Beating roulette with math..

[Fripper]

What do you mean by cell #391 ? It's just a win on red?

Yes, it seems that you are doing everything right.
Maybe a few small mistakes.
At cell 435 you did bet red without the serie of black had ended. Always wait until the serie breaks.


At cell 413 you did forget to take away the last two zero's.


Otherwise it's looking good I think. I can look over it more tomorrow when I have more time.
Good job on keeping the bets low.


Not sure what you mean on cell 434...

[aleks06]

thx for your time

I did some mistakes at the end I got tired.

I will try bayes horror sessions

[Fripper]

Thanks for your time

I did some mistakes at the end I got tired.

I will try bayes horror sessions

No problem.

Try to never get tired If you do, stop playing and come back another time. It's the best way.  That is, if you have ended the current labby  

Yes do so. I will continue to test his sessions later this weekend. I have had much to do last days, but now I am good.

[Fripper]

I read one of Belgians post again to seek some clarification.

I found this:
"if 9 imaginary zero's are replaced by figures, the next loss bet has to be divided between the figures 9starting from the lowest ones."

So if we have no zero's left and lose a bet, we divide that loss and put it on all the figures?
Like 1 unit on all or 2 units on all. Depending on the amount of the loss.

What do you guys think?

This could be a thing to keep the bets even lower.

[aleks06]

hey fripper,

I was thinking about that yesterday doing bayes horror session.

I think its a good idea, I will test it.

[Bayes]

Here's another approach you might like to try, taken from Norman Squire's book "How to win at Roulette". Note that it was written in the 1960s and talks about the old currency (I'm too young to remember it myself).

[attachthumb=#1]
[attachthumb=#2]
[attachthumb=#3]

[aleks06]

Hey fripper, I ve just completed the first bayes horror session (bet red)

I start playing with "new rule" cell#127

+11 231 spins

biggest DD : -206
biggest bet : 46

easy

[GLC]

Here's another approach you might like to try, taken from Norman Squire's book "How to win at Roulette". Note that it was written in the 1960s and talks about the old currency (I'm too young to remember it myself).

Brother Bayes,

I have been studying that section in Squire's book on the Longest Haul and don't really understand how this method really helps keep your bets lower.

If I understand him correctly, he's betting 5 units (house minimum) until his standard labby shows that he needs to bet 6 or higher and then he bets 10 units until his standard labby shows that he needs to bet 11 or higher and then he bets 15 units etc...

Can you explain how you understand it for me?

Thanks,

George

[Fripper]

Hey fripper, I ve just completed the first bayes horror session (bet red)

I start playing with "new rule" cell#127

+11 231 spins

biggest DD : -206
biggest bet : 46

easy

Hi there

Nicely done. You can look at reply 68 in this thread to see how I did it. That was a while ago and I think I can play it even better now, that is with some new rules that we have come up with.


Keep 'em coming!

[Fripper]

@Bayes and all

Session 3

This is session 3 of Bayes "horror" sessions provided in this thread.

Did bet odd.

85 odd, 141 even

I played until spin 226 because of the last labby didn't end before 200 spins. (I could have just stopped after the 4th labby at spin 165)

+1 in 76 spins, ended first labby
+2 in 105 spins, ended second labby
+4 in 141 spins, ended third labby
+5 in 165 spins, ended forth labby
+7 in 226 spins, ended fifth labby

Highest bet: 126 units
Lowest point: -250 units

Both Excel file and the whole RX file is attached.


Cheers

[Bayes]

I have been studying that section in Squire's book on the Longest Haul and don't really understand how this method really helps keep your bets lower.

Can you explain how you understand it for me?

Hi George,
To be honest, I haven't actually tried the method, I thought I understood it, but maybe I don't. 

From the example given in the book, it seems to keep your bets lower, but could you not achieve the same thing by merely using a "normal" labby and starting with lower stakes? probably.

I'll work through a few examples in detail and start a new thread on the topic. One other technique which Squire covers (page 146 - "Reduction of the split martingale line") is useful in keeping your bets lower, but not that easy to implement in a B & M casino unless you're a whiz at mental arithmetic.

[Fripper]

First I want to notify about my last post. (reply 114)
I attached two excel files instead of one excel and one RX-file.
I will attach the right RX-file here if anyone is interested.

Session 4
This is session 4 of Bayes "horror" sessions provided in this thread.

Did bet even.

114 odd, 69 even

+4 in 69 spins, ended first labby
+12 in 120 spins, ended second labby
+19 in 186 spins, ended third labby

Highest bet : 68 units
Lowest point : -185 units

Both RX files and excel file attached.  

[aleks06]

Session 5

profit : 16units

203 spins

highest bet : 28u

lowest point : -55

[Fripper]

Well done.

I will try it out to, some day.

[Fripper]

So far this seems to good to be true, but who knows?
We have to test more and more.

Still we have cleared 5 of bayes 11 "horror" sessions that is the worst in 700000 wiesbaden spins. The hardest one have been cleared as well.

I'm not sure that this is the hardest session for the labby tho.
I have some thoughts about some hard sessions on my own. But that's just a thought.

Now, if we say we use a bankroll of 1000 and we lose it like 3 times in 700000 spins. That is a loss of 3000 units.

If we say we net 0.20 units per spin as I do at the moment in real play.
Example:
0.20* 500k = +100000 units

There are even more ways to use the labby to keep the bets low and so on.
We can also use 15 zero's and a one.
Or even 65 zero's and a one as Belgian said.
Ofcourse the wins will be much smaller.

Just some thoughts..