Author's System

[GLC]

As long as we are winning with a flat bet, then I'll stay with it.  If we discover that we aren't winning, but are staying pretty close to even, then I think a mild progression may help some.

Here's how I am going to play.  I will use your same formula.  2 unit win target and -10 unit stop loss.  As long as I am winning my 2 units, I will add them to my profit total.  The 1st time I lose 10 units, I will write them down as five 2's:

2  2  2  2  2 

I now play for 2 unit bets instead of 1 unit bets.  I set my new win target at 4 units and my stop loss at 20 units.  Every time I win a session, I will have won 4 units and I will cross off two of the 2's.  If I win 3 times without losing, I will have recovered all 10 lost units plus I'll be up 2 units.  I will then drop back down to my 1 unit flat bet until I lose another 10 unit session again.

If I reach -20 while betting 2 units per bet, I'll write down five 4's to the right of any remaining 2's. 

2  2  4  4  4  4  4

I will continue to bet 2 units per spin until I have crossed off all five 2's.  The extra 2 units will go into my profit total.  I will then start betting at 3 units per bet.

4  4  4  4  4 

My new win target will be 6 units and my stop loss will be 30 units. Every time I reach a 6 unit win target, I will cross off 1 1/2  4's.  I will continue to do this for 4 wins of 6 units at which time I will have recovered all 20 lost units and be 4 units to the good.

If I lose while betting 3 units, I will write down five 6's to the right of any 4's not yet recovered. 

4  6  6  6  6  6 

I will continue to bet 3 units per bet until I have recovered all lost 4's and then I will start betting 5 units per bet to recover the 6's.  Etc...

With as good a hit rate as we need to win 6 times for every loss, (this is our win rate to stay ahead with a flat bet)  this mild progression should never get out of control.  Testing will tell us how much reserve capital we need to weather a losing spell.

My progression will be 1-2-3-5-7-9-11.  This is based on my idea of playing mini-games under a global game umbrella.  You could use the Alembert progression of +1 unit larger bet size on a loss.  Minus 1 unit bet size on a win.  Remember this win is actually five 2 unit wins which balance 1 loss.    Do this until you reach a new high bank balance and then revert to 1 unit bets or our base bet level until another session loss.

Hope this makes sense.  I'd test it before I tried it for real money but I think it should work to increase our units-won-per-spin ratio.

Cheers,

GLC

[crownroyal]

Sounds like a very good plan, George.

[GLC]

CR,

I've been testing this method and I think I'm going to drop by session down to win target=+1 and stop loss=-5.  It's basically the same thing just cut in half.  Makes tracking my mini-games a little cleaner.

Cheers

[monaco]

Would you say that different bet selections, eg. this Authors System, bring the wins & losses differently than other selections, ie. just betting red or black?

I read in another thread, & I think it was actually GLC that wrote it, that the thing to aim for is marry the right bet selection to the right mm for best results, suggesting that different bet selections can affect the way results come.
It seems to me that this Authors System delivers a fairly even distribution of wins with losses, ie. not too streaky, as opposed to betting say just for reds, where you could get a string of 8 blacks, followed by a single red, followed by another 5 blacks, followed by 2 reds, followed by 6 blacks.. in my experience of using this system, I have not encountered such long losing streaks (that is to say, the losses, albeit probably the same amount in total, are distributed more evenly)

I think what I am asking is (after having read Bayes brilliant thread on standard deviation) â€" does bet selection conclusively affect the z score?? Although I could be wrong…



I specifically ask, because if yes, then this method wouldn’t be the best for something like say the 6 point divisor, as mentioned earlier in this thread, as to really win from that, clusters of wins are better than even distribution (the same would also apply to my EC Method posted in the Testing Zone, which would really benefit from clusters of wins as the flat betting could handle clusters of losses).

For a simple mid-length Martingale however, an even sprinkling of wins & losses is exactly what we want. No long losing streaks..

So possibly a thought was to try the Authors Method applied to a 6 stage martingale 1-2-4-8-16-32… if losing 63units down. (I’ve been doing this the last couple of days, & haven’t actually got to the 32 yet, while being up 80 units.)
When it does lose though, to recover, I’ve thought about splitting this drawdown in to 6 groups of 10, & using Hermes 4x4 Drive with the Leveller to get them back 1 group at a time, beginning on 10-20-40-40 etc..

[GLC]

I know, you thought this baby was dead, but good systems never die they just take a nap.  In this case a pretty long nap.

We will be using the same selections of Same as Last vs Opposite the Last.

Our new progression will be 1-2-2-3-5 instead of 1-2-3-6 or 1-2-4-8 or 1-3-7-15 or whatever.

If lose        Bet          If Win
-1               1              +1
-3               2              +1
-5               2               -1
-8               3               -2
-13             5               -3

We start with Same then Opposite then Same then Opposite then Same.  This gives us 5 shots at winning instead of 4.  If you want, you can stay with 4 shots and just eliminate the 5 unit bet.

We start with Same and every time we win we start over with 1 unit.  Since most of our wins will be on one of the first two bets, we should still stay ahead of the losses on the 3rd, 4th and 5th bets.

If we lose 5 bets in a row, we move to the next level.  Our level line looks like this: 1-2-3-5-7-10-15-22 etc...  We stay at a level until we fully recover all losses or we reach a new high bank and reset back to the 1 unit level.  We multiply our unit size at each level by the 5 steps in our bet progression.  So, if we're at the 5 unit level our 5 bets will be 5-10-10-15-25.

In Same mode, we always play Same after a win.  That means we will always start a new 5 bet attack betting for Same as Last.  So, if we win and we were betting Red, we bet for Red to start the next 5 bet attack.

We always start a 5 bet attack playing for Same until we lose 5 bets in a row.  We then increase our level and switch to starting our attack with Opposite.  Always start with Opposite until you lose 5 bets in a row.  Then switch back to Same, etc...  This helps us catch the current trend for a win if it lasts long enough.

This one's coming in under the radar.  Don't miss out.


GLC

[Turner]

@monaco.....excellent question. I wouldnt paint a door with a 1" brush.
Then theres the flatino approach where you can use the same bet selection with a humungous BR

[GLC]

Would you say that different bet selections, e.g.. this Authors System, bring the wins & losses differently than other selections, ie. just betting red or black?

I read in another thread, & I think it was actually GLC that wrote it, that the thing to aim for is marry the right bet selection to the right mm for best results, suggesting that different bet selections can affect the way results come.
It seems to me that this Authors System delivers a fairly even distribution of wins with losses, ie. not too streaky, as opposed to betting say just for reds, where you could get a string of 8 blacks, followed by a single red, followed by another 5 blacks, followed by 2 reds, followed by 6 blacks.. in my experience of using this system, I have not encountered such long losing streaks (that is to say, the losses, albeit probably the same amount in total, are distributed more evenly)

I think what I am asking is (after having read Bayes brilliant thread on standard deviation) â€" does bet selection conclusively affect the z score?? Although I could be wrong…



I specifically ask, because if yes, then this method wouldn’t be the best for something like say the 6 point divisor, as mentioned earlier in this thread, as to really win from that, clusters of wins are better than even distribution (the same would also apply to my EC Method posted in the Testing Zone, which would really benefit from clusters of wins as the flat betting could handle clusters of losses).

For a simple mid-length Martingale however, an even sprinkling of wins & losses is exactly what we want. No long losing streaks..

So possibly a thought was to try the Authors Method applied to a 6 stage martingale 1-2-4-8-16-32… if losing 63units down. (I’ve been doing this the last couple of days, & haven’t actually got to the 32 yet, while being up 80 units.)
When it does lose though, to recover, I’ve thought about splitting this drawdown in to 6 groups of 10, & using Hermes 4x4 Drive with the Leveller to get them back 1 group at a time, beginning on 10-20-40-40 etc..

Monaco,  I'm sorry that I never responded to your question.  Although, I notice that nobody else did either.

The author's bet selection method is quit simple and as good as any.  Even though it does seem to distribute the wins vs losses evenly most of the time, I have had a couple of 10 and 11 losses in a row.

My comment about using the leveler to recover losses is, why not use it all the time if you have that much confidence in it?

A comment on my last bet post is that it's somewhat of a grind and I don't know if it's much of an improvement over a flat bet.  Given the lower risk of a flat bet, that may be preferable. 


GLC

[GLC]

My reasoning for waiting until a color change to start betting is  because RBBR is the color sequence that can kill us.  So, if we wait until a color change and we bet for (S)ame, we will be on the right step if the terrible twos show. 

The following is all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (S)ame.

r rrr  We win our 1st bet (S)
r rrb  We win 1st bet (S)
r rbb  W 1st (S)
r rbr   W 1st (S)
r bbb  Win 3rd bet S O S
r bbr   Lose on all 3 bets S O S
r brr   Win 2nd bet S O S
r brb  Win 2nd bet S O

These are all possibilities not counting zero when we start betting (O)pposite.

r rrr   W on 2nd bet  O S
r rrb   W on 2nd bet  O S
r rbb   L on all 3 bets
r rbr   W on 3rd bet (O) (S) (O)
r bbb  W on 1st bet (S)
r brr   W on 1st bet (O)
r brb  W on 1st bet (O)
r brb  W on 1st bet (O)

Can you see something that can help increase our odds?

Geo

Please note that the Red words are corrections to the original post.

Sorry that I didn't correct this much earlier.

GLC