Hello all,
when a system can be considered a good system ?
After reading a topic about Numeris, I have googled and find an interesting image.
Viewing this image I have an idea for bet selection and i'm trying to generate a system for playing it.
In attach a graph with 1000 real sping from Playtech rng.
In 1000 spins have lost progression 6 times and have always recovered losses with good profit.
Initial bank is 500 Euro, and stake are 0,50 with mild progression betting on 4 singles for max 16 spins.
Progression is:
1 - 0,50 x 4
2 - 0,50 x 4
3 - 0,50 x 4
4 - 0,50 x 4
5 - 0,50 x 4
6 - 0,50 x 4
7 - 0,50 x 4
8 - 0,50 x 4
9 - 1,00 x 4
10 - 1,00 x 4
11 - 1,00 x 4
12 - 1,00 x 4
13 - 1,50 x 4
14 - 1,50 x 4
15 - 1,50 x 4
16 - 1,50 x 4
If at 16 spin we don't have a win I consider session lost and start a new session with initial stake of 1 euro until recovered and after recovered we come back to 0,50 euro stake.
More to come.
[attachthumb=#]
Quote from: Lulloz on Aug 22, 04:44 PM 2010
In attach a graph with 1000 real sping from Playtech rng.
Just to clear up a question, are these "real spins" or RNG spins?
Your quoted statement is opposed in its structure.
AD
Sorry, i know my english is very bad :)
Spins are from Playtech RNG roulette (Single 0 roulette PRO).
I'm testing if it worth to be discussed here or not.
After some days of test i can see if we can find a way to discuss and improve the system.
How many spins can be enough ?
A system that needs 1000 chips BR it is just NOT a system.
it is betting like hell huge amounts of money in order to TRY to win.and in the end u will lose very badly!
Interesting Jordan, and by you experience how much is enough bankroll to play single ?
IF I say IF there was a system that was a true winner it wouldn t need more than 40 chips in order to take care the bad sequances inside the sessions.
And you have a system based on singles playable with 40 chips that win ?
No I don t .
Also U do not have a system that can win even with 1000 chips. :)
Quote from: Jordan on Aug 22, 07:09 PM 2010
IF I say IF there was a system that was a true winner it wouldn t need more than 40 chips in order to take care the bad sequances inside the sessions.
Jordan, it sounds like a science fiction to me. No more than 40 chips...
OK let me tell this to U with a more analitic way.
If a system is a real edje winner it doesn t need PROGRESSIONS
Also it will never need more than 40 chips,because if it is making loses more than 40 chips ,then it will never recover....
If u have a real edje u can t have so bad accuracy of the bets(40 chips)....
It IS science fiction.
Fluctuations in Roulette are so dramatic that anything less than 1000 units total Bankroll is a joke.
I'm interested in what you say Jordan, very interested.
My "creature" for now is winning but i think it can be much better.
I have a system that seem to win with 1000 chips of starting bankroll and progression but i want a system more safe and more performant.
Please write your advice if you want, thx.
I'm no one in roulette but reading post in some forum, many experienced player say to start with a 3000 - 5000 unit bankroll to play safe.. to me starting with 1000 bank sounds great but Jordan have take me down to earth ;D
Quote from: Kav on Aug 22, 07:50 PM 2010
It IS science fiction.
Fluctuations in Roulette are so dramatic that anything less than 1000 units total Bankroll is a joke.
U will read a lot of things in Roulette forums.
The point is to test anything that you will have from times to times and you will selfprooved that anything is losing close to -2,7...
It doesn't matter how many chips you have as BR...
BIGGER BR = more wins BUT when the loss will come it will be far BIGGER than the wins.
Small BR = less wins BUT when the loss will come it will be small.
IF a system is a winner it doesn't need PROGRESSIONS....
Progressions are for the systems that are losing and you just need to extend the loss in order to be KILLED instantly!
Any system should be bazed on the accuracy of the bets....
Keep that in mind.
You are right jordan. But I wonder about this:
-Let's say you have winning system in the long run (which also loses shorterm)
-Your base unit is $1
-You made a profit and then you make a loss which is locked in (like when you get connection issue's with online casino's or like you reached the end of a progression).
-If we bet $2 as a base unit till we recovered our losses and then switch back to $1. Wouldn't that give us an advantage over the casino? Because now the loss we suffered is only "half" as big to recover. Whereas if we win and then up the bet, the casino will win "double".
So if the casino has an edge of 2.7% wouldn't that mean if we up our bets by 2.7% on a loss we neutralise the loss? Of course the system must be a winning one in the first place.
No you won't because you're likely to make another loss whilst trying to recover. So you'll be doing the opposite of what you wanted to achieve: you'll be making a loss based on $2 units when you're trying to get back to playing with $1 units. That's how the casinos get you! :(
Quote from: Side B on Aug 24, 01:12 PM 2010
No you won't because you're likely to make another loss whilst trying to recover. So you'll be doing the opposite of what you wanted to achieve: you'll be making a loss based on $2 units when you're trying to get back to playing with $1 units. That's how the casinos get you! :(
Yes that's when you use a normal martingale betting reds. But if you have a proven system that profits for over 2 million spins, wouldn't doubling the bets on a loss lessen the impact of the loss?
E.g. you are betting singles which makes 1000 units every 1000 spins when running good, but occasionally you make a loss of 750 units every 1000 spins, netting 250 for every 1000 spins. Now if you know this 750 unit loss happens 0-5 times every 1000 spins. You'd need about 375 spins to make up the previous loss, by doubling up on a loss. Whereas if you bet the same unit you need 750 spins. But in those 750 spins it's quite possible to hit a loss of 750 units... The "worst" (because it's very unlikely, but not impossible to get 6 in a 1000 spins) it gets is 5. That'd mean 5 steps in the progression so that's 16-32 units betting.
The way I see it... instead of betting 10 base units flat, you bet 1 unit knowing a loss might occur but 6 in a 1000 spins is like once in a lifetime. So you kind of wait for the bad to happen before betting what you want (which in this case is after step 4 -> 8 units). Therefor you minimized the risk & reduced the spin count by 50% to recover. And improved return when on a loss.
If you flat bet 10 base units, you keep going about breakeven when hitting a loss. You are more prone for the bad to happen, so it's more like a hit and run if you are lucky.
Of course you need to have a longterm winning strategy in the first place, not just a luck one.
Jordan is the Roulette Expert here. He is the One that knows Everything but got Nothing. He probably lost all his money in the Casino. So now he tells everybody how to play.always very positive statements..lmao
Cheers!
Quote from: Compa on Aug 29, 09:05 AM 2010
Jordan is the Roulette Expert here. He is the One that knows Everything but got Nothing. He probably lost all his money in the Casino. So now he tells everybody how to play.always very positive statements..lmao
Cheers!
Compa mate,
You really don't know Jordan/J.Claude,Wipper/very well.
He is only provoking,hopping that somebody give him
a winning strategy that he can not find as yet,even thought every
of his threads are winning methods,until he finds/by other testers ofcourse/
it is complete fiascos.Ilike his persistence,thought.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Aug 29, 01:34 PM 2010
Compa mate,
You really don't know Jordan/J.Claude,Wipper/very well.
He is only provoking,hopping that somebody give him
a winning strategy that he can not find as yet,even thought every
of his threads are winning methods,until he finds/by other testers ofcourse/
it is complete fiascos.Ilike his persistence,thought.
LOL xD funny comment
And... the only way to get a winning system with only 40 units bankroll is if you have paranormal abilities and can predict with extreme accuracy (like 70% or more) where the ball will land... wich is science fiction, until someone proves I'm wrong. But please, prove me I'm wrong here xD
Hi! Worth of reading Numeris Titanus I think... >:D
Timo
Hi,
I have been playing around with something similiar. 4 numbers is a good way to go. At the moment I don't think bet selection matters that much but out of interest, how do you select your 4 numbers?
I favour waiting for a number to repeat within the last 5 numbers and then playing those 4 numbers (last 5 drawn). I feel that there may be an advantage to this based on either the law of the third or some type of 'dealer signature' type of affair. I haven't bothered to try to work out why this seems to work quite well but it does. When I play, I play live wheel, and if I am not getting a result on one wheel I will switch wheels and continue progression. I play for 9 spins before upping the progression. After this the numbers become more distant from the last number drawn and the predicted freq of repeats drops of quite a lot (law of the third) after that so I reset and increase at that point.
Are you still playing/testing your idea?
Woods