And you thought you knew about Oscar!

[GLC]

I am attaching a short session I did from some historic spins from Weisbaden.


As you will see it is playing all 3 e.c's at the same time.  I am not keeping track of the losses.  I'm not sure it's necessary to increase by more than 1 when playing all 3 ec's.


Rather than track a null spin after each successful attack, I just use the last decisions to decide what I'm going to bet on the 1st bet of the new attack.  My logic is this.  If you had bet 1 on each location, you would have six 1's bet and they would of course cancel themselves out so the result would be zero.  The next bet would have 3 bets of 1 unit and 3 bets of 2 units because all the wins would go to 2 units and all the losses would stay at 1 unit so that's what I bet on the 1st bet of the new attack.


In the chart you will see that the first bet was 1 unit on each location.  After that you will notice that when I start a new attack, there are three 1 unit bets and three 2 unit bet.  For example the 6th spin is a  Red 5 which resulted in a +1 total.  That means I reset.  The next bet is for 2 units on Red since it won and 1 unit on Black since it lost.  One unit on Even since it lost and 2 units on Odd since it won.  One unit on Hi since it lost and 2 units on Lo since it won.


To the right of the chart is the result of combining all three and at the bottom is the result of each even chance bet.  You will notice that R/B won 3 units.  E/O won 13 units and H/L lost 2 units for a net win of 14 units.  Not bad for 23 spins.


For those of you who are really interested in this system, a few minutes looking over the session will reveal pretty much how the system will work.


Questions are welcome.


George

[catalyst]

Hi GLC
Its very interesting. I have read differential betting in  WINMAXX which say it works very nicely when there is Ecart deviation between the red and black or even and odd or high and low. In the long term, they tend to balance each other. Therefore short session are probably profitable if it incorporates all the ECs meaning there will be probably Ecart deviation in one or two among the three ECs which can be materialised through your progression.

What will be the effect if there are lot of chops? Can you please shade some lights?   

also what progression do you think will be better? your tweaked Oscar in this thread or Win2 Up1?

Thanks a lot 
Catalyst

[GLC]

Hi GLC
Its very interesting. I have read differential betting in  WINMAXX which say it works very nicely when there is Ecart deviation between the red and black or even and odd or high and low. In the long term, they tend to balance each other. Therefore short session are probably profitable if it incorporates all the ECs meaning there will be probably Ecart deviation in one or two among the three ECs which can be materialised through your progression.

What will be the effect if there are lot of chops? Can you please shade some lights?   

also what progression do you think will be better? your tweaked Oscar in this thread or Win2 Up1?

Thanks a lot 
Catalyst

Catalyst,


Yes, chops are what causes this to drawdown.  So far the chops have been short enough that a good streak can recover quickly.  During chops we tend to lose 1 unit for every 2 bets,  but with a good win streak we can recover at much more than 1 unit for each bet.


To be honest, I don't know which will work the best over the long run.  Win 2 up 1 is a very safe, slow progression.  I think it will hold it's own with this system. 


The chart I posted with this system is much more aggressive than win 2 up 1.


I am interested in how to make w 2 up 1 less of a grinding progression.  In other words, I want to incorporate the idea of making sure our wins wipe out more than 1 loss; 2 or even 3 losses wiped out by 1 win would be great.


I was thinking of this formula:


1.  Start betting 1 unit.
2.  When losses are 1-10,  win 2 up1 
3.  When losses are 11-20, win 2 up 2.
4.  When losses are 21-35, win 2 up 3.
5.  When losses are 36-50, win 2 up 4.


This progression chart is just an idea.  What I'm trying to do is increase our bet size as we have more and more losses without reaching our +1 target.  If we don't increase our bet size, we can really have an Oscar's Grind.  Might as well just play the original way.  Not saying that's necessarily a bad idea.


It takes so long to test this thing, that I'm going to try to stay steady and gradual.  I have played this a couple of times on airball and reach my +10 unit target in less then 50 spins each time.  It looks like this will net 1 unit every 5-8 spins.


I'm frustrated as all get out because I know that Flatino's made a statement that indicates he's polished his Constant Winning Bet to the point that it's a winner flat betting.  That makes it hard to spend time seeing if this system's going to fly or not when he's got one already soaring.  When he makes a statement like:

Well guys I haven't been here for almost 2 months now,but have continued to work hard on this bet and finally
have created-Constant Winning Bet--/not promised/but
a life bet.......ON FLAT BET BASIS...on same principles of sectors betting.

You gotta consider putting things on hold and checking out what he's talking about.


You know what I mean?


GLC

[GLC]

Another session on my trusty 0/00 airball machine.  I'm still just playing +1 on a win.  No adjustments for losses.  If you look closely, you'll see that I never reached -10 losses before reaching +1 or more.


I had a little losing streak in the middle of the session; a couple of zeros didn't help.  But, a nice run on the high numbers pulled me out of it.


You can see that my largest bet was 12 units on the 2nd Red 36 about 60% of the way down the page.


At the bottom is the results for each even chance.  To the far right is a running total.  At one point I was down 20 units.  This number is important because it gives us an idea about how large a buy-in we need to play safely.


When you check out the chart, don't just skim it looking at the totals, make sure you understand why I did each move.


I have decided that when zero hits, we should repeat the exact same bets for the next spin.  We will just have to recover the loss down the line.  This is not mandatory, you could act as if the larger bet lost on each even chance set.  That's because if you are betting 5 units on Red and 7 units on Black.  You would actually only bet 2 units on Black.  So, if a zero spins, you lose your 2 units which is the same as the Red showing.  That means you could act like the Red won and bet 6 units on Red and 7 units on Black for the next spin.  I don't know which is better.  Just taking the loss on a zero and betting the same bet on the nest spin is easier.


I did find myself having to really scramble a couple of times to get my bets played in time.  More practice will definitely come in handy.


I personally don't think we need to be too concerned if we miss a spin every now and then.  As a matter of fact, I don't think it will matter that much of we decide to just bet every other spin especially in the beginning before we get really proficient at the system.


Why do I say that?  Right now this is a progression method, not a bet selection method.  I do think it can be improved with a better bet selection method than just playing Red against Black, Odd against Even, High against Low.  But, for right now, that's the way I'm testing it. 

I don't even think it will make that much difference if we stop in the middle of an attack and come back at a later time or place and continue the progression.


The situations we are looking for to bring us into plus territory are very common and come around often enough that we don't have to worry with thinking that 5 or 6 in a row is due to hit soon.  We've got 6 bet locations that can give us a good streak and it should happen pretty often.


Okay, enough said.


LoL,


George

[GLC]

One last round test to show you.  These are the numbers immediately following the last post.


I didn't play them because I was visiting with a fellow roulette player that I see at the casino regularly.


I did keep track of the numbers while I was there for this purpose.


This session started off going into the hole, but only -7 at the worst point.  After a short winning stretch it went into another drawdown to -12 before recovering to end the session.  There were 2 more numbers that left me at -2 but I didn't post them because I normally leave after a win, and not in the middle of an attack.


So, 32 spins to win 15 units.  Not bad.  I'm getting the feeling that about 50 unit buy-in is the minimum I would set and since I like more wiggle room than that, I would probably buy-in for 100 units.


Nothing too exciting to say about this session.


GLC

[catalyst]

HI GLC
i have collected 315 spins from airball machine by spending around 4 hours in the casino and i will run with this parallel progressionand i will let you know the outcome.
thanks
catalyst

[catalyst]

hi George

I was thinking about the bet selection for ECs. Any type of bet selection other than following the both side as usual for differential betting could led us to further complication especially If we run Oscar series on both side of an EC, then manual calculation will be harder. For example, we run oscar PARALLEL by betting on both red and black. Black win, as our oscar dictates us to increase bet by one unit on black and to bet the difference (of betting unit between red and black) on black but our bet selection push us to bet on red. so, do we bet differential unit on red? and if we bet on red and red loses, do we still increase bet by one unit on black again although we have lost on red?

do we actually need a bet selection for differential betting on three ECs?

Its a tricky situation and I could not find a proper solution.
Hope, if you could throw some lights on this issue.

thanks
catalyst

[GLC]

Cat,


I think you're correct.  I haven't attempted to use a bet selection method because I've been playing all three ECs and it's complicated enough just to calculate the next bet and get it down in time.  But, I see what you mean. 


Thanks for helping me think this through.


George

[monaco]

hi George

are you still having success with this? hope so.

have a look at this set of spins - this was the worst i could find for this method..



from about the 4th line from the bottom up (from the zero on that line) up to the top, it really tests this. Although there are some streaks, they're not long enough or on 2 e/c's to pull it out.

i think it demonstrates the need for the stop-loss for this particular method, as opposed to something like Frippers Labby that is built on a priniciple of playing the game to the end.

I would personally put the stop-loss about 30u, as when it gets to this stage, you begin to get the feeling that it could just be getting out of control & impossible to pull back.

as you can see from your examples & mine, most of the time, 5,10 or 15 units can be won quite regularly without going beyond 20 units drawdown, so giving yourself 30 units might just be enough to win more than you lose.

[GLC]

hi George

are you still having success with this? hope so.

have a look at this set of spins - this was the worst I could find for this method..



from about the 4th line from the bottom up (from the zero on that line) up to the top, it really tests this. Although there are some streaks, they're not long enough or on 2 e/c's to pull it out.

i think it demonstrates the need for the stop-loss for this particular method, as opposed to something like Frippers Labby that is built on a priniciple of playing the game to the end.

I would personally put the stop-loss about 30u, as when it gets to this stage, you begin to get the feeling that it could just be getting out of control & impossible to pull back.

as you can see from your examples & mine, most of the time, 5,10 or 15 units can be won quite regularly without going beyond 20 units drawdown, so giving yourself 30 units might just be enough to win more than you lose.

I appreciate the observation Monaco.  Yes, as I tested it more I could see that there were going to be some large drawdowns that would take a real effort to come our of if you ever could.  30 unit stop loss may be just right.  Low stop losses keep you up to date so you know where you stand with the system at all times.  1500 unit stop losses leave you thinking you've found the holy grail until you finally have a 1500 unit loss.  And I don't even want to think about the possibility of two 1500 unit losses close together.

I will check out your spins when I get time just to see how bad it can get.

Also, it's such a difficult system to play and keep track of everything, that if it's not any better than a lot of others on this site, it's won't be worth all the effort.

G

[amk]

Hello GLC,

It will take me a lot of research to understand the method.....

From what I can gather would the progression

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c etc  ......  help?

On a loss move down one on the progression on a win move up one.............

[GLC]

Hello GLC,

It will take me a lot of research to understand the method.....

From what I can gather would the progression

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c etc  ......  help?

On a loss move down one on the progression on a win move up one.............

AMK,  That's not the way I have suggested we play this modified Oscars.  We never move down until we reach a new high bank.  That will end this attack and we will reset all bets to 1 and start a new attack.


With the original Oscars we increase our bet amount by 1 unit after every win.  With this progression, we track our number of losses and this will determine whether we increase our units bet by 1,2,3, or more after each win. 


There are two controllers. 1 is the number of losses and 2 is the number of units to increase our bet by after each win.  The chart I gave in post #1 tells us how many units to increase our bet by after a win depending on how many losses we have had up to that point in this attack.


So, if we are playing along and we have 6 losses and no wins, we are still betting 1 unit per bet.  If we win the 7th spin, we will increase our bet size to 2 units because our loss count is less than 11 and our chart says that if our loss count is  between 1 and 10 we only increase our bet size by 1 unit after each win.


If we are betting 6 units per bet and we have 13 losses and we win the current bet, we will increase our bet size by 2 units because our loss count falls in the 11-25 zone which tells us to increase our bet amount by 2 after each win.


The only time we have to start increasing our bet by more than 1 unit is when we are having a losing start to our attack and we are hoping for some wins in a row at unit amounts higher than we were betting on the bets we lost.


Remember, we never reduce our bet size until we reach a new high bank balance, and we only increase our bet size after we have just won.

[amk]

I see GLC........

What are your stats up to this moment........

[GLC]

Monaco,


I devised this system because I thought it would be easier to play than Tera TNT.  I don't know if it is or not if we have to play all 3 e.c.'s simultaneously to have a winning system.  I am going to play your spin sequence from hell with this system and also with Tera TNT to see how each performs.


This will take a while since I don't know Tera TNT that well, so there will be a lot of mistakes that I'll have to correct.  I am not going to play them differentially because it will be too complicated for the large number of spins.


I will play Red/Black with both systems and see which works the best.  Then I will play O/E and H/L.  whichever comes out on top, will be the method I'm going to work with to try to improve. 


I'll keep everyone posted.  Did you play your spins based on playing all three differentially?


George

[GLC]

I see GLC........

What are your stats up to this moment........

AMK,


I'm not spending a lot of time testing this because I don't have a lot of time to sit and test.  I have played a few short sessions at the local casino which I posted above.  Most of my other testing have been with Smee's posted session and Bayes' horror session.  So I don't really have stats that are going to convince you that this is something to invest a lot of time in.  All I can say is if you're interested, test it and see how you like it.


If you have more questions about how it's played, I will be happy to try to clarify all.


Cheers,


George