This is my favourite MM for the even chances, I've experimented with many over the years, but I keep coming back to this. It was sold a few years ago but has been off the market for a while now so I don't suppose I'll get sued for posting it. :D
The core of the method is similar to "Oscar's Grind", where you freeze bets after a loss and raise them on a win, but Trioplay has a built-in stop-loss mechanism and other safety factors.
Start by writing the number 1, and after every loss, you add to a "count":
W 1
L 1,2
L 1,2,3
L 1,2,3,4
when you get a win, cross of the FIRST number in the count, and this is your next stake.
Continuing from above:
W 2,3,4 -- next stake 2 units
Continue to cross off ONE number on each win until you have a profit (new high balance), after which you reset the count to 1.
Now, when the difference between the last number in the count and the first number is greater than or equal to 5, you cross off TWO numbers on a win, not one.
L 2,3,4,5
L 2,3,4,5,6
L 2,3,4,5,6,7
L 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
W
You have a win. The last number in the count is 8, and the first is 2, and 8 - 2 = 6 which is more than 5, so you now cross off TWO numbers, so your next stake will be 4 units:
W 4,5,6,7,8
Whenever you have a win, you continue to cross off TWO numbers from the count even if the difference between the first and last numbers falls to less than 5 - you stay in "mode 2" until you are back in profit (or until the next part of the system comes into play). Again, when (if) you are back in profit you reset the count to 1.
Suppose the count keeps climbing, so you might have this situation:
L 8,9,10,11,12,13
Now, if the count reaches more than 12, the next time you win, you cross off THREE numbers, this is mode 3. Suppose the next spin gives a win:
W 11,12,13 -- you have crossed off 8, 9, 10 so your next stake is 11 units.
So you can see that the stakes will never get too out of hand, because whenever the losses mount up you are crossing off more numbers and so are likely to cross off all the numbers and so return to a count of 1 (one unit stake).
However, as we know, sh*t happens. So there is an additional safety rule which says that IF THE SUM OF THE COUNT IS GREATER THAN 100, YOU SHOULD RESET THE COUNT TO ONE.
e.g. You might have this:
L 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
and 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 = 110 so you should reset the count to 1.
That's it. Obviously you can experiment by choosing other values, for example, try waiting until the difference between the first number of the count and the last is 7 or 8 instead of 5 before crossing off 2 numbers. I've tried tweaking various things, but the recommended parameters are pretty good for the most part.
The recommended bankroll is 100 units, but I usually use at least 200.
Also, if you feel that the stakes are getting too high, just reset to one, or drop to half the stake and carry on. It's not the holy grail on its own, but it's a good MM plan. Pick your favourite bet selection and give it a whirl.
Thanks for sharing with us dear Bayes :thumbsup:
Good roulette methods are timeless!
Thank you, I'll give it a try.
The thing to remember with this plan is that it's not really "hit 'n' run". If you have to reset the count to 1 and are still in a loss situation, just keep plugging away and more often than not you will recover. The system is designed so that it wins when you have approximately the same number of losses as wins, but of course in the short term that doesn't always happen, so PATIENCE is required :)
For this reason, the author recommended that you keep to the same bet selection throughout - don't chop and change if things aren't going well.
It can also work well playing two dozens. Use a separate progression on each dozen. I prefer the ECs because I don't like paying the full price on the zero.
Also, try differential betting - both sides of an EC, but bet only the difference.
Cheers, mate.
Quote from: Bayes on Jul 29, 10:25 AM 2010It can also work well playing two dozens. Use a separate progression on each dozen. ...
Do you use the same "count" for dozens (1,2,3,4,5...) or it's different? Thanks.
Yes mate, exactly the same count. But always play on TWO dozens, never just one. :thumbsup:
Hello again,
Quote from: Bayes on Jul 29, 08:40 AM 2010Now, if the count reaches more than 12, the next time you win, you cross off THREE numbers, this is mode 3. ...
... and we stay in Mode 3 until profit, right?
Thanks.
Once you're in mode 3 you stay there, but not necessarily until you're in profit. For example, if you are in a loss situation and you reach the end of the line but are NOT in profit, you start over. Also, if the sum of the count is > 100 then again start over.
If you're at -50 you might have this as your count:
L 9,10,11,12,13
You have been staking 8 units and the next bet is a win. Because the count is 12 (or higher) you are in mode 3 which means the next stake is 12 units:
W 12,13
If you win after THIS bet, you should cross off 3 from the count, but there are only 2 figures remaining (and your balance is -50 + 8 + 12 = -30). The rules of the system aren't clear about this, but you can either bet the last number in the count (13), or start over with a deficit of 30.
Just realised I have a pdf for the system which shows a fairly long session of play (attached).
You can read the original system if you go to the thread "Pluscoup Progression" a few threads below this thread.
Look at Reply #18 for the link.
Thanks fellas.
I did a short "hand test" yesterday at a local casino playing both EC's and two dozens. Like Bayes, I would recommend bigger starting bankroll because I felt a bit unconfortable with my 100 units at times.
Thanks for posting this Bayes. I had been beating myself trying to understand the system as it's been written by its designer; pissed, i ended up deleting the damn thing from my computer. I have no patience for complicated stuff. :-\
And you come here and make the thing so simple that a child could unerstand it. Now, i can look into this, thanks to you. :)
I have a question, Bayes.
Do you wait for a win before you can start using those numbers in the "count", or do you start using them right after your first loss?
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 08, 06:23 PM 2010
I have a question, Bayes.
Do you wait for a win before you can start using those numbers in the "count", or do you start using them right after your first loss?
Carsch,
I'm not Bayes, but I am familiar with Full TrioPlay and will answer your question.
Be sure and read my post under "Pluscoup Progression" and a tweak to TrioPlay.
The simple answer to your question is that you start the count with the 1st loss and it begins with 2 instead of 1.
I notice that Bayes has a little clearer presentation of bet vs count. The reason I do it the way I do is so I don't have a long string of numbers on my cheat sheet.
Here is an example: For simplicity we will always bet on Red.
spin Bet Count W/L Total
R 1 0 W +1 Reset
R 1 0 W +1 Reset
B 1 2 L -1
B 1 3 L -2
B 1 4 L -3
R 1 4 W -2 Note that we only increase count on a loss.
B 2 5 L -6 Note that we increase by 1 unit after a win.
R 2 5 W -4
R 3 5 W -1
R 2 5 W +1 Note we only bet enough to make +1 unit.
B 1 2 L -1
B 1 3 L -2
B 1 4 L -3
R 1 4 W -2
B 2 5 L -4
B 2 6 L -6
B 2 7 L -8 7-2=5 so we go to Adv play which means we will increase our bet by 2 instead of 1 on a win.
R 2 7 W -6
R 4 7 W -2
B 4 8 L -6
B 4 9 L -10
B 4 10 L -14
R 4 10 W -10
R 6 10 W -4
R 5 10 W +1 Reset. Only need 5 on a Win for +1
If we had had a few more losses, we would have reached a count of 12 at which time we would have increased our bet by 3 after each win.
What we are trying to do is reach +1 or have our bet amount = the count at which time we reset to 1 and start over.
Sometimes our total will be so far minus that when our bet size = our count and we have to reset, we will still have a negative balance.
This is a safety mechanism to keep our bets from escalating out of control.
The enemy to the Pluscoup is WLLLWLLWLWLLLWLLWLLLLWLLW.
We keep raising our bet on a win but then we have multiple losses which keeps us in free-fall mode.
I think that between these 2 explainations of TrioPlay, you should be able to get a pretty clear picture.
Of course all questions are welcome.
Cheers,
George
Quote from: GLC on Oct 08, 10:46 PM 2010
Here is an example: For simplicity we will always bet on Red.
spin Bet Count W/L Total
R 1 0 W +1 Reset
R 1 0 W +1 Reset
B 1 2 L -1
B 1 3 L -2
B 1 4 L -3
R 1 4 W -2 Note that we only increase count on a loss.
B 2 5 L -6 Note that we increase by 1 unit after a win.
George, i think i'm getting the idea. But up here, shouldn't the bet be showing 4 units, instead of 2?
Also, you say
'bet enough to make +1 unit'. Aren't you supposed to bet the first number on the running count?
Thanks
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 08, 11:44 PM 2010
George, I think i'm getting the idea. But up here, shouldn't the bet be showing 4 units, instead of 2?
Also, you say 'bet enough to make +1 unit'. Aren't you supposed to bet the first number on the running count?
Thanks
Carlo,
Sorry about my columns getting out of alignment.
I do have a typo. The -6 should have been -4.
The 1st 2 wins caused us to reset back to 1.
We stayed at 1 unit on the next 3 losses, then we won so we went up to 2 units bet and lost. This should have brought us to -4 instead of -6.
The reason we don't always bet the exact amount our progression tells us is what Victor calls conscious betting. If we are in the hole say 3 units and our next bet according to our progression should be 6 units. A win at 6 units would put us up 3 units. We only bet enough to win 1 unit, so we would decrease our bet to 4 so a win would only take us to +1.
This is just to help keep our bets lower. If we were to lose that bet, it's better to be at betting 4 units working our way up than 6 units working our way up.
That point is not so critical and can be ignored. Then we will always bet the next bet in the progression.
Hope this helps.
I must sign off for now.
Any more questions I'll answer tomorrow.
George
After testing my tweaks some more, I think that we can do away with Advance Play 1 and 2. By only increasing our bets after winning 2 instead of 1, we have automatically created a safety factor.
I think bet the same bet when lose and only raise 1 unit after 2 wins. Remember, they don't have to be back to back.
A reasonable win target and stop loss is all we need. For now anyway.
We'll see what the future brings our way.
Tweaking is good in roulette, but not so good in other contexts, if you know what I mean.
George
Yeah, i think i got the idea with Trioplay. Your suggestion above sounds interesting. I'll have to look into that. :)
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 09, 06:15 PM 2010
Yeah, I think I got the idea with Trioplay. Your suggestion above sounds interesting. I'll have to look into that. :)
Carsch,
Have you had time to do anything with my suggested progression?
I've tested it a few times in between testing other systems and I still haven't had a losing session.
I have set a win target of +50 and a stop-loss of 200.
It can be a grind sometimes, but not often. Usually it wins fairly quickly.
No George. But now that you reminded me, i'll keep it on my desktop so to remind myself. Been busy again working with other ideas. For a while i thought i came up with a holygrail, i even drove down to the casino (4hrs drive one way), and did actually make some money; then i found out the next day after doing more tests that it isn't what i thought it was. LOL! Oh well. :)
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 15, 05:48 PM 2010
No George. But now that you reminded me, i'll keep it on my desktop so to remind myself. Been busy again working with other ideas. For a while I thought I came up with a holygrail, I even drove down to the casino (4hrs drive one way), and did actually make some money; then I found out the next day after doing more tests that it isn't what I thought it was. LoL! Oh well. :)
At least you didn't find out at the Casino.
It's amazing how often it looks like something is working and can't lose and then all of a sudden, disaster.
I guess the idea is to find something that works well most of the time and keeps the disasters few and far between.
LOL,
George
George, how would you play this series of W/L with your given suggestion? I must be doing something wrong to get only +12 in profit. Take your time. Not rush here. Thanks.
1 L
2 W
3 W
4 L
5 W
6 L
7 W
8 W
9 W
10 W
11 W
12 W
13 L
14 W
15 W
16 W
17 W
18 L
19 L
20 L
21 L
22 L
23 L
24 W
25 W
26 W
27 W
28 W
29 L
30 W
31 L
32 W
33 W
34 L
35 L
36 W
37 L
38 W
39 L
40 L
41 L
42 L
43 W
44 W
45 W
46 W
47 W
48 W
49 L
50 W
51 L
52 W
53 W
54 L
55 L
56 L
57 W
58 W
59 W
60 L
61 L
62 L
63 W
64 W
65 L
66 L
67 W
68 L
69 L
70 L
71 L
72 L
73 W
74 L
75 L
76 W
77 W
78 L
79 W
80 W
81 W
82 W
83 W
84 L
85 W
86 W
87 L
88 L
89 W
90 W
91 L
92 L
93 W
94 L
95 L
96 W
97 L
98 W
99 L
100 L
101 W
102 W
103 W
104 L
105 L
106 W
107 w
108 L
109 W
110 L
111 W
112 L
113 L
114 W
115 L
116 L
117 W
118 W
119 L
120 L
121 W
122 W
123 L
124 W
125 W
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 16, 03:10 PM 2010
George, how would you play this series of W/L with your given suggestion? I must be doing something wrong to get only +12 in profit. Take your time. Not rush here. Thanks.
1 L -1 -1
2 W +1 0
3 W +1 +1 reset
4 L -1 -1
5 W +1 0
6 L -1 -1
7 W +1 0 won 2X's without reset, increase to 2 units except we only need 1 to reach +1 with a win.
8 W +1 +1 reset anytime third row is +
9 W +1 +1
10 W +1 +1
11 W +1 +1
12 W +1 +1
13 L -1 -1
14 W +1 0
15 W +1 +1
16 W +1 +1
17 W +1 +1
18 L -1 -1
19 L -1 -2
20 L -1 -3
21 L -1 -4
22 L -1 -5
23 L -1 -6
24 W +1 -5
25 W +1 -4
26 W +2 -2
27 W +2 0
28 W +1 +1 See note below
29 L -1 -1
30 W +1 0
31 L -1 -1
32 W +1 0
33 W +1 +1 see note below
34 L -1 -1
35 L -1 -2
36 W +1 -1
37 L -1 -2
38 W +1 -1
39 L -2 -3 Won twice without reaching plus
40 L -2 -5
41 L -2 -7
42 L -2 -9
43 W +2 -7
44 W +2 -5
45 W +3 -2
46 W +3 +1 reset
47 W +1 +1
48 W +1 +1
49 L -1 -1
50 W +1 0
51 L -2 -2
52 W +2 0
53 W +1 +1
54 L -1 -1
55 L -1 -2
56 L -1 -3
57 W +1 -2
58 W +1 -1
59 W +2 +1
60 L -1 -1
61 L -1 -2
62 L -1 -3
63 W +1 -2
64 W +1 -1
65 L -2 -3
66 L -2 -5
67 W +2 -3
68 L -2 -5
69 L -2 -7
70 L -2 -9
71 L -2 -11
72 L -2 -13
73 W +2 -11
74 L -3 -14
75 L -3 -17
76 W +3 -14
77 W +3 -11
78 L -4 -15
79 W +4 -11
80 W +4 -7
81 W +5 -2
82 W +3 +1
83 W +1 +1
84 L -1 -1
85 W +1 0
86 W +1 +1
87 L -1 -1
88 L -1 -2
89 W +1 -1
90 W +1 0 see note below
91 L -2 -2
92 L -2 -4
93 W +2 -2
94 L -2 -4
95 L -2 -6
96 W +2 -4
97 L -3 -7
98 W +3 -4
99 L -3 -7
100 L -3 -10
101 W +3 -7
102 W +4 -3
103 W +4 +1
104 L -1 -1
105 L -1 -2
106 W +1 -1
107 w +1 0
108 L -2 -2
109 W +2 0
110 L -2 -2
111 W +2 0
112 L -3 -3
113 L -3 -6
114 W +3 -3
115 L -3 -6
116 L -3 -9
117 W +3 -6
118 W +4 -2
119 L -4 -6
120 L -4 -10
121 W +4 -6
122 W +5 -1
123 L -5 -6
124 W +5 -1
125 W +2 +1
Won 21 units. Like I said, it's safe but steady.
Largest bet was 5.
Largest drawdown was -17
Lowest point in bank was only -2 units at the very beginning.
Note 1: When we are betting more than we need in order to reach +1, we reduce our bet down to only what it takes to reach +1.
This can be ignored if you want. You will win more and I don't think it will make that much difference in bet size.
If I had ignored it I would have won 9 more units and it wouldn't have cost me anything. It only helps if you're getting ready to go into a steep losing sequence, it's better to start off at a small bet than a larger one.
'Course you never know when those losing streaks are going to begin.
Note 2: I usually reset when I reach +1. You could reset when you reach zero or +1 for even more safety.
From my testings, this is pretty average of a session.
I have had a losing session where I lost 100 units on an attack. Fortunately, I was up 55 units before losing the 100 so I really only lost 45 units.
How does it look from your perspective?
George
Thanks George. I'll look at it and see what i was doing wrong. My mind needs a rest for now. Lots of testing for the past couple of hours. ;D But i'll let you know
I greatly appreciate your help. :)
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 16, 05:39 PM 2010
Thanks George. I'll look at it and see what I was doing wrong. My mind needs a rest for now. Lots of testing for the past couple of hours. ;D But i'll let you know
I greatly appreciate your help. :)
Carsch,
Remember the progression is a positive progression.
We never increase after a loss.
Up 1 after 2 wins at a level.
It's hard for me to remember sometimes because I'm so used to negative progressions.
G
Ok, i just looked at it, and i now understand exactly what you're doing. And that's pretty good actually.........that is, comparing to other results i have for those same W/L outcomes used here.
So, George, you say that we can get away with Advance play 1 & 2 by just playing it this way, and that it's safer. What about the results - are they about the same if you were playing Advance play 1&2?
Carsch
Quote from: Carsch on Oct 17, 12:02 PM 2010
So, George, you say that we can get away with Advance play 1 & 2 by just playing it this way, and that it's safer. What about the results - are they about the same if you were playing Advance play 1&2?
Carsch
Okay. I confess that stating that this was safer than Adv Play 1 & 2 was a little presumptuous on my part. I haven't really tested the two ways of playing side by side with the same spins.
I suppose we should test a couple really bad sessions to see which method comes out on top.
should probably test a couple of good sessions the same way. Also a couple of so so sessions. That way we can see if one way out-wins the other.
I will do some testing.
Just to make it easy, I will use previous sessions. They will be of different bet selection methods, but as long as I test each session with both ways of betting, the results will be valid. Agree?
This may take a while, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Help me out. Why don't you do 1 session of each good, medium and bad and so will I. That will give us 2 ea sessions of both methods for good, bad and medium.
This should give us a pretty good idea which one is best.
George
My initial testing of both systems on the same spins indicates the following:
If there are a lot of hits close togethe,r meaning that you'll win no matter what system you're playing, Trio Play tends to win at a little higher rate, but average bet size is a little higher also.
If it is an average system, Trio Play again generates more units per spin with even larger average bet size.
On really difficult sessions, Trio Play usually loses at a much faster pace with much larger bet sizes.
2W Up1 keeps the bet sizes much smaller and by the time Trio Play has reached my 100 stop loss, 2W Up1 is still at less than -50. This is very pronounced if you have prolonged streaks of loses followed by 1 or 2 wins.
Things change a little when you have lots of 2,3 and 4 loss streaks followed by 1 or 2 or 3 wins. Trio Play can actually get you to a small + whereas 2W Up1 takes more wins to dig out of a deep hole.
Inital conclusion is that Trio Play is generally a more aggressive system than 2W Up1 but 2W Up1 is steadier, keeps the bets smaller, smaller wins with fewer losing sessions with an occassional loss that would have been a win with Trio Play because of the choppiness which doesn't allow 2W Up1 to recover.
As with a systems, given the exact win/loss mix almost any system can perform worse of better than another one even if the other one generally outperforms.
Let me know how you see it.
Thanks,
George
Quote from: GLC on Oct 17, 08:37 PM 2010
As with a systems, given the exact win/loss mix almost any system can perform worse of better than another one even if the other one generally outperforms.
True! Anyway, i have been testing your W2 up1 against a few other systems and it's actually doing pretty good. Let's put it this way: i like it, and i'll keep using it on my tests. :)
I'll have to review the TrioPlay so to compare it with your W2 up1. But i remember, i did a test with it before against a few other methods; it can win faster. But like you said, it can also lose at a much larger pace with much larger bets.
*Bump*
It would be great if someone could RX this as per the rules from Bayes first post.
This is one of the better EC money management plans and as far as I'm aware has never been tested in RX
Bump?
2010 FFS! The best thing about it is the date stamp.
Good methods are timeless!
Quote from: Let Me Win on Jan 23, 07:08 AM 2019Good methods are timeless!
like wobbly wheels, useless
But probably not as useless as placing 20p on each street when starting a new session on an RNG to get "fresh spins".
So brains where does one place the pound you need to get a result. Just pick a # from the air, you useless
The history board.
You dont listen to the resident experts do you, past spinsmean nothing
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/01/23/sourcea750d.gif) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/ORq1r)
Tell'em General
Previous spins don't mean anything but they are a good as any other selection method.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 23, 01:05 PM 2019
You dont listen to the resident experts do you, past spinsmean nothing
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/01/23/sourcea750d.gif) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/ORq1r)
Tell'em General
General keeps moving his head as he feels bad after yesterday’s loss