And you thought you knew about Oscar!

GLC · Jul 14, 05:52 PM 2011

This system is based on the old Oscar's Grind method of betting. But, I have added a twist that makes it much more effective than Oscar's Grind.

For the new roulette enthusiasts, Oscar's Grind requires you to increase your bet after each win and remain at the same bet after each loss.

One over-riding principle is that you never bet more than is required to bring your total to +1.

All my system does is try to keep Oscar's Grind from getting bogged down forever when you get the dreaded WLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLL type pattern.

Of course if you get the above pattern it will still pound you into the ground, but it will take less time to recover when the wins vs losses swing in your favor.

We will keep track of 2 things.

1) Amount of the current bet

2) Number of lost bets

We will increase our bet after each win but we will change the amount we increase it by based on the number of bets we have lost.

The idea is that if we have a large number of losses and haven't reached our +1, we need to increase our bet so when we get a series of bets that are heavy on the wins, we hope, we will recover many losses with each win.

The fundamental rule for winning at roulette is that we must win more on our winning bets than we lost on our losing bets!!!!!

Another way to say it. If we're betting more when we win than we were when we lost, we will WIN!The last two statements, which are the same thing said slightly different and said twice for emphasis, are the key to remember to win a roulette.

Here's our betting chart:

Losses Increase by
1-10 ^1
11-25 ^2
26-45 ^3
46-70 ^4
71-100 ^5
101-35 ^6
etc...

This chart means that we raise our bet after each win by 1 unit if we have 1-10 losses.
We raise our bet by 2 units after each win if we have 11-25 losses.
We raise our bet by 3 units after each win if we have 26-45 losses.
Etc...

One other rule. If you have a win and it takes you to say -6. Your next bet will be 7 because you are going for +1. If you lose the 7 unit bet you just continue playing as if this is the 1st time you've been at -13 which is where you will be, 6+7=13. You go back to the chart and increase 1 unit, in this case, after each win.

We play until we reach our win target or reach our stop-loss.

There is no magic number for either of these targets. I recommend not less than 100 units as a stop-loss.

If you like hit-n-run strategies, shoot for 5-10 unit win targets. Otherwise, just play until you get tired but don't stop until you resolve the series you're on.

That's the basic strategy. May you win with it forever.

George

I have no idea how to do colors any more

GLC · Jul 14, 05:53 PM 2011

I have a question that I'd like some input on from members.

Is it better to shoot for +1 and reset or is it better to play the progression exactly until you are plus no matter how far into the plus range the last bet takes you?

For instance, suppose I am having a really bad run and I am betting 50 units and I'm on a winning run so I'm approaching plus territory. My next bet is 50 units but I'm only at -23. If I bet 50 and win, I will be up 27 units and my next bet will be 1. But, if I bet 50 and lose, I will be down 73 units and my next bet is 55.

On the other hand, it takes a long time to win 27 units at 1 unit per attack.

Is there an advantage one way or the other or is it just a matter of person preference?

GLC

GLC · Jul 14, 05:54 PM 2011

For anybody that's interested here's the win/loss result for the 99 bet streak from hell that I beat with this method.: Thanks Bayes.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
+ This is where I reached +1 with the 1-10=1; 11-25=2; 26-45=3; etc... progression.
That's 17 (25%) wins vs 51 (75%) losses with 11 and 21 losses-in-a-row stretches.
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+ This is where I reached +1 with the 1-10=1; 11-20=2; 21-30=3; 31-40=4 etc...
That's 32 (32%) wins vs 67 (67%) losses of 99 bets.

This example shows the strength of Oscar's Grind when a series of losses are clumped together, because the bet stays level whereas when you're winning, the bet is increasing.

I am realizing that this method takes advantage of clumps of wins just like the parlay system does. With both systems, you lose gradually until you finally get a clump of wins close together.

The advantage with Oscar's Grind is that you don't have to have 5 wins in a row. You can have 3 wins a loss then 3 wins another loss then 4 wins and recover that way also . This makes Oscar's Grind a little safer, I think.

Talk to me!

George

Gordonline · Jul 14, 07:05 PM 2011

Hi George

Like this alot, do you prefer this over the Project202 method as I know you're knowledgeable of it

Very interested in the +1 concept and of course flat betting or as close to it,

I'm quite intrigued how this would work with the P4 strategy, only betting on the 1st outcome as it often wins, and if it loses wait the 2 spins before betting against the next pattern, hope that makes sense George

The other night I aimed for a +1 and started off with 4 losses in a row and never recovered until I had to give up at -20 units, below is the win/loss outcomes and if you've got any spare time I would be interested in whether this strategy would have pulled it back to +1 at any moment

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

Thanks for your excellent input on this forum, you're a valuable asset

Gordon

GLC · Jul 14, 08:12 PM 2011

Gordon,

Thanks for the reply. I will play your line a little later tonight. I can guarantee that I'm going to reach + before too far in your line because I notice a string of 6 Wins and a little later, a string of 5 wins.

I'll show how I would play it so everybody can see it in action.

Later,

G

GLC · Jul 14, 10:20 PM 2011

I will play this using the rules stated in my original post. I will shoot for +1 then reset. If I happen to get back to zero, I'll reset also.

Bet Losses Running total

L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
W 1 4 -3
L 2 5 -5
L 2 6 -7
W 2 6 -5
L 3 7 -8
W 3 7 -5
L 4 8 -9
W 4 8 -5
L 5 9 -10
L 5 10 -15
L 5 11 -20
W 5 11 -15
L 7 12 -22
W 7 12 -15
L 9 13 -24
L 9 14 -33
W 9 14 -24
W 11 14 -13
L 13 15 -26
L 13 16 -39
L 13 17 -52
L 13 18 -65
W 13 18 -52
L 15 19 -67
L 15 20 -82
L 15 21 -97
W 15 21 -82
W 17 21 -65
L 19 22 -87
W 19 22 -65
W 21 22 -44
W 23 22 -21
W 22 22 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
L 2 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
W 2 4 -3
W 3 4 0 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
L 2 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
L 2 5 -7
L 2 6 -9
L 2 7 -11
W 2 7 -9
W 3 7 -6
W 4 7 -2
W 3 7 +1 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 2 0 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 1 0 reset
W 1 0 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
W 1 1 0 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5
L 1 6 -6
L 1 7 -7
L 1 8 -8
W 1 8 -7
W 2 8 -5
W 3 8 -2
W 3 8 +1
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
W 1 2 -1
W 2 2 +1
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
L 1 4 -4
L 1 5 -5
W 1 5 -4
L 2 6 -6
W 2 6 -4
W 3 6 -1
L 4 7 -5
W 4 7 -1
L 5 8 -6
W 5 8 -1
W 2 8 +1 reset
L 1 1 -1
L 1 2 -2
L 1 3 -3
W 1 3 -3
L 2 4 -5
L 2 5 -7
L 2 6 -9
W 2 6 -7
L 3 7 -10
L 3 8 -13
L 3 9 -16
W 3 9 -13
W 4 9 -9
L 5 10 -14
L 5 11 -19
L 5 12 -24
L 5 13 -29
L 5 14 -34
W 5 14 -29
L 7 15 -36
L 7 16 -43
L 7 17 -50
W 7 17 -43

So we won 10 units until the last losing attack. I would never stop playing where this ended. Odds are if we had more results, we would get back to +1 eventually. Then I may take my 11 units and call it a day.

This was a fairly hard fight. This series demonstrates how the system works beautifully. It shows how a long series of losses followed a little later by a good streak of wins can close the attack out nicely.

It also demonstrates the killer pattern I mentioned above, the WLLLWLLLWLLLLW we see at the end of the series.

Thanks Gordon. This method is very strong unless we never get a good cluster of wins to pull us out of the hole. If we can stay with it long enough, there's almost always a good win streak to give us our plus.

George

GLC · Jul 15, 12:52 AM 2011

Gordon,

I do like the project 202 system, but it's as dangerous as any of them if you get the wrong win loss sequence. Any system that bases it bet on a progression will get into trouble if you have a lot of losses, a spattering of wins and then a lot of losses. That's because with the 1st bunch of losses we increase our bet size to recover which we do with a few wins, but then the next clump of losses can really increase out bet size and drive us way down into the hole. With 202, once you are deep in the hole, it can take a really long time to climb back out.

With this system, we need a decent win cluster to recover from a hole, but not so much as the project 202 or other bet progressions like Alembert. I think it's much better than a martingale or fibo. As you saw in the win/loss session I posted, it started off with 21 losses in a row. I don't think any system other than this one can recover from a start as bad as that.

The Star system would have tanked, a martingale would have tanked, fibonacci would have tanked. Probably the only one that wouldn't have tanked is the labby method Fripper and friends are working with using the zero's to keep the bet sizes from escalating too rapidly. Still, they have to have a 1500 unit bank.

I think if we had a 1500 unit bank playing this system, it would be right up there with the best of them.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

GLC

Gordonline · Jul 15, 02:59 PM 2011

Hi George

Thanks for your prompt explanation of how to bet, What are your thoughts on following the table with this method especially with odds and evens or high and low due to there nature of streaking or would you only recommend just betting on one E/C and sticking with it

I'm sure you could play.continuously with this as you can reset after a 0 or +1

Thanks
Gordon

Wally Gator · Jul 15, 03:27 PM 2011

I've played this method in it's original form from winmaxx playing all EC's at the same time. In other words, play red and black, odd and even, high and low, a six unit bet. My stop-win was 60 units per session. Never failed that I can remember. Come to think of it, not sure why I stopped playing it. Senior moment probably ....

Thanks for posting it George.

GLC · Jul 15, 05:16 PM 2011

Quote from: Wally Gator on Jul 15, 03:27 PM 2011
I've played this method in it's original form from winmaxx playing all ECs at the same time. In other words, play red and black, odd and even, high and low, a six unit bet. My stop-win was 60 units per session. Never failed that I can remember. Come to think of it, not sure why I stopped playing it. Senior moment probably ....

Thanks for posting it George.

Hey Wally, This is quite a bit different from anything I've seen posted at win-maxx. I know they have a pluscoup progression, but it's not the same animal. It does have a tail, two ears, two eyes and four legs. The difference is that the legs on theirs are short and the legs on the this one are a lot longer and they get longer the farther it has to run.

As far as not remembering why you quit playing a winning system, I've got a few of those myself. We just get distracted by something we think looks a little better.

Bayes gave us a bunch of horror sessions in Fripper's topic on the labby and I'm going to start playing all those sessions to see how this performs under extreme pressure.

If you remember they were trying to find a system that would withstand 65 losses to 135 wins in 200 bets. That was the worst loss to win ratio they could find in millions of historical spins.

This system is a tweak of the Trioplay/Tera TNT system without having to do all the gyrations they want to put us through. I don't know if it is a long term winner, but I've been having excellent results with it.

You should run through some of the sessions you've played my even chance progression that you've been using on baccarat and see how it performs compared to that one. It may be better if not safer. That is if you have some test sessions handy that you can do that with. I'd be interested to know how they compare to each other.

LOL,

George

Wally Gator · Jul 15, 05:35 PM 2011

George, I'll absolutely do that. And, I was really having a senior moment when I posted that last note. I had the Whitaker prog post up at the same time and confused the 2. Sorry about that. No question I think this will find success on my last 100 bac sessions and with a safer movement forward.

Yours and others comments on bet selection is right on point. Believe it or not, I mostly use a 4 step follow and if/when it loses before I'm ready to run, I switch to a 4 step chop. It's been very rare (about 1 in 100 shoes) that I've run into back to back losses. I used to use a fibo and then a modified fibo. Both have worked very well for many years. I've enjoyed running some of your progs on my old shoes. Will let you know how this one performs.

Best, Wally

TicTacToe · Jul 15, 05:38 PM 2011

Hi George

I've been using XXVV's adaptation of the Whittacker progression lately with good results. Although this Oscar takes longer to get back into profit, it is much tamer. I actually been getting better results with it than with XXVV's Whittacker. Only time will tell.

Thanks for all your great and sometime crazy ideas. Your the guy .... the prog guy.

Thanks

TTT

GLC · Jul 15, 05:44 PM 2011

Wally and TicTacToe,

I have been thinking about how to turn this into a true long-term winner. Tell me what you think about this idea.

We set a maximum drawdown that we'll allow. Let's say 300 units. But, that does not mean that if we reach -300 units we just take the loss and start again at 1 unit, it means that when we reach 300 units we cut that into two 150 unit games.

As we know, LLLWLLLWLLLWLLLWLLL this is the win/loss pattern that will kill us. I have used that pattern exclusively to see where I would be re: bet size and number of losses to reach -150 units. It turns out to be the second 17 unit bet at 29 losses = -155 units. Now when we start trying to resolve our -150 deficit, we drop back from whatever unit size we were betting when we reached -300 to 17 unit bets with 29 losses. That means according to our chart we will be increasing our bet size by 3 units after every win because we are in the 26-45 losses range.

If we find out that dividing by 2 leaves us too much to recover without a high risk of getting back to -300 again, we can divide our 300 by 3 and have three 100 unit games to recover. That would put us at betting 12 units with 22 or so losses. We would be increasing our bet size by 2 units after each win until we reach 26 losses when we would go to increasing by 3 units.

The reason I think this is better than just taking the whole 300 unit loss and re-starting at 1 is because it takes a really long time to recover 300 units betting small units.

All we're trying to do is stay alive until we have some good win clumps which will recover quite a bit in a shortened number of spins.

I acknowledge that there will be times when we will divide and stay in a losing trend and find ourselves right back at another -300 unit situation. I'm hoping that will rarely be the case and we'll be well ahead of the game by the time we run into a series that bad.

I like this system for the same reason I like the parlay systems. We are betting either with the houses money much of the time or at least we're using a modified positive progression. I say modified because we don't reset to 1 after each loss which is what a real positive progression usually does.

I know this is throwing a lot out there at one time and it for sure needs some serious testing, but when you get the time to think on it, tell me what you do think.

Thanks,

George

GLC · Jul 15, 06:03 PM 2011

Quote from: TicTacToe on Jul 15, 05:38 PM 2011
Hi George

I've been using XXVV's adaptation of the Whittacker progression lately with good results. Although this Oscar takes longer to get back into profit, it is much tamer. I actually been getting better results with it than with XXVV's Whittacker. Only time will tell.

Thanks for all your great and sometime crazy ideas. Your the guy .... the prog guy.

Thanks

TTT

Thanks for your encouragement. Although some members might be thinking, "Please stop encouraging him. He's driving us crazy with all these progressions!" But that's okay. I have often said that if a system wins with one progression, it'll win with any progression. I'm starting to think that's not exactly true. It could be that a system can win with a certain progression, if not exclusively, then maybe better than with other progressions.

And, I'm not suggesting any bet selection method. Which ever e.c. bet selection method you like will work. I agree with Gordon that this can be used with pattern 4 or any e.c. matrix idea if we only bet 1 time per betting opportunity. If it's win rate sucks on the 1st bet and it takes 2-4 bets to get most of the wins, then that might not work with this progression method.

This progression can be adapted to each person's personal risk tolerance. The way to make it more aggressive is to change the chart. This chart: 1-5 = ^1; 6-10 = ^2; 11-15 = ^3; 16-20 = ^4 etc... is much more aggressive than: 1-15 = ^1; 16-30 = ^2; 31-50 = ^3; etc... because our bets increase more quickly with the 1st chart and much more slowly with the second chart. We might find that the second chart, or one of your own making, is exactly what the doctor ordered if you don't mind grinding out a few units each day.

Cheers,

George

TicTacToe · Jul 15, 06:06 PM 2011

Hi George

Just to clarify my bet .... it's not an ec bet ...

I play on BV no zero .... I play inside numbers, but it works out to an on average ec bet.

Thanks

TTT

News:

And you thought you knew about Oscar!