Even Odds

[psimoes]

Here's the comparisons. 5 zeros in around 90 spins. Interesting enough, L3A+L2A+L1F still lose the least, with 4 losses in a row (1 zero included).

Edit - I realize I have been automatically charting zeros as losses without putting much thought on it. When L3A+L2A or whatever don't agree on the next outcome, we don't bet. If the next outcome is zero, we avoid the loss.

Also, why not bet (or no bet) according to L2+L1 only? Comparison attached. Same session.

[psimoes]

...

[psimoes]

Sorry, last comparison updated and attached for future reference.

Betting L2F+L1F  and L2F+L1A look very promising. Maximum 3 losses in a row. This time some zeros were avoided with No Bet.

Possible outcomes:

EE(E)
  E(E)

OO(O)
   O(O)

EO(E)
  O(O)

OE(O)
   E(E)

[atlantis]

Hi psimoes,

Another way using a Grid Matrix of 3x3 using:  L3a+L2a formula

Track 9 results to start

Base betting decisions the same except VERTICALLY. Look at last 3 vertical in each column to decide bet using L3a+L2a methodology...

I also used the alternate switching idea with L3F+L2F if there are 2 L's in a row in a column (but only without any no bets in between the L's in that column)

OEE
EEO 
OOO   Initial matrix of 9 results for O/E
EEO    L;  nb;  nb                -1
EEE    W; W;  W                 +2
OOO   nb; nb; W                +3
OOO   W; W;  nb                +5
OOO   nb;  nb; nb               +5
OOE   L ;  L;   W                 +4
EEO   W;  W;  nb                +6 * stop here?
EEE   nb;  nb; L                  +5
EEE   nb;  nb; W                 +6
EOE   L;   W;  nb                +6
EOE   L;   nb;  L                 +4
OEE   L*;  nb;  L                 +2
EOE   nb;  nb; W*               +3
EEO   W;  L;    L                 +2
OEE   nb; W;  nb                 +3
EEE   nb;  nb; W                 +4
OOE  nb;  W;  nb                +5
OEE   W;  nb;  L                  +5 
OOE  nb;  L;    L                  +3
EEE   W;  L;    W*                +5
OEO   nb; L*;   L                  +2
OEO   W; nb;  nb                 +3

col1 registry:  LWWLWLLLWWWW
col2 registry:  WWLWWLWWLLL
col3 registry:  WWWLWLLWLWLLWL

W* AND L* show the switch bets won or lost using L3F+L2F combo formula.

I know its only a small sample. Thoughts?

A.

[bleep24]

I think that too many members are wanting to bet every spin and to make too much quickly.   slowly, slowly catchee monkey.   Albert Einstein (Fantastic person of many sayings) said do not expect to do the same thing over and over and get a different result.   I myself play chains of 4 on E/C`s.  Wait for 4 of any same - bet 1 unit - Stop.   Wait for next 4 of any same - bet 2 units etc. etc. or any staking plan you like.    I have found this method with 4 to be very sound and can average 8 to 10 units per hour  (Live play)   Because you are betting say 4 reds, then 4 high, then 4 odd etc. etc. you soon have a winner.   It may be slow and not very exciting but if you were playing say 1 unit = £5 
it can easily rack up decent winnings.

[psimoes]

Hi Atlantis

Great idea and great results. Flat-betting, a plus of 6u would be nice stopwin. If we can in fact move the wins and losses out of their clusters to a more regular distribution, and that matrix method looks very promising for that; then why not applying a 4-step marty? Even with the last losing run of the 2nd column, at the end of the session there would be a profit of 13 units.

As to the matrix method per se I think it does need more than one favourable session so we can test not only the overall results, but specifically if it diversifies the triggers. You see, with L3F+L2F the triggers are all the symmetrical runs of three OOO EEE EOE OEO. It does very well until it comes acros something like OEOOOEOOOE...

Another thought is L3A+L2A only seems to make sense when in conjunction with L1F otherwise a run of EEEEEEEE would kill it. This combination achieved the best results so far when tracking and betting in the conventional manner. Applying it to the matrix would mean putting it out of context, thus not taking real advantage of its "winning power". In other words it's kind of missing the point. Hence why changing to L3F+L2F seems to make sense after two Losses in a row as you applied to good effect.

Now, if we still need to change strategy to improve LW with the matrix, we have to question the usage of the matrix in the first place; why not going L3F+L2F until 2 Losses in a row then moving to L3A+L2A until another 2 losses in a row. Just to simplify the betting procedure... We wouldn't then need L1F/A since the safety break is already accounted.

IDK if this makes sense. Need coffee. BRB

[psimoes]

bleep24, we reached that conclusion a few pages back. Just one question: after 4 of the same, do you bet For or Against? Thanks and welcome to the thread.

Later.

[atlantis]

Hi psimoes,

Now, if we still need to change strategy to improve LW with the matrix, we have to question the usage of the matrix in the first place; why not going L3F+L2F until 2 Losses in a row then moving to L3A+L2A until another 2 losses in a row. Just to simplify the betting procedure... We wouldn't then need L1F/A since the safety break is already accounted.

OK. I think your idea is good. Will certainly try it that way -switching after 2 L's.

And I agree with bleep24 when he says  - there is no need to bet every spin. Even with the matrix notation idea we do not have to bet every spin. Also we do not need to play every column. In fact you could have partners playing another column each and each player playing their own progression...

As a progression you mentioned simple marti but maybe the "best of 5" or "best of 7" bets before +1/-1... or something like that or "guetting"?

A.

[psimoes]

Also we do not need to play every column. In fact you could have partners playing another column each and each player playing their own progression...

As a progression you mentioned simple marti but maybe the "best of 5" or "best of 7" bets before +1/-1... or something like that or "guetting"?

A.

Yes, a separate bank for each column! On progressions, everyone's afraid of the martingale and I never played it lighthearted myself. I did say 4-step but it's crazy. 1-2-3 or 1-2-4 STOP is more reasonable.

I think we should always look at the LW and choose the prog that fits better, instead of picking one that somebody said "it works OK". For example, something like LLLWLLWLLLW, a marty eats it for breakfast; for something like LLLLLLLLWWWWW, after a first virtual Win a Paroli works wonders.

On the matrix, we're just re-arranging the bets and random will probably catch up, sooner or later. So I propose testing in the following manner:

Instead of using random spins we'll see what series of outcomes make it win 100% and what series make it lose 100%. Always betting say L3F+L2F.

Then we will use the same series of outcomes to bet conventionally, again L3F+L2F. We will use different starting points until the WWWWWLLLLL overlap. If, at all. Then, we'd note the difference in spins and try to rotate the LW by say 90º.

It's a technique unrelated to roulette. It's kind of crazy trying to adapt it to the game but you never know.
It's about using two identical bet selections but starting them at different points. If they overlap at 0º or 360º we get double wins of units but also double units of losses. If we get to to shift by 180º the Wins are cancelled by the Losses. If we could make the LW to rotate by 90º, instead of this WWWWWLLLLL, we get this WLWLWLWLWL. Just an idea. I don't know if it's feasible.

Edit- made some corrections there. Will be out for a few hours. later.

[bleep24]

Hi Psimoes,

I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on.   My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin.  Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1   - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe.   The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.

Good Luck,     Bleep24       (Brian)

[atlantis]

Sorry, last comparison updated and attached for future reference.

Betting L2F+L1F  and L2F+L1A look very promising. Maximum 3 losses in a row. This time some zeros were avoided with No Bet.

Possible outcomes:

EE(E)
  E(E)

OO(O)
   O(O)

EO(E)
  O(O)

OE(O)
   E(E)

I agree  - the results on the sheet you posted in those 2 categories are good.
Should not be dismissed if it continues to hold up well.

A.

[psimoes]

Yeah, but it's only one session. There's some work to do. When I have the time I will run more tests.

Cheers.

[psimoes]

Hi Psimoes,

I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on.   My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin.  Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1   - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe.   The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.

Good Luck,     Bleep24       (Brian)

I think it's a fine method. Do you play this at a B&M casino, or online only? And do you have separate banks for all three ECs? What do you think of RBRB having the same chances to appear as RRRR or BBBB? Sorry for all the questions. Cheers.

[agesta]

Hi Psimoes,

I bet against the 4 chain continuing but only once and then wait for next 4 chain only once using whatever staking plan you are using.
Chains of 4 have to come to an end otherwise all these chains would be running on and on.   My experience is that about 50% end opposite at 5th spin.  Using something like Bread Winner or 1 1 1 1   - 2 2 2 2 etc. should be pretty safe.   The thing I like most is that we have 3 different to use so when reds for example are coming out in longer chains H/L or O/E give us the opportunity to make up any losses and vice versa.

Good Luck,     Bleep24       (Brian)

Hi!
Did a test of this i put my bets after a chain of 4 against continuing the chain like H,L,H,L bet L once, R,R,R,R bet B etc etc

wlllwwlllw
wl:lwlww
wwlwlwlwll
lwlwwll:
wlwllwwlww
27 w ,23 l
Nice!

agesta

[agesta]

Hi!
One more test.
lllllwl:
llwll:wl
wwllwllllw
wllllwlwlw
:lllwlll

29 l
21 w

agesta