Following Pattern 4 thread...
Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 07, 09:09 PM 2012
This guy, (with all due respect) also mentioned the following several times, and i learned a lot from him and i share many opinions about roulette...
Lets say we clustering patterns of three RBB wish can come in 8 combinations.
Now if we play the same as the previous 3 then we have 1 in 8 to fail - pretty simple math and odds.
Now if we play the opposite as the previous 3 then we have 1 in 8 to fail - pretty simple math and odds.
Due to the small size equilibrium will create some heavy fluctuation and string of losses.
Then we can delay equilibrium and fluctuation.
Once in 1 million do we get 1 pattern out of 8 repeating 8 times in a row.
Now if we see the previous three as i mention above and the first colour of our previous three is the same as our first future outcome we play opposite.
Now if we see the previous three as i mention above and the first colour of our previous three is the opposite as our first future outcome we play same.
Then we have 2 in 8 wish appears to repeat once in 500.000 and we only have to place two single bets.
I don't be live any other patterns become much better then that - no matter if you play with or against or trending.
That would at least delay long strings wish would make staking in different levels make you take andvantage out of periodic distribution.
... To make things real and not just empty talk i decided to post a test of 100.000 placed bets on the above, so people get a clear idea of what they are up against with this. I used TRNG from Random.org, from the 1st of june until today. in batches of variable size. So the thing is the personal permanence and not the Hit & Run, skipping tables, etc...
This is Flat Bet.
there you go. For anyone interested i post pdf bet by bet.
cheers
[attachimg=2]
So I go to Random.org, and get 300 spins for each day, starting from 1st of may.
[attachimg=1]
And here are the first ten sessions.
[attach=1]
[attach=2]
[attach=3]
[attach=4]
[attach=5]
[attach=6]
[attach=7]
[attach=8]
[attach=9]
[attach=10]
*****
NOTE: balance1 is what would have happen if you attack after LL
Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?
Quote from: Carsch on Jul 08, 02:17 PM 2012
Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?
There are at least ten examples posted above...
I wouldn't play with martingale as it is not needed to win.
One option is to set a limit, like -5 and start recovery from that point.
Alberto,
looks like without the LL filter, it's too dangerous. With the LL filter we could set a win target of +5 and a stop loss of somewhere around -5 and once we reach +5 play until we have lost 2 units and quit up +3 or if we continue to win we set something like a 40% loss from our high bank as a stopping point. That way we limit our losses to -5 but our wins can go much higher.
Does you response to Carsch mean that you play virtual until you are at -5 and then start playing real bets because most of the graphs with LL filter don't go much below -5?
GLC
This LL filter seems to be pretty powerful. Why is that? I'm starting to wonder if every e.c. system can be improved using this LL filter.
Quote from: GLC on Jul 08, 05:20 PM 2012
This LL filter seems to be pretty powerful. Why is that? I'm starting to wonder if every e.c. system can be improved using this LL filter.
On logic if the bet is balanced you would get 50/50 % L & W. If you play after LL you are reducing deliberately that percentage and it can go wrong when LL cluster together, but then you would have a huge STD.
From my observations it depends on the bet, believe it or not. However, it performs better than playing it raw, in most cases.
About progression, i was mentioning if one must use it it could be when balance hits -5 and play flat all the way above that point.
=)
Cheers
So, let me rephrase you.
I play a flat bet as long as I am above -5. Any time I get below -5, I can play a simple D'Alembert of +1-1 until I get back to -5 or greater then back to flat bet.
Correctamundo mate?
YES. all correct. Except personally i prefer another offset in D'Allembert, i like to increase one unit when L and stay at same level when W.
It would be nice if someone could post some more tests. i will post 10 more tomorrow.
Cheers
Quote from: Carsch on Jul 08, 02:17 PM 2012
Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?
I am sorry Carsch, you were correct, there is no clear example there. i will post one now. :sad2: I Believe that with this and the explanations from the first post you can figure it out.
On the first 3 columns were you see 1 & 2 it is the same as R&B or L&H or O&E or B&P, etc...
Hope you can get it. Any doubt shoot. :-*
The following 10 sessions
:wink:
Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 08, 06:24 PM 2012
On logic if the bet is balanced you would get 50/50 % L & W. If you play after LL you are reducing deliberately that percentage and it can go wrong when LL cluster together, but then you would have a huge STD.
From my observations it depends on the bet, believe it or not. However, it performs better than playing it raw, in most cases.
About progression, i was mentioning if one must use it it could be when balance hits -5 and play flat all the way above that point.
=)
Cheers
Hola Alberto
U dont have here balanced bet. ;D Balanced bet played continuously would end in 0 balance. EC bet like this R or B is not balanced. D distribution balances itself out but in a large sample. When i go online 2 play n look at past results chart from 185 spins i hardly ever see even balance between any EC's. But its another story. F u saw heavy dominance of lets say R would u bet in d next 185 spins on reversing of this trend? Most people probably would. And clusters of LL dont
constitute large STD. U got mixed results in yr charts using straight bet or LL filter mostly favoring LL filter betting. Its 10 samples. After 1000 samples d results will even out. But i like that u seem 2 always be at some point in positive territory.
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 10:37 PM 2012
Hola Alberto
U don't have here balanced bet. ;D Balanced bet played continuously would end in 0 balance. EC bet like this R or B is not balanced. D distribution balances itself out but in a large sample. When i go online 2 play n look at past results chart from 185 spins i hardly ever see even balance between any ECs. But its another story. F u saw heavy dominance of lets say R would u bet in d next 185 spins on reversing of this trend?
There are ways to measure imbalance, wait for indication and tendency and then bet for correction.
Most people probably would. And clusters of LL don't constitute large STD. You can measure Ecart (STD) for any event you want. so if you get many LL after LL it constitutes one measurable STD where LL is the overrepresented event.
U got mixed results in yr charts using straight bet or LL filter mostly favoring LL filter betting. Its 10 samples. After 1000 samples d results will even out. What counts is the number of placed bets to see how it holds up. Also i posted 10 more sessions =). All the sessions are verifiable if one goes to random.org and uses the same dates.
But i like that u seem 2 always be at some point in positive territory.
And that is a fact that helps a lot ini developing any playing model doesn't it?
Regards
:thumbsup:
Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 08, 10:48 PM 2012
:thumbsup:
Hola Alberto
I dont dispute yr results. :D We just dont agree on theoretical aspect. If yr approach works most of d time thats good. I would not use any progression with that. I sometimes use ll filter while playing FTL. Usually it works but when these damn chops happen... ;D
Regards
Alberto,
Here's a summary of the results. I threw out the 2 sessions that you didn't use a filter on and analyzed the rest of them. We must keep in mind that these numbers don't take into consideration the effects of a zero.
18 sessions to 100 spins each.
If we just played until we reached 100 spins we had 12 winning sessions (the 2 with no filter were winning sessions also but I'm not counting them), 4 sessions that broke even and 2 losing sessions.
total units won = 54
Divide 54 by 18 = 3 units on average per 100 spins
What does a zero do to us? Not too much. Sometimes nothing since it may be the 1st one which is just a trigger and we don't bet on that one anyway. And, if it's in the 3rd position/ 2nd bet, it won't matter if we won our 1st bet because we won't be betting the 2nd time.
Okay, so all we have is 20 sessions, but from what I see this is a strong showing for a simple idea.
Since we're not using a progression, there's no fear of a losing streak that will wipe out our bank roll. Granted, a big enough deviation from the norm can wipe out any bank, but I don't see any reason to expect that except for just plain old bad luck. It can happen because, after all we are gambling.
It fits all the criteria I've been looking for.
1. An even chance bet so it can be played on a variety of games.
2. Simple to play. Easy to calculate and place the next bet.
3. Wins flat betting.
4. A session can be played in as little as 2 hours. Less most of the time.
5. If this continues to hold up, I'm jazzed.
At RBH, Just relax. Reading your posts is starting be like getting water boarded.
We'll test this system and if it's as good as it seems, it'll hold up and a lot of us will be happy campers. If it finally tanks, then we'll go on to something else. We know it will lose sometime to chops, they're part of the game.
Alberto, why don't you just delete his posts and save the rest of us the trouble of having to skip by any post by RBH?
Am I being hyper-sensitive or are others feeling the same way? If I'm being hyper-sensitive, I'm sorry. I've come to realize that if something is irritating me, it's irritating a lot of other members also.
Still irritated in Arizona, >:(
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 09, 12:49 AM 2012
Am I being hyper-sensitive or are others feeling the same way? If I'm being hyper-sensitive, I'm sorry. I've come to realize that if something is irritating me, it's irritating a lot of other members also.
Still irritated in Arizona, >:(
GLC
I admit i'm a little irritated as well. The abbreviation issue is just part of it. I understand it is a habit left over from texting girlfriends. But if these messages aren't being sent from a smart phone, then why is there not a little more courtesy? The other part is there are some kinds of statements that i would only expect from a professional player or scientist. If that's not actually the case, then i expect other kinds of statements (and/or questions). I would challenge RBH to take everything he either knows or believes, and join JL on Bayes RNG and show us what's what.
Quote from: Still on Jul 09, 12:59 AM 2012
I admit i'm a little irritated as well. The abbreviation issue is just part of it. I understand it is a habit left over from texting girlfriends. But if these messages aren't being sent from a smart phone, then why is there not a little more courtesy? The other part is there are some kinds of statements that i would only expect from a professional player or scientist. If that's not actually the case, then i expect other kinds of statements (and/or questions). I would challenge RBH to take everything he either knows or believes, and join JL on Bayes RNG and show us what's what.
If abbreviation part seems to be a problem for you and other members here then i have no problem not to use it anymore and apologize. ;D Skakus objected already few days ago. And what kind of statements make you think that im pro player or scientist? I engage sometimes in theoretical disputes here but not very often. If i question something i dont think i make only empty statements like roulette is unbeatable or about house edge or the need for 1M testing. As to possible challenge i would not have time and commitment for it.
@ George I did not take you for such a sensitive guy here. I think that you should relax. I value your contributions to this forum but i am bit surprised that you want to delete my posts here. I think i was wrong assuming that only irrelevant, trolling or sort of malicious posts should be candidates for deletion. ;D
Regards
Hi Robeenhuut.
I don't really mind your abbreviated posting style that much. I was just taking the p*ss. It's surprising how difficult that is to do online.
The content of your posts invariably aim at getting to the bottom of this roulette caper, no BS. I like that.
Are you sure you're not Number6 deep in undercover disguise? ;D
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 11:04 PM 2012
Hola Alberto
I don't dispute yr results. I don't think you do. No offense taken. :thumbsup: :D We just don't agree on theoretical aspect. If yr approach works most of d time that's good. I would not use any progression with that. All this tests are Flat Bet, i only discussed the theoretical use of one. I sometimes use ll filter while playing FTL. Usually it works but when these darn chops happen... ;D
Regards
Thanks for clearing up the abbreviations. There are already too many abbreviations to deal with here without the extra load of deciphering your code. I can type 'the' as fast or faster than 'd' (or any other abbreviation for that matter)...and 'yr' looks like 'year' to me and not the 'your' you are hoping we see.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 09, 01:57 AM 2012
And what kind of statements make you think that I'm pro player or scientist?
Here's an example:
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 09:05 AM 2012
In plain English we can not take advantage of STD,law of d 3rd, regression toward d mean n so on in roulette....It sucks. But it feels nice 2 know d fundamentals of d game. ;D
First, we only know the fundamentals of a game we can win. Otherwise its a completely nonsensical statement, like, 'it feels nice to know the best way to lose'. Statements like that imply you are a professional player.
"...n so on..." This is vague, but indicates you have an enormous, if not encyclopedic comprehension about what works and what doesn't. I would only expect this kind statement from a scientist who is talking to peers, all of whom have emphatically proofed their findings with data...and found what does not work. It assumes everyone knows what doesn't work. Either that or you have tried everything scientifically, and found out what doesn't work by process of elimination, found out what does, and henceforth have been a professional player.
I don't know about law of the 3rd but when it comes to STD and regression toward the mean
barretta28 might agree with you, but ego, albertjonas and speed not to mention Marigny would indicate otherwise. So it's not as cut and dried as you imply unless you have done some enormous research and/or development to prove it. ego and speed have not proved much (preferring some kind of secrecy), but albertjonas has, and much more than barretta28.
"In plain English, we can not..." is an emphatic statement that i would only expect from a scientist or a professional player. Unless this sentence finishes with "...beat roulette", then it implies that there is a way to beat roulette and you know about it, and play it professionally. If there isn't a way to beat it, the emphatic statements like this make no sense. If it can't be beat, then the only statements that make sense are the ones where you express a preference for the way you like to lose. In that case, it should be more clear that it's a preference, presumably to lose less.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 09:05 AM 2012I engage sometimes in theoretical disputes here but not very often. If i question something i don't think i make only empty statements like roulette is unbeatable or about house edge or the need for 1M testing.
Indeed, questions may actually be statements. That's often how it is in religion. To engage in a theoretical dispute implies that roulette can be beat. If not, what is the point of arguing about anything? If it can be beat, then you must either be a professional player or a scientist. We would only argue if we knew the game could be beat, and so object to disinformation that would lead astray those who do not know how yet.
The flip side of that coin is you would argue because you absolutely know it can't be beat based on some scientific approach...or at least you have the data or math to back an emphatic statement about one aspect of some scenario. That would make you a scientist. If you aren't a scientist or a professional player, it sounds like noise that we are expected to respect...after we figure out what the abbreviations mean. I speak for myself.
Overall, the message i'm getting sounds like cognitive dissonance. What do you really know?
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 09:05 AM 2012As to possible challenge i would not have time and commitment for it.
But there is a need for it, if you really want to contribute here. If it's your opinion that the game can't be beat so why try, then we need to know that when trying to interpret your messages. If you took some of the time you use to post and used it instead to print results on one of Bayes pages like JL is doing, then the fewer statements you do make would carry much more weight. That would help a lot. Otherwise, if it's your view that the game can't be beat then a little more data to back your statements would be appreciated.
I'm speaking as one that must sift through a load of information to get to the bottom of this game, whether or not it can be beat, and if so, how. I get a little irritated when that job is made more difficult by noise. I'm asking you to earn the authority you often speak with.
Quote from: Skakus on Jul 09, 02:39 AM 2012
Hi Robeenhuut.
I don't really mind your abbreviated posting style that much. I was just taking the p*ss. It's surprising how difficult that is to do online.
The content of your posts invariably aim at getting to the bottom of this roulette caper, no BS. I like that.
Are you sure you're not Number6 deep in undercover disguise? ;D
Hola Skakus
I knew that you did not have beef with my posting style (see my earlier reply to your post) >:D
And who is Number6? If he is a good person i might be willing to pretend to be him. ;D
Regards
Quote from: Still on Jul 09, 03:42 AM 2012
Thanks for clearing up the abbreviations. There are already too many abbreviations to deal with here without the extra load of deciphering your code. I can type 'the' as fast or faster than 'd' (or any other abbreviation for that matter)...and 'yr' looks like 'year' to me and not the 'your' you are hoping we see.
Here's an example:
First, we only know the fundamentals of a game we can win. Otherwise its a completely nonsensical statement, like, 'it feels nice to know the best way to lose'. Statements like that imply you are a professional player.
"...n so on..." This is vague, but indicates you have an enormous, if not encyclopedic comprehension about what works and what doesn't. I would only expect this kind statement from a scientist who is talking to peers, all of whom have emphatically proofed their findings with data...and found what does not work. It assumes everyone knows what doesn't work. Either that or you have tried everything scientifically, and found out what doesn't work by process of elimination, found out what does, and henceforth have been a professional player.
I don't know about law of the 3rd but when it comes to STD and regression toward the mean
barretta28 might agree with you, but ego, albertjonas and speed not to mention Marigny would indicate otherwise. So it's not as cut and dried as you imply unless you have done some enormous research and/or development to prove it. ego and speed have not proved much (preferring some kind of secrecy), but albertjonas has, and much more than barretta28.
"In plain English, we can not..." is an emphatic statement that i would only expect from a scientist or a professional player. Unless this sentence finishes with "...beat roulette", then it implies that there is a way to beat roulette and you know about it, and play it professionally. If there isn't a way to beat it, the emphatic statements like this make no sense. If it can't be beat, then the only statements that make sense are the ones where you express a preference for the way you like to lose. In that case, it should be more clear that it's a preference, presumably to lose less.
Indeed, questions may actually be statements. That's often how it is in religion. To engage in a theoretical dispute implies that roulette can be beat. If not, what is the point of arguing about anything? If it can be beat, then you must either be a professional player or a scientist. We would only argue if we knew the game could be beat, and so object to disinformation that would lead astray those who do not know how yet.
The flip side of that coin is you would argue because you absolutely know it can't be beat based on some scientific approach...or at least you have the data or math to back an emphatic statement about one aspect of some scenario. That would make you a scientist. If you aren't a scientist or a professional player, it sounds like noise that we are expected to respect...after we figure out what the abbreviations mean. I speak for myself.
Overall, the message i'm getting sounds like cognitive dissonance. What do you really know?
But there is a need for it, if you really want to contribute here. If it's your opinion that the game can't be beat so why try, then we need to know that when trying to interpret your messages. If you took some of the time you use to post and used it instead to print results on one of Bayes pages like JL is doing, then the fewer statements you do make would carry much more weight. That would help a lot. Otherwise, if it's your view that the game can't be beat then a little more data to back your statements would be appreciated.
I'm speaking as one that must sift through a load of information to get to the bottom of this game, whether or not it can be beat, and if so, how. I get a little irritated when that job is made more difficult by noise. I'm asking you to earn the authority you often speak with.
Hello Still
Lets finish this. I dont want to start another debate. Im not trying to convince anybody here or to pretend that im a pro or scientist. I mostly just comment on systems posted here and most of them do not work. I posted myself before few ones and unfortunately they did not work either. I dont claim that roulette is unbeatable but im trying to provide an objective criticism. Thats it and you have every right to agree or disagree with my points. ;D
Anyway thanks for taking your time to dissect my posts.
Regards
2 Months, Flat Bet...
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attach=3]
[attach=4]
[attach=5]
b0 = without filter?
b1 = with filter?
Quote from: monaco on Jul 09, 09:16 AM 2012
b0 = without filter?
b1 = with filter?
Yes, that is correct.
[attachimg=1]
Thanks for everything,
[attachimg=1]
One of the calculations I made last night but didn't post was based on a statement AJ made re: -5 being a critical number.
If we play until we reach -5, +5 or 100 spins we would have had +51 instead of +54. Even though that's less, it's safer. Looking at AJ's analysis above, if he had used these parameters it might change his outcome quite a bit. It would also make it a controlled game.
To know that I can take 5, 10, or 15 units and have enough for 3 attacks is, if I want to risk that much, appealing to me.
I'm ready to start testing this on roulette to get a feel for how it plays.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 09, 01:57 AM 2012
@ George I did not take you for such a sensitive guy here. I think that you should relax. I value your contributions to this forum but i am bit surprised that you want to delete my posts here. I think i was wrong assuming that only irrelevant, trolling or sort of malicious posts should be candidates for deletion. ;D
Regards
RBH, I'm not such a sensitive guy. If I get frustrated about something, it's because that something is frustrating. And don't think that because only a couple of people took the time to comment means that others aren't noticing similar issues.
Many of your posts are appropriate and welcome but many others do have the tone of "The Professor" of the forum. As if you have to correct every comment that disagrees with your perspective. Or you have to point out that someone's idea has been tried and won't work so we might as well close out that topic and quit wasting time on it.
For everyone who reads and contributes to this forum, here's how it works. People post ideas for systems. They include variations on how to select betting opportunities and bet progressions. People read them, do a few tests, either like them or not. Someone else posts an idea and ditto.
If you could only post systems that meet the math guys parameters, there would be almost no posts and most of the members would quit the forum because there would be nothing going on.
Every now and then, amidst all the back and forth an idea percolates to the top like AJ's and gets us excited. We'll see how it progresses.
Don't be so quick to shut every topic down, we're not children at pre-school. We know that most of them fail. We're looking for one that can be played a certain way and a few chips can be won by someone with the discipline to follow a playing style. It's not just "can a system win forever" it's also, "can I take a really good system and learn how to win chips with it."
I have a feeling about this one. Two pretty good minds in Ego and AJ have come up with a good looking system. Let us test it for a while before we decide it won't work because it's based on some idea that you disagree with.
Quote from: GLC on Jul 09, 09:48 AM 2012
We're looking for one that can be played a certain way and a few chips can be won by someone with the discipline to follow a playing style. It's not just "can a system win forever" it's also, "can I take a really good system and learn how to win chips with it."
For me, Gambling is all about this.
Sit at the table relaxed and confident about my bets, because i am prepared to whatever happens. Because Know my bets and have expectation on how them behave (Tests).
:thumbsup:
if that low variance holds for the LL filtered way (I presume that's the way you're going to be playing George?), you could go to a 2u bet at -5, & just stay there til you're back at -1, then go back to the 1 u bet. You might not need much more than that i think.
I'm trying to find numbers that lose so i can check how far it may dip, but i can't find any :o
Alberto - have you still got any of the losing b1 spins? Session 15 in June (-13)?
"""It's not just "can a system win forever" it's also, "can I take a really good system and learn how to win chips with it.""""
If the 1st can t happen , then the 2nd can t happen either.
"""We know that most of them fail."""
Let me say it cottect .... """ We know that every one of them fail"""
And NO not everyone knows that every one of them fail.
But u are right about this :
"""As if you have to correct every comment that disagrees with your perspective. Or you have to point out that someone's idea has been tried and won't work so we might as well close out that topic and quit wasting time on it.
For everyone who reads and contributes to this forum, here's how it works. People post ideas for systems. They include variations on how to select betting opportunities and bet progressions. People read them, do a few tests, either like them or not. Someone else posts an idea and ditto."""
I will not do this again...
when i will be reading a topic with a bad idea , I won t post anything in it because:
1)we are making the morality of the members go down . and this is bad.
2)nobody seems to listen...because if they were listening, they wouldn t post those BS,
Quote from: GLC on Jul 09, 09:48 AM 2012
RBH, I'm not such a sensitive guy. If I get frustrated about something, it's because that something is frustrating. And don't think that because only a couple of people took the time to comment means that others aren't noticing similar issues.
Many of your posts are appropriate and welcome but many others do have the tone of "The Professor" of the forum. As if you have to correct every comment that disagrees with your perspective. Or you have to point out that someone's idea has been tried and won't work so we might as well close out that topic and quit wasting time on it.
For everyone who reads and contributes to this forum, here's how it works. People post ideas for systems. They include variations on how to select betting opportunities and bet progressions. People read them, do a few tests, either like them or not. Someone else posts an idea and ditto.
If you could only post systems that meet the math guys parameters, there would be almost no posts and most of the members would quit the forum because there would be nothing going on.
Every now and then, amidst all the back and forth an idea percolates to the top like AJ's and gets us excited. We'll see how it progresses.
Don't be so quick to shut every topic down, we're not children at pre-school. We know that most of them fail. We're looking for one that can be played a certain way and a few chips can be won by someone with the discipline to follow a playing style. It's not just "can a system win forever" it's also, "can I take a really good system and learn how to win chips with it."
I have a feeling about this one. Two pretty good minds in Ego and AJ have come up with a good looking system. Let us test it for a while before we decide it won't work because it's based on some idea that you disagree with.
Fair enough George. I do have also a good feeling about AJ work. I just could not help myself to comment on theoretical groundwork behind it. But i never suggested to drop it ;D Guilty as charged. But a good theory is only as good as the paper it was written on. So lets get on with more testing.
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 09, 10:25 AM 2012
Fair enough George. I do have also a good feeling about AJ work. I just could not help myself to comment on theoretical groundwork behind it. But i never suggested to drop it ;D Guilty as charged. But a good theory is only as good as the paper it was written on. So lets get on with more testing.
Regards
All help is very welcome.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: monaco on Jul 09, 10:12 AM 2012
if that low variance holds for the LL filtered way (I presume that's the way you're going to be playing George?), you could go to a 2u bet at -5, & just stay there til you're back at -1, then go back to the 1 u bet. You might not need much more than that i think.
I'm trying to find numbers that lose so i can check how far it may dip, but i can't find any :o
Alberto - have you still got any of the losing b1 spins? Session 15 in June (-13)?
I have all the spin data. And it is also available on Random.org for the selected date. (view post #2)
I will post all the files so everyone can test it the easy way, (and maybe learn some excel tricks).
:thumbsup:
Here you have 2 zip files with sessions from May & June.
Now up to date... July!
[attachimg=1]
nice results mate
Quote from: monaco on Jul 09, 10:12 AM 2012
if that low variance holds for the LL filtered way (I presume that's the way you're going to be playing George?), you could go to a 2u bet at -5, & just stay there til you're back at -1, then go back to the 1 u bet. You might not need much more than that i think.
I'm trying to find numbers that lose so i can check how far it may dip, but i can't find any :o
Alberto - have you still got any of the losing b1 spins? Session 15 in June (-13)?
Monaco, You can use 2 unit bet at below -5. What we have to do is test this on a roulette wheel so we can see how much impact the zero is going to have. Of course for those who can play non-zero roulette at betvoyager it's not an issue. For the rest of us, it is.
I've been think about setting a -10 stop loss and a +10 win target. Just to see if it makes a major difference overall.
It looks like playing both bets simultaneously is pretty stable.
AJ, is that what you're thinking makes the most sense? Or are you still gathering data?
Quote from: GLC on Jul 10, 12:12 AM 2012
Monaco, You can use 2 unit bet at below -5. What we have to do is test this on a roulette wheel so we can see how much impact the zero is going to have. Of course for those who can play non-zero roulette at betvoyager it's not an issue. For the rest of us, it is.
I've been think about setting a -10 stop-loss and a +10 win target. Just to see if it makes a major difference overall.
It looks like playing both bets simultaneously is pretty stable.
AJ, is that what you're thinking makes the most sense? Or are you still gathering data?
I am ;D . I like the idea of Stop-loss and Win-target. Also the idea of increasing base unit from one negative session into the other proves feasible to me.
Working on testing for 3 ecs including zero. =)
cheers
Finally understand the actual bet better and will look at some 0/00 spins
nice system
I like the idea of using 1 unit bet for 0 filter & 2 unit bet for 1 filter.
One you are on 2 units you stay on 2 units until you are back in plus.
Or if you wish increase by 1 unit each time you get a new LL(filter 1) until you are back in + then back down to 1 units etc.
Thanks
malcop
been trying this bet straight out on baccarat scorecards not waiting for LL ,, its pretty darn good. Im using the great8 method of betting 1111111
2222222
3333333
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jul 12, 12:45 PM 2012
been trying this bet straight out on baccarat scorecards not waiting for LL ,, its pretty darn good. I'm using the great8 method of betting 1111111
2222222
3333333
That would make this Project 777, eh mate? :thumbsup:
it may work better with 11111111111
22222222222
33333333333 on roulette, so that would be "oceans 11"
8) This method sinks as any other one. Zero pushes it to negative trams even if you cover it. So it is actually pretty nice for Baccarat and other non Zero Games as Craps. NoZero BV roulette is a possibilitie if you like RNG's.
Cheers
>:D
Is the ORIGINAL system still working? on betvoyager casino or playtech casino?
can you explain the betting outcome with this sample of spins?
Thank you
3
5
23
6
32
1
5
15
33
22
22
9
8
8
12
9
11
7
20
31
27
12