Eggleston Betting Method 2.0

[Colbster]

I have fielded many questions concerning my original system for play based on the Eggleston Betting Method, and I have come to the realization that my previous method for implementing the mathematical advantage created by my staking system was flawed.  The problem that I have isolated is that, by only playing on new triggers, it fails to capitalize on the streaky nature of roulette.  When a choppy pattern emerged, numerous false triggers ate up a bankroll, especially during flat-betting, creating a hole that could not be overcome by the wins because I had set up a rule that only let you bet one trigger in a direction.  Many players brought this up to me, and so I have changed the system to incorporate the benefits of constant playing with my new system.  This created a problem where the program could be a loser with either chops (R-L-R-L-R-L) or the deadly doubles (R-R-L-L-R-R) when flat-betting.  Thus, my new system does not allow for flat-betting, but requires a progression.  For anyone who is not familiar with the concepts of my system, it is imperative that you familiarize yourself with the information I presented in the first posts of my previous thread, ââ,¬Å"The Eggleston Betting Methodââ,¬Â.

Rules for the new system:
ââ,¬Â¢   At the beginning of  a session, or following a zero, you begin by tracking the first spin(s) until a direction is indicated in the dozens, the columns, or both.  A move from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, or 3rd to 1st are ââ,¬Å"Rightââ,¬Â movements.  A move from 3rd to 2nd, 2nd to 1st, or 1st to 3rd are ââ,¬Å"Leftââ,¬Â movements.  We bet 1 unit on the last dozen spun and the next dozen in the direction of the previous movement.  For instance, if the dozens move from 3rd to 2nd, a Left move, we bet on 2nd (the last spun) and 1st (the next dozen to the left).
ââ,¬Â¢   If we get a repeat of the 2nd dozen, we pocket the profits and leave the bets on the table exactly as they were before.  We do this as long as the 2nd dozen continues to appear (or whatever the ââ,¬Å"repeatââ,¬Â dozen happens to be).
ââ,¬Â¢   If we get a win by a spin result in the 1st dozen, have a trigger for a new bet of 1 unit on the 1st dozen (last spun) and the 3rd (the next dozen to the left).  We continue making these adjustments as long as we continue to win.  If we have moved up the progression to a level higher than the 1st, we reset to the lowest level of our progression after the 1st win.  Every bet while we continue winning will be at the lowest level of the progression.
ââ,¬Â¢   If we lose by a spin result in the 3rd dozen, we have a new movement to the right.  This triggers a new bet of 3rd dozen (last spun) and 1st dozen (the next dozen to the right).  The loss moves up our progression one level as explained below in the section on the progression.  The results of this spin follow the rules as explained in the preceding bullet points.

Progression rules:
ââ,¬Â¢   We use a 1-2-4-8-16-32-64 progression.  We bet the same amount on both dozens played at all times.  After any win, we reset to level 1.  I play a no-zero roulette board online, so this progression is adequate.  If you play a board with 0 or 0/00, I suggest adding a lower level bet to the progression: .5-1-2-4-8-16-32-64 to compensate for the elevated risk of a loss, although this is not absolutely necessary.  Doing so will slow down the speed at which you get your wins.
ââ,¬Â¢   We use separate progressions for both left and right movements.  They are absolutely separate and totally independent of one another.  If you track both dozens and columns, you will have a total of 4 progressions at a time.  I keep a sheet of paper next to my computer with 4 rows, 7 columns, marked with the bet amounts.   I use a penny on each row to keep track of where I am in the progressions.
ââ,¬Â¢   Any win resets the bets FOR THAT DIRECTION ONLY.  Any loss will automatically move the bet level up to the next level for that direction.  This happens even if you have had 15 consecutive wins in that direction before the loss.  Every new direction trigger will always start at the 2nd level of the progression.  That is the reason why I have included the .5 unit bet as an option for more conservative play.
ââ,¬Â¢   When you lose on a bet, the progression moves up for the direction you were betting.  However, your loss triggers a new bet in the other direction, using the amount indicated by the new directions progression.  For instance, if your left progression is at 2 units, and your right progression is at 4 units, and you are betting to the right, a loss will move the right progression up to 8 units but your next bet will be 2 units to the left.  You only use the 8 units upon your next trigger to the right.
Notes on the progression:
I am fully aware that the typical martingale progression for 2-dozen betting is 1-3-9-27-81-243-729.  Those stakes rise too quickly to be practical, causing great damage to a bankroll and hitting the table limits too quickly to be of any real use.  I use the 50/50 progression, 1-2-4-8-16-32-64, just to stay in the game long enough to get my wins.  I know that this progression does not fully cover losses accumulated during a batch of chops.  However, it still allows for great gains based on the fact that repeats frequently happen at all levels of the progression.  With several repeats at the higher levels, you can end up with positive units, even after a total bust.  On the other hand, there will be times when you get a win at the higher levels without a single repeat along the way that will result in you losing units, even with a win.  If you have a repeat at the 8-unit level, this covers all the losses accrued up to that point, plus 1.  If you lose at 16 but win at 32, you would only lose 15 units (the 16 loss from the repeat columns minus the 1 extra from your repeat).  These 2 extreme circumstances cancel themselves out nicely over the long run.  Since we bet every spin, the losses are largely covered by the accumulation of 2-unit wins on every spin during stable stretches during our session (if we are playing both dozens and columns).  Some of my wins come from slow, methodical wins at the lower levels, and some come from the wins and repeats at the higher levels.  The progression keeps me in the game long enough for this to happen in most cases, although there will be sessions where you bust out at the 64-unit level.  The win-to-loss ratio is more than sufficient to weather these losses.  The fact that we run 2 separate progressions in different directions does a wonderful job of slowing down the loss of chips during bad sessions.  For instance, a very rough stretch of 15 chops would be necessary to bust out the progression.  By spreading this among the 2 directional progressions, we lose at 64 units on one line and 32 units on the next.  In a single-martingale progression, we would be at a loss of 32,768 on both lines (2^15).  Not only is this unacceptably high, we would not have a chance of finding a table to allow this sort of wager.  With the 2-dozen progression of 3x the last bet, the loss at that level would be ridiculous.  My wager system keeps losses slow and low, allowing a chance for recovery from drawdowns.
Please familiarize yourself with the benefits and drawbacks of my progression.  If you do not agree with the progression, feel free to use one of your own liking.  I have spent a lot of time on my progression, and I will not be defending the progression on the forum. I know that this is not the usual 2-dozen progression and that it does not fully cover the potential losses statistically.  Please do not contact me concerning this progression, as I will not be responding to comments about the progression. 

Money management rules:
ââ,¬Â¢   I play until I have gained 50 units.  Sometimes, you will slowly cover the 50-unit goal with 1- or 2-unit wins.  Sometimes, you will get repeats at the higher bet levels, sending you shooting past 50 to up to 100+ unit wins.  While I walk away at that time, you have the option of continuing to play until the bet is resolved with a win or a loss.  That is entirely up to you and your tolerance for risk.
ââ,¬Â¢   I stop playing at a bust at the 64-unit level, regardless of the condition of my bankroll.
ââ,¬Â¢   In those instances where you have sustained losses, despite wins, due to not having repeats along the progression, I stop playing at a loss of 100 units.
ââ,¬Â¢   My session bankroll is 300 units.
ââ,¬Â¢   My lifetime bankroll is 1,200 units.

[xDannyboi23x]

hi do you consider this to work on rng cheers?
and do i have to play the left and right movements at the same time can i not play 1 at a time?

[Colbster]

I have only played one time on a real wheel, as there are none close to me (Went on a casino boat once).  I have played this system for a few months now on RNG (Bodog European and Betvoyager No-Zero tables) and have been extremely pleased with the results.

Regarding the directions, I suppose you could only play one direction, although you might well be limiting your success by trying to guess which direction will be the stronger of the two.  I would rather half my bet units and play both directions to optimize the returns.

Hope that helps.

Colby

[Gordonline]

Hi Colby

Thought I would attach a spin selection on an (excel sheet attached) so that it will be easy to check what I've done, and also for any one else to look at if they're interested in following this method

Could you advise after checking it, that I have got the hang of plotting the numbers correctly and the bet selection, I decided to go with flat betting with this example and if possible could you let me know when to change the progression by re submitting the sheet with the adjustments, as after checking the numbers you sent me the other day I still couldn't see exactly where the progression changed as the numbers were a bit all over the place

Apologies for asking you to do this but I do really appreciate your help, I hope the excel sheet makes sense and any problems just let me know

Gordon

[Colbster]

The only error that was made on the spreadsheet you sent me was at spin 6.  You forgot to shift the dozens to the right after that win, resulting in a difference of +3 units when played correctly.

I also placed a tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet that shows the play using my progression.  While the L progression reached the highest level of my progression, it was not allowed to finish to show how we would have ended this session.  At the end of your short series of spins, it was showing a terrible -104 units, although that would be easily overcome by just a single repeat and win.  On the other hand, another failure of an L bet would have your total loss around -232 units.  It all depends, and I think that is what makes roulette fun and exciting.  Even though it was a rough session, I hope my notes will help you understand the progression dynamics.

Colby

[catalyst]

thanks for the new system. this system will be effective only using the Hermes's leveller progression which is 1-2-4 and staying with 4 until positive or close to positive. disaster will happen frequently and when it happens, it sweeps away not only bankroll also hope and confidence in the system.
thanks
catalyst

[Gordonline]

Thanks Colby for the Spreadsheet update, shame it ran out of numbers but the progression was easier to understand that way,

Also must remember to leave the bets the same during repeats which is where it recovers well

If for instance the last left progression (64 units) did fail, would you have stopped and accepted that as a loss and changed tables ?


Gordon 

[Colbster]

The repeats are a big part of the winning on this system, as you noted.  Keeping the bets at the higher levels during repeat stretches make up a lot of chips.  I played yesterday and twice in a single session had a single dozen repeat 8 times.  That was good for some extra earnings, as once it was at the 8 chip level.  I was down going into that bet, but ended up my 50 units to stop the session after that second stretch.  The first batch were at level 1, so not much of a profit, although it still feels good.

If I failed at the 64 level, I absolutely would have called it the end of a session and left the table.

My session bankroll is 300 units, so I couldn't have bet the next level in the progression even if I wanted to.

[GLC]

Colbster,

I want to start by saying that this is not a criticism of your bet progression.  It is just a slight variation for those of us who wish to have a little more wiggle room during periods of excessive losses vs wins.

I am presenting a bet selection method with 2 variations.  Both are played pretty much the same way.

They are based on the Labouchere or cancellation or split martingale.  

1.  The 1st one which is the most stable of the two is the classic Labby for 2 dozens.  We start with a 1 which is what we are trying to win with each trot.  As long as we win, we just keep sticking our 1 unit wins in our take home pocket.  On our 1st loss, we place the bets size twice to the right end of our line.  Our next bet is the sum of the ends of our line.  If we win, we cross off the 2 ends and bet the next ends of our line.  Continue until we have completed our line at which time we will pocket our 1 unit.

2.  This second method is a little harder to explain, is more aggressive, but not quite as aggressive as your martingale.  It is played the same way at #1 except that we will total 3 numbers in our line to bet instead of the 2 ends.  There is some room for preference if we have a long stretch of losses.  Here are some examples:

111    This represents our line after 1 loss.  Our next bet is all three numbers.  We never bet less than 3 numbers unless we don't have 3 numbers left in our line.

11133  This represents our line after 2 losses.  We can either bet 3+3+1=7 or 3+1+1=5.

1113355  This is our line after 3 losses and betting 5-5 on the last bet.
Now I recommend betting 1 number from each set or 5+3+1=9.

111335599  This is our line after 4 losses in a row.  Now we would bet Now I recommend that we bet the largest number (9) and then skip the next size number (5) and bet a 3 and a 1=13.

1113355991313  This is our line after 5 losses.  I recommend betting 13+5+1=19 on 2 dozens.

Of course we cross off our 3 numbers after a win and continue  betting 3 numbers each spin.

This is preferable over just betting 2 numbers because it eliminates 3 numbers on a win and adds only 2 numbers on a loss.  As long as we have close to the right distribution of wins vs losses, this system will keep us in a winning mode.

We need to have a set stop loss since there's no concrete bet that determines when we take the loss.

Just a suggestion.  Give it a test run and see how you like it.

George

[Colbster]

George,

Thanks for the idea.  I am desperately looking to improve on the progression, as I am not really a fan of the martingale.  I just need a slow progression that keeps me in it.  Yours may be just what I am looking for.

What I was not looking for was "Hey, retard - your progression doesn't make sense because you lose more than you win!"

Your input is very welcome, and I will give it a whirl here shortly.

[Colbster]

George, the progression you suggested looks great after a couple quick sessions.  I got my 50 unit goal both sessions in roughly the same amount of spins that I would have usually done so in, without going as high on the bets as my progression (I tracked both at the same time for comparison).

I can see how this method would allow for an even better toleration of losing streaks without much impact on the total bankroll necessities.  Thanks for the suggestion!   

[Colbster]

For my method, I think that the Labby progression for 2-dozens will not quite fit.  The reason is that the progression really calls for either of the 2 dozens hitting to result in the cancellation of numbers in the line.  My system requires keeping the same bets on the table during repeats to maximize the profits.  Because the repeats can't impact the progression, you win only 1/3 of the time but the progression grows like you are missing constantly.  That makes it grow quicker than just 1/3 hits can recover from.

That said, I won several sessions using the progression anyway, but it nearly wiped out my bankroll to get there.  Very scary at a couple spots.

Thanks for the suggestion!  If you have an idea for a positive progression that would fit, I think that is more what I am looking for here.

[GLC]

Sorry Colbster,

I don't know a lot of different bet methods for 2 dozens.

About the only other one I know is the classic Alembert for 2 dozens.  Add 1 on a loss subtract 1 after 2 wins.  Of course with both systems, you can break the normal rhythm and leave the same units on the table during a repeat sequence.

In the final analysis, I don't think anything is necessarily better because they all have their weaknesses that will cause us to lose every now and then.

LOL,

George

[Moxy]

Hi Colbster,

With the advent of Eggleston 2. 0, I hope you are not saying that the positive expentancy does not hold up for the original, are you, because I am just getting accustomed to the original with my betting method.   Or does both hold an edge regardless of slight variation of play?  Please let me know thanks.

[Colbster]

I think that 2.0 does a better job of covering the house advantage because it maximizes streaks.  1.0 is theoretically still valid, as every bet should have a positive expectation.  When you hit chops, though, you will have a bunch of false triggers that might hurt with the 2 unit losses compared to the 1 unit wins.

Both have served me well, but I definitely favor 2.0.