Sorry, but I can't leave this system alone.

Reddwarf, please read the following and tell me if your tests were according to these rules, or very close to them.

For everyone else, I have never completely understood exactly how the author wanted us to play this system until now. Because of his choppy English and incomplete sentences, I couldn't follow him exactly. I finally think I see the light and want to pass it on to the forum. I'm doing so because I haven't seen the system explained completely and in a way that is understandable anywhere. It is very complicated and I don't think more than a handful of players have taken the time to try to learn the system well enough to give it a serious testing.

I have created a page that contains the basics of the system in what I hope is a more simplified manner than the authors. It is attached to this post.

A short summary of the system.

We are waiting for 2 in a row at which time we bet 1 unit for a chop. If it becomes 3 in a row we bet 1 unit for a chop. If it becomes 4 in a row, we bet 1 unit for a chop, if it becomes 5 in a row, we stop betting until the streak ends. The 3 units we just lost are distributed into 3 recovery banks. The 1st unit lost goes to recovery bank 1, the 2nd to recovery bank 2 and the 3rd to recovery bank 3.

Recovery bank 1 is divided into 3 bets and recovery banks 2 and 3 are divided into 2 bets each. That divides our losses into 7 recovery bets.

On the diagram I attached, you can see when we bet from the recovery banks and each of the 7 bets have an exact formation that triggers a bet.

The system is based on mathematical odds of various formations occurring a calculated number of times on a regular basis and happen often enough to put us into positive territory, within a limited number of spins.

The author estimates that the system wins 5-10 units every 60 spins on average. That's a very respectable win rate if it holds up over the long run.

The author suggests setting a win target of 10 units and a stop-loss of 10 units. But we really end the attack when the units won + the next bet is >= +10. That means that if our next bet puts us at or over +10 units, we don't make the bet, we end the attack and reset our banks to zero.

Also, if the units lost + our next bet, if lost, will put us at or below -10 units, we don't make that bet, but we end the attack at that point also.

This is somewhat more aggressive than making each attack end when +1 or -10. Maybe his is better.

He says the game is designed around the probabilities of 250 spins. So, every 250 spins we should be at least 20 and maybe 40 units ahead.

By using the above targets, we get the following benefits:

1. It eliminates shaky nerves because we will never have to make large bets.

2. The calculations from the recovery banks will be minimal and easy to make.

3. Games will be short, giving us many chances to take breaks to keep a clear head.

4. By keeping the number of units bet low, we can escalate the size of our units to make the wins very worthwhile.

Having started testing on Non-zero roulette at BetVoyager, I think it should give us a better return.

I will be waiting to answer any questions for those who find this interesting.

I know there should be some questions since I didn't go into detail regarding the recovery bets.

LoL,

GLC

P.S. Since I am in Arizona, I will be asleep when most of you a waking up so I may not get back with answers for a while.