• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

WARNING: Forums often contain bad advice & systems that aren't properly tested. Do NOT believe everything. Read these links: The Facts About What Works & Why | How To Proplerly Test Systems | The Top 5 Proven Systems | Best Honest Online Casinos

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Beating roulette with math..

Started by Fripper, Dec 31, 09:26 AM 2010

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nickmsi

 Superman . . .My longest losing streak was so long my fingers got tired and I stopped counting.
It is very difficult to do this manually and as a former programmer the bot is absolutely the best way to test and develop any system.


I'm convinced that a bot utilizing inside numbers is the best way to tame RNG, whether it be Excel's RandBetween(0,36) or BV's check sum.


You already have a bot testing inside numbers and are in the advanced testing stages of money management which is the heart and soul of most systems.


I would like to develop a similar bot and hopefully solve the money management, which I can't do unless I have something to analyze.   But to do so, I was hoping you could help me advise my programmer what variables to be coded and what pit falls to avoid.


For example, we would need a variable for


(     ) # of spins in each cycle


you would enter whatever number to be tested (40, 80 spins, 111 etc.) but have you found that the spin cycle(sounds like washing clothes) should be Continuous(spin # 1-40 is a cycle, spin #2-41 is another cycle, 3-42 etc) or Static (spin #1-40 is first cycle then re-track and 41-80 next cycle)? Can I avoid programming for one of these or do we need both?


Any other tips, suggestions for my programmer would be appreciated.


Regarding the money management of your system, it is hard to make any suggestions without knowing the nature of your results.  Are they choppy, streaky, balanced?  Have you tried a LW Register, or are they applicable to a Divisor 6 or other similar, or would positive progression of a partial parlay that locks in profit, or would a negative progression of a gradual loss recovery be more applicable.  I have a gradual loss recovery system for a bot but won't work with a betting unit of $.01 as your next increase is $.02 which is double and that is not gradual.  It may work with a betting unit of $.10 or $.25.


I apologize if this is off topic but there is not many members who can assist in programming bots.
Thanks





































Don't give up . . . . .Don't ever give up.

superman

I don't really want to get into a coding Q & A but if I was you I would psuedo it for your programmer person, write down what you want to put in, IE

track for x

check tracked x for y

if y = > < whatever you think

do this

As I said I am still running tests with different amounts of tracking, so far there is nothing that stands out above anything else as far as hit/loss rate is concerned. I have had good results with tracking 24 also good results with tracking 40 spins, Just working my way up the scale.

If the runs of losses can be kept around 1 or 2 most of the time, the odd 3 or 4 can and will come so the MM again is what really needs concentraing on, as with all bet selections, you can have a 75% strike rate but still have losing runs of 7 or 8, which you know can go up to 9 or 10. I just run until either the bet gets too steep, trying to keep it under 50 units, or it goes t1ts up and then I move on to something else.

I've been here many times before so never get my hopes up to much, we can only test until it not viable then either bin it or shelve it.
There's only one way forward, follow random, don't fight with it!

Ignore a thread/topic that mentions 'stop loss', 'virtual loss' and also when a list is provided of a progression, mechanical does NOT work!

Nickmsi

Thanks Superman . . .  if you need a fresh set of eyes to look at creating a good money management for your inside bet system, just send me some results and be happy to tinker  . .  . Nick
Don't give up . . . . .Don't ever give up.

Fripper

Bumping this for the new people who might be interested.
All i'm doing is living my life.

GLC

Quote from: Fripper on Feb 21, 01:09 PM 2013
Bumping this for the new people who might be interested.


Nice call Fripper.  I refer people to this baby all the time when they're interested in labbies.


GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

Fripper

An old link may be broken as someone pointed out.
How to play with a labby.

Here's the link:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=6451.msg60743#msg60743
All i'm doing is living my life.

GLC


Hi Fripper,  It's good to see interest in this method again.


When trying to increase you odds of winning by playing a standard 2 step or 3 step marty, why not see how a modified 3 step marty performs.


Here's the progression


1,1,2


2,2,4


3,3,6


4,4,8


etc... 




The starting number in the 3 bet set will be determined by the labby line.


Of course we would still add the 3 numbers together and divide by 3 for expanding the labby line.


An advantage this might have over the marty is that if you lose the 1st bet and win the 2nd bet, you're even and can re-bet the 1st number in the set again.  The same thing for losing the 1st and 2nd bet and winning the 3rd bet in the set.  This could really reduce our number of losses in a row.


Granted we only win if we win the 1st bet of a set, but in the long run, this might be acceptable given the fact that we should be able to keep the bet sizes lower.


GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

Fripper

Yes GLC, a nice idea.

I know we experimented alot with how to end the labby, because using martingale can be kind a risky. But we tried with many different things, like 2 wins in a row ends the labby, or 3 wins in a row ends the labby etc..
This helps the betting size to stay down, but it takes longer to end the labby.
All i'm doing is living my life.

MrG

Hello, this topic attracted my attention. I would like to ask if you play this system and how it goes? Have you lost with it?

MrG

Probably dead topic, but... What I understood from studying this system is that at the end of the labby we play martingale, or modified martingale as belgian suggested. What I don't understand is what is the difference between playing martingale (or modified martingale) after doing all those things with labby in comparison to playing martingale (or the modified version) right from the beginning. Maybe there is some difference that I just don't see. Can someone explain?

Fripper

Quote from: MrG on Apr 19, 05:08 PM 2013
Probably dead topic, but... What I understood from studying this system is that at the end of the labby we play martingale, or modified martingale as belgian suggested. What I don't understand is what is the difference between playing martingale (or modified martingale) after doing all those things with labby in comparison to playing martingale (or the modified version) right from the beginning. Maybe there is some difference that I just don't see. Can someone explain?
The topic is as dead as people make it. There is still many interested in this.


Yes a martingle was one way to end the labby, however there was also a number of different ways to end it. Martingle can as you say, get pretty risky and the bets run away quickly. So it gets down to a personal choice.


I can honestly say that it is a big difference between playing a labby and just a martingale. Try out the horror sessions here in the thread and see what bets you get when playing with the martingale.


Cheers
All i'm doing is living my life.

vundarosa

Fellas,

Just to see how i goes, i tested this with dozen one (1).
need to see how it does with a long sleep of the dozens.
as seen from the last bets, it can get steep sometimes, but then one can split the units so as to continue betting small amounts.
plus, with the 2/1 you don't need to clear the whole labby to be in a new plus.

vundarosa

MrG

Quote from: Fripper on Apr 29, 11:29 AM 2013
The topic is as dead as people make it. There is still many interested in this.


Yes a martingle was one way to end the labby, however there was also a number of different ways to end it. Martingle can as you say, get pretty risky and the bets run away quickly. So it gets down to a personal choice.


I can honestly say that it is a big difference between playing a labby and just a martingale. Try out the horror sessions here in the thread and see what bets you get when playing with the martingale.


Cheers

I didnt express myself clear enough. I didnt mean what is the difference in playing those horror sessions with martingale from the beginning, but generaly to start playing roulette with martingale from the beginning. Because if you are ending labby with martingale you can start playing martingale with chip value for example 10 and RFH can happen at that time, because we never know when bad streak can come. But if I play martingale from the beginning, than Im playing with chip value 1 and have still the same chance of RFH but with much lower stakes.

You mention also other ways of ending labby than martingale. Can you describe those ways?

Also if I see correctly you were not able to clear the set of numbers where there are only 65 of one colour in 200 spins. Or you were able to clear it but with very, very high stakes. Have you found a solution to this? I think that in one of the posts here someone showed a possible solution.

MrG

Quote from: vundarosa on May 23, 11:41 PM 2013
Fellas,

Just to see how i goes, i tested this with dozen one (1).
need to see how it does with a long sleep of the dozens.
as seen from the last bets, it can get steep sometimes, but then one can split the units so as to continue betting small amounts.
plus, with the 2/1 you don't need to clear the whole labby to be in a new plus.

vundarosa

Not sure I know what you mean. You applied this style of play to playing dozens? Well, to bet only on one dozen?

Blue_Angel

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 30, 07:06 AM 2011So at least you admit that past spins CAN be an indicator of future results? if that weren't the case what would be the point of 'looking back' at all? Taking your point to its logical conclusion, it might seem that making a faithful record of all spins ever spun on a given wheel might be the key to success! 

If past spins don't make sense to you then how do you determine the degrees of SD's ?
SD's are statistical fact, play against it and you'll lose, play for it and you'll win.
The bet limits (spread between min & max) are way lower than variance's limits, even if you could afford a huge BR and willing to risk it all it wouldn't be sufficient.
Consider SD's as the natural effect of variance, it's a force of nature, we don't have to control it but to unleash it!

-