Something old anew

[TRD]

Code Select Expand

rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=28116.msg251449;topicseen#msg251449

This idea goes waaaayyyy back to dyslexic himself...it was me actually debating with him and gave this example which is when he promptly deleted his thread...i was a newbie then known as commonsense 1968 ..here is the only known screenshot of my reply ...and of the thread

6th,
I've looked into your quote before (18+0 enclosed sytem), but from Dycksexlick's system concept type; now I've transformed it into Vaddi type.

I've developed the concept along the way, last ≈ +100 spins being the latest version.


Check the link

Code Select Expand

roulette-simulator.info/en/game/92ce2fe265ababcf81a93ba6f083f132


I began with a notion of -- what if the 18+0 field is not static =H/L sides, but the game dictates its formation as it unfolds; practically speaking the 0 itself + the first 18 numbers spun  form the first half;

I also use the EC guaard, as I call it, here since having three times  2x EC obviously not protecting the spread invested on each spin thus not enclosing the game Dycksexlick-style, but almost miraculously performing its job & purpose -- position determined otg simply using the trend of repeats & chops on either of the three EC pairs.


First off I intended playing two 18+0 games staggered & luckily met on the first cycle 17 uniques in a row, including the guaard not performing well (I just hate testing when the RS spits out favorable variance for a long time till finally, it shows what I am looking for in the first place, a very bad to the system-related sequence & show its worth). It got to the exposition of (-153) straightaway.

I continued with this exact style to see how the flat-bet performs, having even a parachute-style attack in mind to integrate, but postponed it on the notion of minimal profits vs potential higher drawdowns later on; surprisingly enough by spin 74, ≈60 spins later, it hit the (±0).

Upon that I decided to incorporate the winner progression, going along with it for a while, but me preferring the lower recoverable drawdowns vs high volatility  &  having no coding skills which are kind of required to test the 'enclosed Dycksexlick version' due to high betting amounts at each spin adding complexity to the calculations already in the manual testing I opted for .. Vaddi-style -- attack + block.

[TRD]

Now, we know that in million cycles tested 25 is the most till the first repeat, in ten that raises to 29,30.

Thereof, why don't I further reduce the size of 18+0  to  max 8 numbers per concurrent game, those games being staggered as one game reaches the full-size block & still not in the positive â†' otherwise restart; needless to mention flat-bet (≠Dycksexlick-enclosed-style requiring huge amounts, but Vaddi-style winning by attrition; since latter it makes all sense to keep the drawdowns as low as possible thus recoverable ←â†' flat-bet).

When reaching full-block of rolling-8-numbers continues till either in positive (or just slightly near zero, either restart or sum into the potential concurrent game) remove all of its associated positions from the board; another staggered, now concurrent, game commences it horizontal progression till full block.

Since having 25-30 spins as a threshold, the first hit should come when 3-4 concurrent games are onboard. This goes in line with DrTalos philosophy of tending to bet more numbers making when no-hit, making hits more frequent  & reducing'em after by removing either the resolved games or the whole sections off board, or just those positions of the game that isnhorizontally expanding towards full-block  -- effectively adding more unique numbers into the current game on each no-hit spin, & reducing a game once it resolves.

The hit profit, due to the guaard covering equally proportional positions to each (& all) of the games on each&every spin is for 8xSU numbers played per block either
35-7= 28 +8=  36 providing the guaard also hits
35-7= 28  -8=  20 otherwise
the drawdown being 16 on both no-hit.


In the last section of the game I've reduced the max block size to 7xSU;
in the context of the threshold -- 21 uniques are quite rare so 3x concurrent games suffice, in the case of going beyond that or none of 3x games resolving by then, 4x games max are onboard -- plus if the worst of the sequences would get materialized & hit on eg. 28th spin, one game would immediately drop off-board.
in the context of hit return +37 +22 -14, with better proportions.





The Zero
for a long while I've played all the games present being contingent on Zero, having more units than the rest in case of its hits resolving all the games providing the guaard hits to .. but decided later favoring coverage.

Zero is still & always covered, being a starting point of every new high or to be really precise at each point all three games resolve.

If one of the games that has associated zero position resolves, when erasing other positions it would be added to one of continuing games.





Borderline exposition
of 1st hit were to come on either 25th or 30 spin the exposition would be

25th spin
1st game   --   28+(18*14)= -280
2nd game  --  28+( 11*14)= -182
3rd game   --  28+(   3*14)= -70
The worst case scenario on spin25 is  (-532+14)(-518) + whatever the hit amount is randing from  (+37 to +22);  = (-498 or 481). Ain't that bad, innit?

30th spin
1st game   --   28+(23*14)= -350
2nd game  --  28+(15*14)= -238
3rd game   --  28+(  9*14)= -154
4th game   --  2 spins,2+6= -8
The utmost worst at 30th spin first hit being;
(-750+14)(-736) + (22,37) â†'  -714, -699


Most importantly, that being true if not a single EC guuard position hits in 25 or 3o spins either;
thus you can expect those results of ≈ -500 & -700 substatially lower.

[TRD]

.

[TRD]

In case of the guaard performance being 50/50:

≈ -700+329= (-371)
≈ -500+224= (-276)

[6th-sense]

Trd that was only an example I gave dyslexic,,,his bet was mainly on the four number groups and and laying off on the ec,,,or other partition

The example I gave was a rudimentary one there was more involved

A basic example of the number group's is attached to the aykv8 tracker,,,my personal one that is attached to it on the right which ayk kindly did for me

[TRD]

6th, this has not been an attempt to reverse-engineer Dycksexlick, that requires coding due to overlays & huge progressions + its recalculations at each spin