0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

albalaha

  • Guest
It is "very near infallible system", even "infallible roulette system" by izak mattaya does not work.

*

GLC

  • 3000+ Posts Member !!!
  • *****
  • 3467
  • Is it better to be good looking or smart?
  • Rated: +13
Dear Al,

Thanks for that information.  Just to make sure, was it this full version that you tested or one of the adjustments prior to the final system with 3 separate banks.

If it's this exact system it will save us a lot of time. Although, since I've invested quite a bit of time on it, I may play around with it just a little bit.  I think that I already have some ideas to maybe make it a little more stable.

Thanks again for your input.

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

*

reddwarf

  • 50+ posts Member
  • **
  • 79
  • Rated: 0
i GLC,

I saw your post yesterday: I immediatly read the document and coded it. It does loose, but, when testing manually, it can take a long time before you find that it is a loosing system. The probability of ending a 250 spin session in the plus is higher than 99%, it's the <1% that kills it!

great reddwarf

albalaha

  • Guest
Dear All,
            Probability of losing a five step martingale is also very low and chances to win are big but practically that method is unplayable. If this method is a 99% winner as reddwarf said, nothing can equal it because it even defeats the house edge which is 2.7%. If he is correct, we should leave discussing anything else and focus on this very method.
                  I hope reddwarf should elaborate a session with this system and show the reasoning of him saying so (99% chances of win).

*

reddwarf

  • 50+ posts Member
  • **
  • 79
  • Rated: 0
Hi Albalaha,

I'm willing to do this, but I do not see the reason why we should: there is still a progression in it, albeit a very complicated one. Although the winning probability is very high, the loss is also extremely high (with very low probability), still making it a negative expectation system

The thing is, it's rather easy to create systems with very high winning probability (right now I'm running a simulation with a system that wins 99.74% of the time, but oh boy when it looses, most people have to sell their house afterwards!)

On the other hand, it is a nice system to study anyway, just work through the examples of GLC and the pdf.

Also it did make me think if it would not be possible to combine some of the principles used in creating this system, but that's a topic for a different thread.

reddwarf


*

carpanta

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 106
  • Rated: 0
The first director of the Casino de Monte Carlo was named François Blanc. On the wall, behind his luxury desktop above his head it could be read in golden letters:
"Wheater it comes out red or black, Blanc always wins"

http://www.sistemas-ruleta.com/jugadores/el_senior_garcia.php

Read this interesting link. Maybe it can enlighten you about García system. Try to have a translator handy.

It could be a winner for a long time but probably you should think about moving on to the Casino or stay in front of the laptop long long hours.

Cheers,
Carlos.

*

reddwarf

  • 50+ posts Member
  • **
  • 79
  • Rated: 0
Hi Carpanta,

did you ever try this system? I advise you to do try it! The story must be an roulette myth, unless a couple of thousand units is considered a small betting amount.

Again a very high win percentage and a low loss probability, but now and then, the losses are very large:

win probability: 99.51% (session length om maximal 181 spins, increasing the session length will not make it a winner!).

It is also very easy to understand why it can not be a winner: the first part of the method is an UeberMartingale, als we al know, a Martingale does not alther the expectation value (stays-2.7%), So the first part is even worse. the second part, where we try to recoup is kind a a flatbet.

Now think of the garcia method consisting of two independant methods: 3 step UeberMarty: a sure looser

and the second part: a flatbet consisting of 3 spins: also a sure looser (Ok, the betting amounts for the flabet will vary, but that does not make it a winner)

reddwarf

albalaha

  • Guest
Dear Carpanta,
        I can not stop but laugh. I have herwith attached the "Garcia System" for everyone to see. Nothing extraordinary about it. I have a compilation of more than 200 famous systems of roulette. Most of them are far from being called a winner.

*

reddwarf

  • 50+ posts Member
  • **
  • 79
  • Rated: 0
A interesting: "most of them:, so this means that some of them are consistent winners?

reddwarf

albalaha

  • Guest
The word "consistent" has nowhere been used.

*

reddwarf

  • 50+ posts Member
  • **
  • 79
  • Rated: 0

*

carpanta

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 106
  • Rated: 0
I wouldnt waste my time with this sistem. I was largely discussed in spanish forums over the years and discarded.
Original version produces huge bankroll drawdowns from time to time and it is impossible to recover from them.
The almost flat bet variant was also tested. I dont know the results but the its thread was left unconcluded.

Dear Albalaha, it is my pleasure to make you so cheerful everytime i write a post ;D

Cheers,
Carlos.

albalaha

  • Guest
Dear Carpanta,
        First you wrote:
Quote
Read this interesting link. Maybe it can enlighten you about García system. Try to have a translator handy.

It could be a winner for a long time but probably you should think about moving on to the Casino or stay in front of the laptop long long hours.

Cheers,
Carlos.
                When I uploaded your dream system u say:
Quote
I wouldnt waste my time with this sistem. I was largely discussed in spanish forums over the years and discarded.
Original version produces huge bankroll drawdowns from time to time and it is impossible to recover from them.
The almost flat bet variant was also tested. I dont know the results but the its thread was left unconcluded.

What exactly you want to do, to waste our time?[/size]

*

GLC

  • 3000+ Posts Member !!!
  • *****
  • 3467
  • Is it better to be good looking or smart?
  • Rated: +13
Reddwarf,

I want to thank you for taking the time to code this system.  I have some questions please.

Did you code the whole system.  I mean all 3 players?

I wonder how it performs if we reset everything after reaching +1.

Another question, do you think it would make any difference if we added more players to the mix.

In other words no matter how many times in a row a color hits, every time we lose a unit, we create a new recovery bank.

Also, we could create 3 sub-categories for all banks instead of 2 for all but the 1st one.

Do any of these ideas matter or is it just adding complication.

Would a stop loss matter.

If nothing will make a difference, why do we think anything we do will win long term?

Thanks again and I really do appreciate the time and effort you have put in to help us.

Cheers,

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

*

carpanta

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 106
  • Rated: 0
Dear Albahala,

I'm not going to answer you anymore. YOU are a waste of time for me from now on. A lost case.

Be happy,
Carlos.

 

Popular pages: