Corner The Market

[GLC]

This is definitely a work-in-progress.

All your suggestions make sense to me.

A stop loss is a must in any roulette strategy.  Some people like a high stop loss and some like a lower stop loss.  I think it has to fit your pocketbook.

I too like playing current numbers.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to move the column bet around since it's kind of an insurance bet covering the 3rd column so we can concentrate on fewer corners to bet.

No zero roulette is preferable for any roulette game.  Two problems: 1.  For those of us who live in the US, on-line gambling is still illegal unless you live in a couple of places.  2.  Non-zero roulette usually has a much higher minimum bet since the house is reducing their chance of winning.  But, if it's available to you and you can afford it, by all means play non-zero.

40 units per hundred is a very respectable win in my opinion.  The problem I see is that there are always going to be losing sessions.  How big a loss and how often is what will bring the 40 units per 100 spins down quite a bit.

I have a tendency to like to have larger stop loss numbers because we reach our stop loss less often.  The problem is that when you are playing for long periods under your stop loss, you feel like you're doing great, but 1 or 2 times hitting your stop loss kind of takes the wind out of your sails.

I suppose that the best way to design a system is to set it up with smaller bets and a lower stop loss.  In this way you have a better feel for how profitable the system is on a steady basis.  The highs and lows will be smaller and more frequent.

At the end of the day, we will probably end up with the same numbers of units won with either system.

I think the more corners we bet, the less fluctuations we'll see, but that is compensated by the fact that each win is less.

It mirrors the higher stop loss concept in that you will have shorter intervals between hits, but when you do hit you will receive a smaller payoff. 

As we all know, in the end it's the same odds.

Thanks for all the input.  Anything published on this forum belongs to all of us, so we're in this together.

Cheers,

George

[albalaha]

Dear George,
             what is your take on progression and if we take 3 quarter bets instead of two?

[GLC]

Dear George,
             what is your take on progression and if we take 3 quarter bets instead of two?

The progression I have proposed is relatively aggressive.  I tend to like to bet aggressively.  I have even considered increasing our bets proportionately.  That means, 1-1&2; 2-2&4; 3-3&6; 4-4&8; etc...

I think that betting $1 units, with a $1000 bank, this system could stay in the positive for a lot of sessions.

As with any system, if you start with losses, you can also go into the hole quite a bit.  A little luck is necessary in any gambling.

As for betting 3 corners instead of 2 corners, I don't think it will make a lot of difference long-term.  It will mean more hits of smaller wins.  Fewer losses of larger loss.  Kind of balances itself out in my opinion.

I have even thought of going to 4 corners for longer streaks of wins, but then even bigger units lost on a loss.

Maybe using Victor's LW's would give us a sense of when to bet.  Such as begin betting after any W and stop after a L.  Slows things down a bit, but is usually a lot safer.

What do you guys think?

George

[Carsch]

Ok, i'm giving up on this one. I did another test betting only after a win, and I ran into another long losing streak (15 consecutive losses). I didn't try the method exactly as described by George..................but.............well.

As for 3 corners, I started testing last night..............hmmmmm, I don't know. I could continue the test some other time..............if I don't get side tracked with other ideas.  

[GLC]

Ok, i'm giving up on this one. I did another test betting only after a win, and I ran into another long losing streak (15 consecutive losses). I didn't try the method exactly as described by George..................but.............well.

As for 3 corners, I started testing last night..............hmmmmm, I don't know. I could continue the test some other time..............if I don't get side tracked with other ideas.  

Carsch,

I understand completely.  This was just an idea I had.  I tested it a few times with very good results so I thought I would post it and see if it had any legs.  Had I tested it and had the bad luck you've had, I would have never given it a second thought.  That's the way roulette systems work.

I fully expect you to get side-tracked with other ideas.  There are plenty of them out there right now.

I, myself, am getting side-tracked with other ideas.

Good Luck to ya,

George

[albalaha]

Dear George and Carsch,
               I think this system is very sound one but need tweaks. Carsch, never get blind with any system or method. If you keep betting endlessly, you are bound to lose whatever you earned so far. I suggest these tweaks:
1.shifting from 3rd column and 1st column in every bet
2. Leave only those corners whose all four numbers did not hit for long, like numbers from 2nd dozen is not appearing, then 2 corners left could be from there. Pick another to leave seeing its non-appearance. Leaving 3 corner bets will give best results because 12 numbers can become sleeper for any point of time.
3.Try this method on Betvoyager no zero roulette because RNG generates numbers and has nothing to do with sectors etc., hence any method of betting on table works better with RNG while betting upon the layout of the wheel(call bets et) works better with Live casino. This is my personal experience.
4. Keep the 6 step non-progression game and see the profit or loss within that time strictly because any event which is due should averagely happen once within its break-even point and if it goes double above it, it is called "STREAK" and if it does not occur within two break-even points, it can well be termed as "SLEEPERS".Here, since we are leaving 12 numbers unbet, its break-even point is 3, i.e. it should come once in 3 times to be regular numbers, if it appears more, it is streak and if none amongst them appear for 6 times, the group is sleeper for that moment. We are using this bet selection considering those numbers as sleepers, but if they appear more frequently, we should not bet more than 6 times.

5. Place 3 chips on the column and 1 each on three corner bets, total initial bet =6 units;
if we win on any of our selected bets, we will be 3 units ahead. In case, none hits then a loss of 6 units. This way, I think, the game will go better than betting on two dozens or columns and can be done by flat betting also. Since, upon every bet we are leaving only sleepers, we should have better odds than playing two dozens or columns.

6. This method will work only when a particular group of numbers shows sleeper trends, hence the betting should be started after seeing sleeper trends.

[GLC]

AL,

That was quite a meaty post.

I will have to take some time to digest it thoroughly.

I think you made some excellent points.

Thanks for your encouragement.

George

[albalaha]

George,
               Can't we team up to create something great? I keep doing research work on various styles of progressions,bet selections, triggers, stop losses and loss recovery. I think you are in USA. Can you join me on skype? my skype name is :Sumiteshwar.

[Carsch]

Carsch,

I understand completely.  This was just an idea I had.  I tested it a few times with very good results so I thought I would post it and see if it had any legs.  Had I tested it and had the bad luck you've had, I would have never given it a second thought.  That's the way roulette systems work.

Oh i understand, George. After all, all we're doing is sharing our ideas on this board whether or not they really work. And who knows, with your original idea another person could have improved it or come up with something else..............well, this is what it's all about.

I'm glad you shared, for that's the idea.

[Carsch]

Al, i'll do some tests with your ideas. Give me sometime. I'll let you know.

[GLC]

George,
               Can't we team up to create something great? I keep doing research work on various styles of progressions,bet selections, triggers, stop losses and loss recovery. I think you are in USA. Can you join me on Skype? my Skype name is :Sumiteshwar.

Al,

Thanks for the interest.

I don't do Skype.

I don't join teams.

Everything I do is straight up and for everybody's benefit.

Like I said, as I get a chance, I will do some testing on your ideas  to see if they make a real difference.

I like Atlantis' method of system development, where all who are interested can see all the suggestions, tweaks, etc... and can input their own ideas.  If we come up with a winner, great.  It's there and available for all to benefit from.

Not a bad way to do it if you ask me.

George

[albalaha]

Ok. so far I have tried 3 testers but it seems they just want to know the magical formula. They started commenting upon my methods like a pro without even bothering to test it. If you can test my methods seriously, with applying your own tweaks and without sharing till it finalises, email me.

[Carsch]

Al, mind if i ask; what is the difference in you testing your systems and someone else testing them? Well, unless the other person has a better way to do it. Personally, i do everything by hand. 

Cheers

[Carsch]

Ok, i did a quit test with (50 spins) the way you suggested, Al. Quite impressive.

I was only flatbetting and within 50 spins i was ahead 37 units. I was ahead 40 units by the 40th spin.

I wasn't sure whether you wanted to follow with a progression. I'll finish the test tomorrow and i'll post it here.

[F_LAT_INO]

Al,

Thanks for the interest.

I don't do Skype.

I don't join teams.

Everything I do is straight up and for everybody's benefit.

Like I said, as I get a chance, I will do some testing on your ideas  to see if they make a real difference.

I like Atlantis' method of system development, where all who are interested can see all the suggestions, tweaks, etc... and can input their own ideas.  If we come up with a winner, great.  It's there and available for all to benefit from.

Not a bad way to do it if you ask me.

George

Good on you George,
Same approach here.