Dynamic Differential Betting

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Colbster

I would not play your system without early reset or much earlier swapping. If you encounter streak of lets say 5 or 6 repeats on a wrong side in early stages you have a chance to recover. Equalization factor might not  help you later. The dangerous situation is when you get to the point when you bet lets say 15 units on one side and 2 or 3 on other and you lose 3 or 4 next bets. On other side you can only win few units. In one of your examples you were down at one point 79u and you recovered but it required winning 14 out of next 19 bets. You won't be that  lucky next time.
To me you were extremely lucky not to lose big more times.

Do early reset and maybe its necessary to incorporate some control  about spread between bets and stop-loss is absolutely crucial.

Regards

[superman]

Yesterday with some communication with Colby, I botted it and ran many tests, sadly it gets to a point of no return, or the drawdowns are just too big, I ran a simulation against 10,000 real money spins at BV NZ first test was without resetting when ahead, yes it made more money but had huge drawdowns, using 1 cent chips the drawdown was $70, resetting when ahead against the same number set made a lot less money and had only a slightly lower drawdown, $68 I think it was.

To me you were extremely lucky not to lose big more times

I have to agree i'm afraid, bet selection could play a large part in the results but as we know, no matter what selection you use there will always be the run from hell that works against it.

[Bayes]

I would not play your system without early reset or much earlier swapping

I agree with that. Maybe try a reverse D'Alembert? (raising after wins, not losses). Or you could cut it short at maybe 10 units and then start over at 3 units on both sides.

[Robeenhuut]

I agree with that. Maybe try a reverse D'Alembert? (raising after wins, not losses). Or you could cut it short at maybe 10 units and then start over at 3 units on both sides.

I would pray for a streak of chops at early stages to get some quick profit and shut down.
Or i would try to guard against betting on wrong repeats by shifting bets between EC but if  you encounter opposite sequence of chops then you lose as well.
But generally i would consider it much safer bet.

Regards

[Colbster]

@Robeen  I have had some of the same concern about getting to the point of no return.  The earlier swapping seems like it could be the better solution, maybe 5 or 6?  The reason that I was able to recover was that I moved to the side that had already showed a clear advantage by being able to pull 10 bets ahead of even.  A simplistic bet like the one I use will typically perform either really well or really poorly.  Swapping to the stronger side seems to take advantage of that, but I may be waiting too long.  Thanks for the input.

@Superman  Not sure if you got my email in reply.  You couldn't have a drawdown of of 7000 units if you stop at level 20, which is what I suggested.  The maximum loss that you could incur is 190 units.  The danger with a d'Alembert is the ridiculous numbers you can get too with a poor bet selection.  Did you ever reswap at a higher level than 10?  Results would be different if you did.

@Bayes  Not a fan of the reverse d'Alembert on its own, but it might work brilliantly with a differential bet.  I will play around with it some.  Thanks for the idea.  Also, 10 brings the possible loss down to 45 units vs. 190 units at level 20, although it doesn't give much time for recovery.  We always need to be mindful of risk v. return.

[superman]

@Superman  Not sure if you got my email in reply.  You couldn't have a drawdown of of 7000 units if you stop at level 20, which is what I suggested.  The maximum loss that you could incur is 190 units.  The danger with a d'Alembert is the ridiculous numbers you can get too with a poor bet selection.  Did you ever reswap at a higher level than 10?  Results would be different if you did

No I didn't stop at any level, I replied to this post before I saw your email this morning.

When you say stop at level 20 do you mean stop when either progression hits 20?

If you stop at 20 what do you do next, just reset to 1/1, continue and take the loss? the only other thing would be to stop for the day, but then its like hit and run which we know doesn't work.

I will run a test that resets both to 1 if either hit 21 and continue from there

[superman]

ok test complete, sad news

Resetting to 1/1 after a + in bank = total loss of -1138 units, peak reached 87, worst drawdown was -1385, highest progression used was 19 units.

NOT resetting after + in bank = -1177 units, peak reached 138, worst drawdown was -1424, highest progression used was 19 units. > 20 Resets = 39

NOT resetting after + in bank = -1015 units, peak reached 144, worst drawdown was -1086, highest progression used was 19 units. > 10 Resets = 108

[Colbster]

I have regularly exceeded your peaks, so I am thinking we are not communicating properly. Also, did you take any profits along the way? If we have a stop-loss but no win goal, we will just have a series of 190-unit losses and no wins.

[Robeenhuut]

I have regularly exceeded your peaks, so I am thinking we are not communicating properly. Also, did you take any profits along the way? If we have a stop-loss but no win goal, we will just have a series of 190-unit losses and no wins.
[/qu
Hello Cobster

i dont need any statistical testing to tell me that your stop loss should not be around  80u. i would put it on the level on which you would need 2 consecutive wins to put you close to breaking even point.  If u require 5 consecutive wins to break even then you would not be able to recover most of the time.
I would aim for win goal of max 20 units with resetting and early swapping and stop loss of around 30 units.  In my opinion its an realistic goal.
In this case winning 2 out of 3 sessions or 3 out of 4 would make you profit.
If your draw down exceeds 50 units its very difficult to recover on a constant basis no matter if  u swap or not.
Thats my humble opinion

Regards

[Colbster]

30 unit stop loss only gives you 7 steps, which is not long enough for the benefits of the swap to kick in.  I agree that 2 wins to cover 1 loss is a great place to be, and that is roughly where I am when playing a single EC.  When I play 3 ECs, my losses tend to be largely offset by wins on the other ECs, so my losses are relatively small compared to the wins of my best sessions.  If you look at the sessions I have recorded, you will see that most of my losses are recovered by just a single win.  The second win that you want to have as a loss recovery is the pure profit.  I'm up about 800 units so far in limited testing, including my biggest losses.  I understand your desire to stay resonably safe, but I think your changes woud neuter the beauty of what I am putting forward here.  However, I absolutely appreciate the input and am anxious to hear what works for you if you do some testing with your changes.

Thanks again!

Colby

[Robeenhuut]

30 unit stop-loss only gives you 7 steps, which is not long enough for the benefits of the swap to kick in.  I agree that 2 wins to cover 1 loss is a great place to be, and that is roughly where I am when playing a single EC.  When I play 3 ECs, my losses tend to be largely offset by wins on the other ECs, so my losses are relatively small compared to the wins of my best sessions.  If you look at the sessions I have recorded, you will see that most of my losses are recovered by just a single win.  The second win that you want to have as a loss recovery is the pure profit.  I'm up about 800 units so far in limited testing, including my biggest losses.  I understand your desire to stay resonably safe, but I think your changes woud neuter the beauty of what I am putting forward here.  However, I absolutely appreciate the input and am anxious to hear what works for you if you do some testing with your changes.

Thanks again!

Colby

Hello Colbster

If you play 3 EC at the same time then you can of course offset some losses in one EC.
I don't understand though your statement that in most of your sessions you can recover by just one win.  In earlier post i wrote that once you went down 79u and needed to win 13 out of 19 next bets or 6 consecutive bets to recover.
Swapping just gives you a false sense of more security. If you can read trends that well why do you need a system like this?  Just use simple d'Alembert or other suitable progression.  I definitely like the idea of playing all 3 EC at the same time.
I played a system betting on EC before when i managed to pull myself from 70 or 80 units down and got lucky few times but finally lost 2 times in the row. At this level you usually need at least of 5 more wins to recover (like 13 wins and 6 losses in the next 19 bets in your case)  In my experience its very difficult to have  such a ratio.
Don't get me wrong. I like your system but you need to have win goal and stop-loss and i would definitely reset.
Playing all 3 EC like this might make you profit long term.

Regards

[Colbster]

I didn't mean one spin win, I meant one session win.  When I lose, it was 70-100 units.  That is typically what I gain before quitting a session as well.  When this system loses, it has partially been offset by the spins so far.  When it works, it works brilliantly and consumes the losses.  I don't have to read the trends, the system reads the trends and corrects itself.  When the bet selection is winning a ton, the losing line goes down 10 units.  Then I swap the 10 units to the winning side and they are overcome by the winning system.  It solves its own problems.  Brilliant!

[Robeenhuut]

I didn't mean one spin win, I meant one session win.  When I lose, it was 70-100 units.  That is typically what I gain before quitting a session as well.  When this system loses, it has partially been offset by the spins so far.  When it works, it works brilliantly and consumes the losses.  I don't have to read the trends, the system reads the trends and corrects itself.  When the bet selection is winning a ton, the losing line goes down 10 units.  Then I swap the 10 units to the winning side and they are overcome by the winning system.  It solves its own problems.  Brilliant!

Hello Colbster

I gave it some thought and i think that maybe we could play it a bit different. I bet every spin.  The worst situation is when you have long repeats on both EC's. Like when you get HHHHH at the beginning you are down 10u. If you get after this a long streak of L's like LLLLL you back to zero. But if you alternated your bets on H and L you would be ahead 7u.
Let me explain more :

H    H  1     L -1        you bet 2u on H instead of L
H    H  2     L -1        you bet 2u on H again
H    H  2     L -1         
H    H  2     L -1
H    H  2     L -1        you got 4 repeats and you are ahead 4u
L    H -2     L  1         you continue alternating
L    H -1     L  3         u won 3u on L and bet then 2u on opposite and vice versa
L    H -2     L  2         again you switch your bets: 3u on L instead of H after loss
L    H -1     L  3
L    H -2     L  2          ahead 7u

If you get chops after that lets see what happens

H   H  1       L -3
L   H -4       L  1
H   H  1       L -5
L   H -6       L  1         down 8u  overall

You are on the wrong side of chops. Thats a worst case scenario

L   H -1        L  7
H   H  6        L -2
L   H -3        L  5
H   H  4        L -4        up 4u  overall

Now you got on the right side  and repeats are coming

H  H  5         L -3
H  H  4         L -4
H  H  5         L -3
H  H  4         L -4
H  H  5         L -3         +10u
L  H -4         L  4
L  H -3         L  5

You pull ahead. Sometimes you bet the same amount on both. Of course because of 0 you skip it and bet virtually.

My point is that playing like this you are much more safe. Basically only if you bet for wrong sequence of chops you will get constant losses but you can take advantage of repeats and good sequence of chops.
Just an idea.

Regards

[Colbster]

I understand where you are coming from.  No matter what system we put into effect, there will be some series that will beat it.  We have to be careful not to tailor our systems to beat one set of circumstances, just to be beat by another set of circumstances.  The reason why I believe that this works as well as it seems to is because roulette has short-, medium-, and long-term trends.  If there were no trends, that would be a trend that could be exploited by a clever bettor.  Since there are trends, specifically a bet selection method working or not working well during a session, we bend that trend back on itself.  With the differential betting I am suggesting, we don't win a lot of money if we win every bet.  We win the most when the chops come and we keep both progressions churning and winning positive amounts at the same time.  When the winning line is at 1 and the losing line is at 10, that tells us that we are winning a lot more than we are losing.  We can take advantage of that temporary knowledge by swapping the progressions and letting the winning trends take our 1-10 down to 5-5, or even better 10-1 so we can do it all over again and make even more money.

You suggested in an earlier post that I was just lucky because I won a disproportionate number of spins.  That wasn't luck, that was the system working the way it is supposed to.  By identifying that we were winning more than we were losing, we were able to take the "losing" progression and clean it up with the winning trend for that session.  It doesn't always work that way.  If we have WWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLL, we are shot.  However, that sort of streak is uncommon enough that we can win a lot of money in between the disaster sessions, enough that we can weather the hit we will eventually take.  Max loss with my rules is 190 units.  If we regularly take profits of 50 or 70 or 90, based on nothing more than our feel for where we are in the game, we cover that 190 quickly and then start putting some in our pockets for supper.

I'm not afraid of the losses here.  They will always come.  Don't overlook the winnings while you are trying to avoid the losses.

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Colbster

Good luck then. I still think that its extremely difficult to recover from bigger than 50u draw down playing single EC and stop loss of 190 is bit too high. But if it works for you so far then congrats.

Anyway its only for non zero roulette.

Regards