Same/Opposite on Follow-The-Last

[GLC]

I was just thumbing through my notes a couple of days ago and ran across a bet selection method for even chances.  I've been trying it out on the Full TrioPlay system and it's been keeping a pretty close win/loss ratio and as you all know, if we can keep a reasonable balance on win/loss, we can beat this game.


We have 2 ways of betting.  1)  The same as the last spin or 2)  opposite of the last spin.


I will use H/L even chance.  Track the spins until you get either 3 H's or 3 L's in a row (HHH or LLL) or until you get 4 chops in a row (HLHLH).


If you have 3 in a row, start betting Same mode.  If you get 4 chops in a row, start betting Opposite mode.


Let's say while tracking we got 3 H's in a row, we start playing for real in the Same mode.  We bet the Same as last spin until we get 4 chops in a row or 7 spins without 3 in a row.  If either of these conditions occur, we switch to betting Opposite the last spin.


We play Opposite last spin until we get 3 in a row or until we have 6 spins in a row without a single.  Then we switch back to Same as last mode.


That's the trot.  From my tests it helps keep wins and losses more balanced.


GLC

[trebor]

Any ideas about a suitable progression?

I'm getting longer runs of wins and losses with this. I don't know if that's your experience GLC.

If this is the norm perhaps some sort of positive progression would be best.

Robert

[GLC]

Any ideas about a suitable progression?

I'm getting longer runs of wins and losses with this. I don't know if that's your experience GLC.

If this is the norm perhaps some sort of positive progression would be best.

Robert

I'm still testing the wins and losses patterns.  I do see what you're saying, but the thing I'm considering is that there does seem to be more 2, 3, 4, and 5 in a row clumps of wins without too many losses in between.  This makes me think that Oscar's Grind or a variant thereof might work well.  Also, some of the let-it-ride bets which need 2 or 3 hits in a row to recover.

I've only tested about 500 bets which is way too few to make any solid statements regarding how it will perform over the long run.  The important thing to me so far is that I am getting an almost even number of wins vs losses without much deviation from the expected.  That means that almost any negative progression will work well.  It's when the ratio of losses to wins drops down to around 35 wins to 65 losses that most negative progressions get into trouble.

Thanks for testing it.  Unfortunately, I do lean toward the common belief that 3,000 placed bets is the minimum test length before any valid assessment can be made regarding performance.

I think a bet progression like the "Bread Winner" that I've been looking at lately is a valid negative progression for any of these even chance bet selection methods.  We only have to decide the best number of losses before moving to the next recovery level that suits our bankroll and playing style.

GLC