Testing of Easy Peasy

[ati]

I was reading old posts, and one system caught my attention. It is the Easy Peasy system originally posted by Atlantis in this thread. link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=13137.msg113218#msg113218

There were lots of positive feedback, and I read that GreatGrampa also played it with very nice results, 110 sessions won out of 127, so I thought I give it a try and share my results.
I am trying to play exactly the same way as Grampa did. His post and example session can be found here link:://betselection.cc/general-discussion/ec-line-and-quad-cycle

Twocatsam's live recording link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=DVaQYvxqmUA

A short summary of the method:
- if the last number is black odd or red even, we bet 2 units on high, 1 unit on the 3rd double street
- if the last number is red odd or black even, we bet 2 units on low, 1 unit on the 4th double street
- on a single loss, we increase the bet on the EC by 1 unit
- after two consecutive losses we increase the bet on the DS by 1 unit
- mini games played within a session, so if we reach 3 units profit in a mini game, we reset all progression
- session BR is 100 units, win target is 100 units

I'm using Grampa's excel to track my play. It doesn't look as nice though. Please note that for now, I only test with no zero roulette.
My practice, and first session was played with numbers generated within excel.
It went really well, there was one bigger draw down, but I recovered and reached the 100 units profit in 230 spins.



The full session is attached to this post. The red line indicates the end of the mini games, when the +3 units profit has been reached. There is always a new tracking bet after a mini game's target has been reached. If the bets are not clear, please feel free to ask.

Also, please don't try to prove why it won't work. This forum and betselection was full of personal attacks in the past year, and barely any roulette content. I'm not saying this is a winning method and can be proved mathematically. I am doing this, because I'm tired of reading about roulette every day, while I don't play at all.

[ati]

The next practice session I played on Betvoyager's no zero roulette in fun mode.

It started really well, then followed by huge swings and big bets. I was very close to lose my session BR, but I recovered, and eventually reached the 100 units profit in 207 spins.



Full session record is attached to this post.

[ati]

To make things more exciting, I started playing for real money on BV NZ.  This can assure you that I don't make up things, and there are no curve fittings.

Well, what can I say... I failed.
I almost lost the session bank roll at the beginning, then bad things happened again after spin 225.



Grampa says that no more than 250 spins should be played in a session. I would have ended up with profit if I stopped at 250, but I kept playing to see what happens.
I couldn't recover, and I made a mistake at spin 265 that cost me 21 units, so it was time to quit.

Hopefully my next real money test will go better.

[ati]

Second real money test has also failed badly. 

In the last game, out of 42 bets only 21 won....that is 50% on 24 numbers.

[atlantis]

Hi,

Have fun - but remember the "easy peasy" is for real roulette only (live dealer or live autowheel; single 0) I would not play on rng or BVnz!

A.

[atlantis]

Hi,

Have fun - but remember the "easy peasy" is for real roulette only (live dealer or live autowheel; single 0) I would not play on rng or BVnz!

A.

Also I think the 'color methodology' work better on real roulette + use the "handbrake" option.

A.

[ati]

I think I'll have to give up on this. I should have known that I'm not as lucky as Grampa or Sam.   Sam played it with â,¬1 units on rng and won hundreds, Grampa won 32/46 sessions on BV rng, which is at least 1800 units profit.

Attached is the combined graph of my real money test. Although it's only a little more than 700 spins, I lost 300 units, so I'm not comfortable playing more.

I will probably do some virtual tests on Wiesbaden spins to see if there is any difference.

[ati]

I quickly came to the final conclusion: This is a waste of time.

I have tested against live spins, and it performed much worse than on no zero rng. The graph speaks for itself. Spins are from Wiesbaden 01/Sept, tables 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Now Grampa's claim that he won 78 out of 81 sessions in real casino play is something I don't believe anymore. I've lost 8 sessions straight. But it's possible that I'm the unluckiest person ever.