Pattern Shaker

[albertojonas]

Thought i should open a new thread on this one
as this constitutes more than a mod from pattern 4
Sure it was developed after regarding what i consider to be the fallacies the original is built on
anyway...
8 different combinations is true
but...
4 of those put you on the 2nd step
ie
play against
111
you have
222
212
211
221

could take you on the 3rd step
222
221
and finally you only lose your progression on 1/8
222
====

so if you play 1-2-4
and lose 1/8
you get even

In summary you are nothing but betting the progression and since your bet cycles are sparse the ecart will take more time to show is effects.

you may use hit & run and leave as soon as you hit +7 on a up trend.

or

you can play it other ways
i would try at least 4 diff progressions than the one originally used.

1st
1-1-1
2-2-2
3-3-3
4-4-4
etc

2nd
regression
7-3-1

3rd
longest fibbo
1-1-1-2-3-5-8-13...

4th
modified D'Alembert (in which you win as soon as W and L balance out and then reset)
ie.
start with 20units bet
increase +3 on a Loss
decrease -4 on a Win
=====================================================
i prefer regression 7-3-1
=====================================================

So here it is the bet design:

you have your matrix

122
211
211-now instead of betting against your first outcome (1)
you wait for the 10th outcome
if it is the Same as the first you play the next two against until a win, ie. (1) bet 1- bet 1
if it is Opposite to the first you play the next to repeat until a win, ie. (2) bet bet 2 - bet 2
==============

Use mm as you wish.

try it if you like it, then compare it to the original version.

(some tests on different approaches - more random ones - are on the playing bac with p4 thread by twisterUK)

Cheers

[Halba1]

Yep. results may be good also. this is because of the randomness nature of it all and you are using MM/martingale to recover from loss.

i agree with your point, not too different from R/B and using martingale. But odds are more in favour, as R/B is 50/50, and this is still 1/8(nearly +90% in your favour) independent event.

[albertojonas]

Yep. results may be good also. this is because of the randomness nature of it all and you are using MM/martingale to recover from loss.

i agree with your point, not too different from R/B and using martingale. But odds are more in favour, as R/B is 50/50, and this is still 1/8(nearly +90% in your favour) independent event.

it is only an 1/8 independent event because of the use of progression...

[albertojonas]

Here are two examples.
results taken from other thread to ensure independency of permanences


[reveal]
1st session
BPB        
PBB        
PPP        
PBP    ll      
PBB   ll      
PBB   ww      
PPB    w   7  
PPB   w   3  
BPB   lw   0  
PBP   w   1   11
BPB   w   7  
BBP   w   3  
PBB    lw   0  
BPP   lw   0  
PBB   w   1   22
PBP    lw   0  
PPB   w   7  
PPB   w   3  
PPP    w   1   33
[/reveal]

[reveal]
2nd session         
PPB         
BBB         
PPB         
PPP    lw      
BBB   ll      
BPP   wl      
BBB    ll      
BBB   ll      
BBB   ww      
BPP    w   7   
BPP   w   3   
BPB   w   1   11
BBP    w   7   
BPP   ll   -6   1
BPB   ll      
PPB    ll      
BBB   ww      
PBP   ll   -14   
PPB    ll      -2[/reveal]
[reveal]
session 4
PPP            
PPP            
BPP            
PPB   lw         
BPP   ww         
PPP   ww         
BPP    wl         
PBP   lw         
PPP   ll         
BPP    ll         
PPP   wl   7      
BPP   ww   3      
PPP    ww   1   11   
BPP   ww   7      
BPB   lw   0      
PPB    lw   0      
BPB   lw   0      
BPP   lw   0      
BBB    lw   0   7   18[/reveal]

session 3 ended in 0

[Kingspin]

It's always a 50 / 50 chance (slighty worse because of house edge)  . You can design what ever sophisticated even chance system but the 50 /50 remains regardless. 

[albertojonas]

It's always a 50 / 50 chance (slighty worse because of house edge)  . You can design what ever sophisticated even chance system but the 50 /50 remains regardless. 

i am just trying to show that we are just betting on progressions

and indeed there are far better progressions to use than martingale (almost everyone)

[albertojonas]

Here is session 3
played with static rule: capture groups of 3 starting with B

then compared to groups formed by itself starting with the same. (bet for opposite)
[reveal]
3               capture
BBB               bbb
PBP               bpp
PPB               bpp
PPB                bpp
PPB               bpp
PPP               bpb
PPB                bbb
PBB               bbp
BBB   bbb   ll         
BPB    bpp   lw   0      
BBP   bpp   wl   7      
BPP   bpp   ll   -6   1   
PPB               
BBP   bpp   wl   7      
BPP   bpb   lw   0      
BPP    bbb   ww   3      
BPB   bbp   ww   1   12   
PPP               
[/reveal]

played with static rule: capture groups of 3 starting with P
[reveal]
3               capture
BBB               pbp
PBP               ppb
PPB               ppb
PPB                ppb
PPB   pbp   ww         ppp
PPP   ppb   lw         ppb
PPB    ppb   ll         pbb
PBB   ppb   wl   7      
BBB               
BPB                
BBP               
BPP               
PPB   ppp   lw   0      
BBP               
BPP               
BPP                
BPB               
PPP   ppb   lw   0      
PBP    pbb   lw   0   7   
[/reveal]

[Halba1]

Agree, but other progressions don't recover immediately like martingale. they protect losses however, and large bets. lower bets , and losses = lower losses

however, if you go on a losing streak your stuffed with martin. so it all evens out I guess.

yes it is still an even money game. but I disagree that each event is even money, for example if you have 10R in a row, and you bet black next few times you have higher chances than 50/50 surely, just like coin toss 10 time red you bet Black next.

we have the benefit of free spin and ability to wait, and not requiring to bet each and every time. surely this puts it in our favour.

[albertojonas]

Agree, but other progressions don't recover immediately like martingale. they protect losses however, and large bets. lower bets , and losses = lower losses

however, if you go on a losing streak your stuffed with martin. so it all evens out I guess.you are not serious on this are you?
martin wins you 1unit, but if your bet can't even out flat betting it will sink with martin too. martingale is a tool of impatience and we all know table limits will kill you sooner
yes it is still an even money game. but I disagree that each event is even money, for example if you have 10R in a row, and you bet black next few times you have higher chances than 50/50 surely, just like coin toss 10 time red you bet Black next.that is the most purest form of gambler's fallacy

we have the benefit of free spin and ability to wait, and not requiring to bet each and every time. surely this puts it in our favour. - I agree. this among other tools you have in your favor. like std...

i feel you do not play roulette for long. Are you a freshman ?i mean it with no offense.
You are in the way i consider the good way, do just a simple exercise if you want to get what i am saying:
play any selection flat bet against one single color (bet always R e d or Black)
play any selection flat bet using follow the last
.. or double before last
..or opposite from last
.. or old

....

then compare the same bet selection method with martingale.
no way

it all comes down the same?

[albertojonas]

i agree with your point, not too different from R/B and using martingale. But odds are more in favour, as R/B is 50/50, and this is still 1/8(nearly +90% in your favour) independent event.

find me 10 series of one Even chance
then bet for opposite
flat bet

you will sure get some 50/50 result
not a 90/10 result
....
can you see this?

[albertojonas]

Also if you play directly under the same pattern
using the march i've been applying you get similar results
[reveal]
3         
BBB         
PBP   w      
PPB   w      
PPB    ll      
PPB   ll      
PPP   lw      
PPB    lw      
PBB   w      
BBB   w   7   
BPB    w   3   
BBP   w   1   
BPP   w   7   
PPB   w   3   
BBP   ll   -2   
BPP   w      
BPP    ll   -2   
BPB   lw      
PPP   w      
PBP    w   2   19
[/reveal]

it is all about entry trigger and progression

Cheers

[albertojonas]

time to update this.

here we will play Random vs Present with one random walk

the random is achieved by capturing outcomes with a static rule. (capture groups of three starting with the same outcome)

for the terms of centering them in the random distribution, a cycle of captures ends as all patterns possible (4) repeat itself at least once.


anyone is into this?

[albertojonas]

Here are the spins...

in light cyan is signaled the group where finally all the eight 8  possible patterns repeated at least once.
this constitutes an observable cycle. I call this a Large cycle

as opposed to the small cycle: one appearance of each pattern.

more to follow...

[albertojonas]

Now a Large cycle of random captures following a static rule.

*groups of 3 starting with odd
[reveal]
1   2   1
1   1   1
1   1   1
1   1   2
1   2   2
1   1   1
1   1   2
1   1   2
1   1   2
1   1   2
1   2   2
1   1   2
1   1   1
1   2   1
[/reveal]



*groups of 3 starting with even
[reveal]
2   1   2
2   2   1
2   1   2
2   1   1
2   1   1
2   1   1
2   1   1
2   1   1
2   1   2
2   1   1
2   2   2
2   1   1
2   1   2
2   2   2
2   2   1

[/reveal]

now all it takes is to bet as soon as the "Large cycle of the Present events ends"
here are the results playing with the 2 selections separated.. (see attachment).

[albertojonas]

Playing this flat bet we would profit +12 units in 45 spins

may we compare this bet selection with another one...
21 even
22 odd
2 zeros

follow the last ends +4
opposite from last ends -8


anyone suggests another?

I find this amusing

as seen in this example no progression needs to be used.

Lets try it with regression 7-3-1 and see what happens:
1st series continuous play without triggers +9
2nd series continuous play without triggers +41


1st series With trigger +12
2nd series with trigger +22
trigger is start bet after LW