For Le_Chiffre

[GLC]

Here's a progression method for playing dozens and columns at the same time.  I've been testing it using the bet selection follow-the-last and follow-the-last-two.

Main Mode is betting 1 unit on the dozen and column of the last spin.  If both hit you'll be up 4 units.  If only 1 hits you'll be up 1 unit.  If neither hits you'll be down 2 units.

If neither hits in Main Mode, you then move to Recovery Mode and bet 1 unit on each of the 2 dozens represented by the last 2 spins and 1 unit on each of the 2 columns represented by the last 2 spins.  We bet 4 units each spin in the Recovery Mode.  As long as you hit at least 1 of the 4 bets in Recovery Mode, you continue to replay the 4 units until you either get back to your previous high or you reach a new high bankroll or you lose on all 4 bets.  I know that if you only hit 1 of the 4 bets you will lose 1 unit but if you hit 2 of them, you will win 2 units.  All you're trying to do is recover the 2 units you lost in the Main Mode.  (I choose to replay the same 2 dozen spots and columns spots rather than keep changing based on the last spin).

If you lose on all 4 bets in the Recovery Mode, it means you will be down around 6 units depending on how the hits came before the 4 bet loss.  A 4 spot loss in Recovery Mode is our trigger to move to the right on our bet line.  In this example we would move to Main Mode at the 2 unit level.  If we win on both bets at the 2 unit level, we will win 8 units and be fully recovered.  But if we only win on 1 location, we will win 2 units and we'll keep betting 2 units in Main Mode, 2 unit level.  With some luck, we'll recover by winning either both dozen and column or at least one of the locations 3 times in a row.

But if we are unlucky and lose both the dozen and column bets, then we must move to the Recovery Mode at the 2 unit level.  Continue to bet the 4 spots until you recover the 2 each 2 unit bets you lost in the Main Mode 2 unit level.

If you recover the 4 units you lost in the Main Mode 2 unit level, you stop betting the Recovery Mode and go back to Main Mode 2 unit level.

Bet line: 1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55 etc... Fibonacci numbers.

Summary:

What we're doing is trying to win by betting the Main Mode which is on the last spun dozen and column.  As long as we hit at least one of these, we are winning and we stay at the 1 unit bet level, Main Mode.  As soon as we lose the Main Mode, we move to the Recovery Mode where we bet on 4 locations: the last 2 dozens and the last 2 columns.  If we recover the 2 lost units from the Main Mode with the 4 unit Recovery Mode, we can replay the Main Mode 2 unit phase until it wins or loses again.

We only move to the next level in our line after losing all 4 bets in the Recovery Mode.  We only move to the Recovery Mode when we lose both bets in the Main Mode.  And we only move to the left on our recovery line when we win both bets in the Main Mode.

I know that using the above triggers for movement up and down the line, we can get back to the 1 unit Main Mode level and not be fully recovered.  I think this is the buffer we have to allow to be able to get back to smaller bets without too much risk.  We will only be negative when we get back to 1 unit Main Mode if we've had a really bad run of luck.  Like Teo says, "better to get wounded than killed".

You'll probably have to re-read the above a couple of times to get the gist of it.

Questions are welcome from anyone, of course.

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

Firstly nice to see you back GLC!

Thanks for suggesting this method. Read it a couple of times now and it seems pretty solid. I'm busy at the moment but i look forward to testing this later on today.
I'll post back with my results and thoughts.

[Le_Chiffre]

Done a few tests with this and it's very good indeed.  With fibonacci it can grow quite quickly but I only ever play 0.10 units stakes nowadays so with this in mind it should perform very well and not get too scary with the runs of hell.  I'll continue testing it and see what sort of drawdown I encounter.  So far it's about -150 DD but I guess it could get higher than that very easily with fibonacci growing quickly.
I also tried it just increasing +1 instead of fibonacci.  It more of a grind as it takes a while to recover but it DOES in the end so could be a safer way to play if you're planning on playing full size stakes.
Like I said I play 0.10 stakes so I'll stick with the fibonacci progression for my testing.

Thanks for this GLC.  I always enjoy your methods especially the dozen/column ones!

[GLC]

Yes, Fibo is very aggressive.  Just a little less so than Martingale.  But I've had such good results with this that I thought it might be worth the risk to recover more quickly when deep in the hole.

I've been very lucky in my testing.  Never more than -200.

Like Teo says, "take plenty of bullets when going to war."  And this is a war.  Make no mistake about it.

We can always put a +10 win target and a 100 unit stop loss or a 200 unit stop loss and see how testing goes.

I think there are few times when we'll hit our stop loss of 200.  It will happen, of course.

I have friend who has a roulette wheel and he's been playing the house at Saturday night poker parties.  He made me quit playing this system because he felt like it took his advantage away from him.  Obviously he doesn't understand the power of the zeros.

This seems like a very solid progression idea.  We could try this line for losses: 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17-19 etc...  And 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 etc... for wins.   We move 2 steps to the right on a loss, but we only move 1 step to the left on a win.  This makes it much less volatile than fibo but not as much of a grind as D'Alembert.

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

How confident would you feel playing this 0.10 unit stakes with 2 grand bankroll? It would take a serious losing streak to cause any major damage wouldn't it?

[GLC]

How confident would you feel playing this 0.10 unit stakes with 2 grand bankroll? It would take a serious losing streak to cause any major damage wouldn't it?

If my math is correct, that would be 20,000 units.  I've never tested a system up to -20,000 units.  To be honest, there are a lot of systems on this forum that would be candidates for that kind of attack.  I won't name them, but if you look through the topics and see the ones with 100 or more posts, that will give you the roster to pick from.

If it were me, I think I would divide my bankroll into 10 ea. 2,000 unit bankrolls or at least 5 each 4,000 unit bankrolls.  That way not all my eggs are in one unbelievable losing streak.  This would not be the grail.  There is no grail.  There is always the possibility that you could enter into the session that throws enough losing bets over a long enough period of time that you either lose all your bankroll or you spend so many hours trying to dig out of the hole that it becomes not worth the time investment.

The safest way to play any system is to set a smaller stop loss, say 500 units, and deal with more frequent losses.

I know that you have a decent bankroll, so if you can afford to risk 20,000 units on a solid system that you like to play, then go for it.  But, I'd hate to say this is the one.  It's just a novel idea that I had for a bet method that seemed to resist losses better than others.  I would hesitate to say that it is the best I've seen.  I'm not sure I can say which is the best I've seen.  They all have an application that might make each one the best for a given system.

I think you have enough option on this forum to come up with 2 or 3 systems that you think are candidates for this risk.  Choose the one that suits the way you like to play the best.

Maybe you could start a topic and gather input from some of the more experienced players on the forum?

I think I'll start it for you.  We'll see what people suggest.

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

Spent a few hours manually testing this on roulettextreme.  Managed to double my bankroll (500 start) no problem, no DD worth mentioning then all of a sudden the run straight from the devil himself arrived and before i knew it I was -70 grand so i gave up

[GLC]

That does feel like a punch in the gut.  It's also a good wake up call for ever thinking there's a bullet proof system. 

It emphasizes the need for a reasonable stop loss.  It would take a pretty long string of losing sessions to duplicate that one session.  It could happen, I suppose, but it just feels like it would be impossible.

One of the reasons I like Full TrioPlay and it's expanded brother Tera TNT (Dynamic Balance) is that it's impossible to lose an excessive amount of units like your graph shows.  That's because there are safety factors built into the system that limit how much you can lose in one session.

You may get wounded every now and then, but you'll avoid a "blitzkrieg" like you just went through.

Turnaround and Complete Betting Systems are built around similar ideas.

I like the "Very Near Infallible Roulette System" also, but it needs some safety mechanism also which I am working on as we speak.

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

Yes if it was real I think I'd be very depressed right now.  It's easy to see how some people end up losing everything chasing back loses.

I still think it's a great system, one of my favourite dozen/column systems I've played on here so thanks again for suggesting it.

Most of the time the drawdown never seemed to exceed -200 units so I think I'll carry on doing some more tests but this time with a 200 stop loss in place. I'll see if it's possible to get the graph to rise.

I'll post back when I've done the tests.

[GLC]

I think the 200 unit stop loss is a good approach.  I've come to the conclusion that even though giant progressions are appealing, they are also deadly.  They start out with slow upswing but as you get further along in the progression, they tend to take a rapid trajectory straight up.  It doesn't take many losses deep in the progression to reach shock mode.

With a 200 unit stop loss.  You can stay in control of your game.  A 20,000 unit bankroll would give you 100 banks of 200 units.  Before you get into too much trouble if things are going badly, you can just stop playing this system and still have bullets for future battles.

Yes, please let us know how the 200 stop loss method works.

Good Luck,

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

Here is  1,300 spins with the 200 stop loss in place.  Roughly the same amount of spins as the test without stop which let me double my bankroll but then plummet to -73 grand.
On this you can see that I was stopped out relatively early on but then went for 800 spins without stopping out (came very close at one point) but then was stopped out twice very close together.  So I think this is going to be a 'one step forward - 2 steps back' approach.  I'll keep going for a bit but it's going to need a very good run to now get back to where the decline started and then go a further 200 units up to lock it in.

[GLC]

We have to remember that it appears that you found one of the worst series imaginable for this method.  As long as you continue to test that series, you will always have a major down turn.  It does seem that the 200 unit stop loss helped prevent a total meltdown.  I'm not saying that this method can be turned into the grail if we keep adjusting the win target vs stop loss.  My experience is that I've been able to keep, so far, about 5% of my winnings.  I have had streaks of very favorable winnings only to give most of them back in a really bad down turn.  It is very discouraging to win, win, and win and kind of be in a dream world that you've found something special and then have the bottom fall out.  I've come to expect it.  If you know a correction is coming, when it arrives it doesn't catch of guard.

You're graph reveals the fear that hitting a stop loss too often is a killer the same as having a really bad run betting a martingale type progression.

I keep remembering Flatino telling us about a system using a steep progression that he won with for years only to have an unbelievable losing streak that cost him a ton of money.  I think it was money he had won, but it's still his once he's won it and it hurts to give it back.

All I can say is to repeat my mom, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

GLC

[Le_Chiffre]

Ok I've tried tweaking this method here and there and have had some good results managing to double my bankroll (500 start) with just over 500 spins and worst drawdown seen so far is 600...and that was during extreme runs from hell!  It's quite frequent winning 5 times in a row or more so the higher the stakes it's not actually too bad a thing.  I'm only ever going to play with with 0.10 stakes so highest drawdown so far would be 60 units.  I'm just on my way out so will post back the exact method later but it's basically covering the zero in main mode and then in recovery mode covering the zero, all dozens and 2 columns and again using fibbo progression and no stoploss.

[rajucb12]

Thanks for share it. Thanks for suggesting this method. Read it a couple of times now and it seems pretty solid. I'm busy at the moment but i look forward to testing this later on today.