bank and go back to betting 1-2 on chops until we have another 2 losses which sends us into recovery mode and betting on streaks.
So, the idea is to win normal profits on chops and recover losses on steaks.
It's a simple idea and it has been working perfectly so far.
The idea is the strong part of the system. The actual numbers used are not that important.
In other words you could flat bet on chops and go into recovery mode after 1 loss. You could return to flat bet mode after 2 losses in recovery mode.
You can change the number of units to trigger dividing by different divisors. In other words use 0-20 with a 3 divisor, then 21-40 for a 4 divisor, etc...
You can start with a divisor of 1 then 2 then 3, 4, etc... You can also go farther than 6 for a divisor.
All these tweaks make the system either more or less aggressive. You can decide how you want to play it.
As you can see, we are trying to recover based on getting a certain length of streaks.
This is a very effective way to play roulette.
If any of you are still not glassy eyed and want to give this a short test, please let us know what you think about it.
I suggest that you start by playing it the way I have presented at the beginning of this reply. Then, if you want, try some tweaks and see if you like playing it a little more or less aggressive.
Thanks,
GLC
I've been noticing a tendency that I think calls for a little tweak.
I think that when we are in recovery mode, we should only make recovery bets until we have reached a new overall high bank.
Anytime we reach a new total high bank we should zero out everything and reset to 1.
There's 1 more tweak that I think will make a difference for recovery, and that is as we move to the next level of recovery, not only do we increase the number of recovery bets, but we also add 1 unit to our flat bet.
So, we flat bet 1 from -1 to -50, we flat bet 2 from -51 to -100, we flat bet 3 from -101 -200 etc...
Also, I'm on the fence as to whether it's better to wait for 2 losses in flat bet mode to go to recovery mode or should we go to recovery mode after the 1st loss in flat bet mode.
Waiting for 2 losses nets us more units won in flat bet mode, but it costs us a win had we gone to recovery mode and our recovery mode bets are usually larger. Also, we get a lot more 3 color streaks than 4 color streaks, etc...
Help!
G
The casino execs love the " recovery" players. They are throwing good money after bad.
Nathan Detroit
Expert roulette player for 31 years and in the " Winners Circle".
Hello Natan!
You are a player with 30 years experience. I wanted to ask you whether you were playing with the system (without progression), which gives the most losses?
Thanks.
Good question. I play with positive progressions for inside play and up and pull for EC.
I also set Win goals but not Win limits with Guarantee and Excesss as well as Plateaus.
I also adhere to a strict LOSS LIMIT policy.
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
I guess you do not understand, if we found a system that loses more often (just a flat rate), we would be victorious.
Would you please explain why you want to find a system that loses more often?
Please give a brief example what your expectations are in this case .
All my methods are based upon the WINNING genre .
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
You could play completely the opposite and be a winner.
Have you tried atleast one yet? Maybe the Havana system might be your solution.
But this is just a hint but I will never pass on a losing system per se.
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Natan could not tell you about Havana system?
Hi Natan!
I also play in the 0 / 00 tape, could you tell me about the winning system you are using?
You always walk away from casino with a win?
You always must play to win but your last bet should be a loss . Never leave a table after winning bet.
W-W-W-W-W- L Got it ?
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!.
Two of my systems have been posted here : Just look up WASHOO2
about 2 dozens and advanced method. They are for the 0/00 wheel only.
I had to post as WASHOO2 as I encountered some posting problems as Nathan Detroit.
Thanks for answer!
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on Sep 18, 11:33 AM 2011
The casino execs love the " recovery" players. They are throwing good money after bad.
Nathan Detroit
Expert roulette player for 31 years and in the " Winners Circle".
I understand what you mean, I think.
But the way I look at it is that it's just a way to arrange your losses in a systematic way.
In the final analysis, unless we're flat betting, it's just placing one bet after another. The wheel doesn't know how we're sorting our losses or deciding how much to bet next. This is just another way to keep organized.
Anytime we're behind and we keep playing hoping to get ahead, we're just playing "recovery" bets.
Or am I missing something?
GLC
Sorry, but I can't leave this system alone.
Reddwarf, please read the following and tell me if your tests were according to these rules, or very close to them.
For everyone else, I have never completely understood exactly how the author wanted us to play this system until now. Because of his choppy English and incomplete sentences, I couldn't follow him exactly. I finally think I see the light and want to pass it on to the forum. I'm doing so because I haven't seen the system explained completely and in a way that is understandable anywhere. It is very complicated and I don't think more than a handful of players have taken the time to try to learn the system well enough to give it a serious testing.
I have created a page that contains the basics of the system in what I hope is a more simplified manner than the authors. It is attached to this post.
A short summary of the system.
We are waiting for 2 in a row at which time we bet 1 unit for a chop. If it becomes 3 in a row we bet 1 unit for a chop. If it becomes 4 in a row, we bet 1 unit for a chop, if it becomes 5 in a row, we stop betting until the streak ends. The 3 units we just lost are distributed into 3 recovery banks. The 1st unit lost goes to recovery bank 1, the 2nd to recovery bank 2 and the 3rd to recovery bank 3.
Recovery bank 1 is divided into 3 bets and recovery banks 2 and 3 are divided into 2 bets each. That divides our losses into 7 recovery bets.
On the diagram I attached, you can see when we bet from the recovery banks and each of the 7 bets have an exact formation that triggers a bet.
The system is based on mathematical odds of various formations occurring a calculated number of times on a regular basis and happen often enough to put us into positive territory, within a limited number of spins.
The author estimates that the system wins 5-10 units every 60 spins on average. That's a very respectable win rate if it holds up over the long run.
The author suggests setting a win target of 10 units and a stop-loss of 10 units. But we really end the attack when the units won + the next bet is >= +10. That means that if our next bet puts us at or over +10 units, we don't make the bet, we end the attack and reset our banks to zero.
Also, if the units lost + our next bet, if lost, will put us at or below -10 units, we don't make that bet, but we end the attack at that point also.
This is somewhat more aggressive than making each attack end when +1 or -10. Maybe his is better.
He says the game is designed around the probabilities of 250 spins. So, every 250 spins we should be at least 20 and maybe 40 units ahead.
By using the above targets, we get the following benefits:
1. It eliminates shaky nerves because we will never have to make large bets.
2. The calculations from the recovery banks will be minimal and easy to make.
3. Games will be short, giving us many chances to take breaks to keep a clear head.
4. By keeping the number of units bet low, we can escalate the size of our units to make the wins very worthwhile.
Having started testing on Non-zero roulette at BetVoyager, I think it should give us a better return.
I will be waiting to answer any questions for those who find this interesting.
I know there should be some questions since I didn't go into detail regarding the recovery bets.
LoL,
GLC
P.S. Since I am in Arizona, I will be asleep when most of you a waking up so I may not get back with answers for a while.
I will spend some time explaining the figures on the attachment to above post.
A word of explanation. OTL means opposite the last spin and FTL means follow the last spin.
Bet OTL Rec bank 1 col 3 means to bet the proper units from recovery bank #1 column 3.
Figure #1
When you start playing, you wait until you have two colors in a row. In these examples we will be using Black and Red.
So we have 2 blacks. That's our 1st trigger to bet 1 unit for a change of color. If it comes BBR we win our 1 unit bet. Since we have no losses yet, there's nothing to recover from the 1st bank so we wait until we get 2 more colors in a row which is a trigger to bet 1 unit for a change.
But, let's say we had 3 units in recovery bank #1. Since the units are divided into 3 bets, that means we have 3 each 1 unit bets. Since we have BBR we look at the figure 1 and see that we are suppose to bet 1 unit from bank #1 column 1 for another change.
If that bet also wins, we see that we bet 1 unit from bank #1 column 2 for another change. If that bet also wins, we stop betting and wait for the same color to hit 2 times in a row and start at the top of figure #1 again.
That's the ideal scenario. But what if it doesn't happen that way. Let's say we get our 1st break which signals a recovery bet from bank #1 column 1 for another change. Let's say we lose this bet. According to figure #1, if we lose that bet we go to figure #2 which is the pattern if we lose the 1st recovery bet.
But what if we win the 1st recovery bet and lose the next recovery bet? That means our spins were BBRBB. This pattern doesn't match any of our figures so we drop to figure #2 and play it as if the 2 chops didn't happen. This is a correction in pattern #1 where I state that if you lose the bet for recovery bank 1 col 2 you return to figure #1. No! That should read go to figure #2. I will correct it and add an attachment to this post.
We don't always bet for the change of our 2 in a row because we may have been sent to figure #1 from figure #5. We have had 5 colors in a row and we stop betting for a change at this point. We wait for the change which will put us at the 1st recovery bet of figure #1.
If we're sent to figure #1 from figures 2,3 or 4 it means we had a win in those figures and we only have a single color so we must wait until we get 2 in a row. When we do, we bet 1 unit for the change of color. If we lose that bet the lost unit goes into bank #1.
Okay. That should give you something to think about.
Bye for now.
GLC
P.S. Sorry about the orientation of the picture. If you open it in Windows photo gallery or some other photo program you can re-orient it.