HYBRID DC4

[GLC]

Don't feel like I'm screwing with the system I kinda like it as written, just did 500 going across as stated----the Betting part is another matter all together-LoL,,,

When betting 1-1   3-3   9-9  you have a finite number of chips to deal with.  When betting +2 on a loss and -1 on a win, you can get in the hole quite a bit so you have to have a real bankroll.  If you had 2 or 3 banks of 26 units each, you would have to be the most unlucky person in the world to lose all three.  Of course, if you play here in the US, you have the additional zero working against you and if you find a single zero table, they have a hefty minimum bet.

Hey Tom,  let's just move to the UK until they vote to legalize on-line gambling over here.
Just kidding,

[Tomla021]

Im thinking 11, 22,44 ,88    30 units and take some minor hits. 
UK is nice but all of the euro people are buying up the property too fast this week to get into pounds and protect against a fall of the euro. How about we just say the first one to give us legal live roulette online gets our Presidential votes this year!!!!!!
At least Boston will get a real casino but it will take a few years to build the damn thing---

[GLC]

Tom,  In reply #27 Warrior suggested that a way to play this with a flat bet is to play 100 placed bets at 1-1 and see where you are.  If down add 1 unit and play another 100 at 2-2.  Etc...
100 may be too many bets for my boredom level.  Of course if we're playing at a $50 minimum table it could keep me awake (I meant you, not we.  I'm too cheap for $50 minimum).  Also, we're only playing to reach +5 units.  That could happen pretty quickly most trips.

Maybe 40 bets like Project 202.

Another option is to play 1-1 and 3-3 for 8 units.  Play this way for 40 placed bets and if you're down go to 2-2 and 6-6 for 40 placed bets or until you reach a new high bank.

If the strike rate stays high, you should be able to eke out 5 chips this way without risking the farm.

Just thinking out loud.

[Tomla021]

100 is too much at 30 spins an hour, 11-33 im just afraid  that I hit 3 no hits enough to cover the rest , I have to check on the more conservative approach, I did mostly the regular non-conservative way testing today. I checked about 1200 zumma 0/00 and havent gone past 3 no hits. On the whole it seems great and is pretty easy to test.....the more poeple test and play the more we all know

[Robeenhuut]

I think Warrior original idea was 2,3 games in a session  either with  1,3,9 progression or 1 up or down after loss or win n walk away when +5u.  It worked 4 him. Suddenly we talk about 100 spins game. i understand that he plays it using 1 up or down staking plan.  Just curious about breakdown of his games and especially highest bet level. That would give us maybe some concrete ideas as 2 f it is really necessary 2 further tweak it. 

[Tomla021]

Im  all for warriors idea!!!

[GLC]

I think Warrior original idea was 2,3 games in a session  either with  1,3,9 progression or 1 up or down after loss or win n walk away when +5u.  It worked 4 him. Suddenly we talk about 100 spins game. i understand that he plays it using 1 up or down staking plan.  Just curious about breakdown of his games and especially highest bet level. That would give us maybe some concrete ideas as 2 f it is really necessary 2 further tweak it.

RBH,  I have no doubt that Warrior's way is an excellent way, but I doubt seriously if it's the only way to play it and win.  We're not trying to convince anyone to play any way other than Warrior's way.  Tom and I are just tweaking around seeing if there's a way to play it profitably that fits our playing style a little better.
Don't mean to imply that Warrior doesn't know how to create an excellent system and maybe in the end we'll be playing it exactly the way he suggested.

After all, we're having to contend with double zero which is a different animal from single zero.
Tom, maybe we should go off forum and continue this via e-mail.

No need to muddy up a good topic.

GLC

[GLC]

GLC

[Robeenhuut]

RBH,  I have no doubt that Warrior's way is an excellent way, but I doubt seriously if it's the only way to play it and win.  We're not trying to convince anyone to play any way other than Warrior's way.  Tom and I are just tweaking around seeing if there's a way to play it profitably that fits our playing style a little better.
Don't mean to imply that Warrior doesn't know how to create an excellent system and maybe in the end we'll be playing it exactly the way he suggested.

After all, we're having to contend with double zero which is a different animal from single zero.
Tom, maybe we should go off forum and continue this via e-mail.

No need to muddy up a good topic.

GLC

I would not call it muddying up     There is no harm done if somebody offers suggestions pertaining 2 d subject n there r no personal attacks. 

[GLC]

Warrior,
I have a couple of questions.  First, why did you design it so we have to wait for the same column to get triggered before continuing betting after a double loss?
Second, why did you only use the dozens to initiate columns and not the columns also?  I know that's a little confusing since I'm using columns to represent two aspects of the system.  What I mean is that we could have playing columns that are initiated by A B & C as well as 1  2 &  3 giving us more bets.

I have an idea what the answers are, but wanted to know if you've tested both ways and found your way to be the most porfitable.  It'll save us some time testing alternatives if you've already done it.

Thanks,
GLC

[justanothergambler]

did you try to swap dzs and columns and play for a match?
for instance 3 goes under 1 and 1 goes under 2 and 2 goes under 3 etc..?
1b2c     
3...

[warrior]

Warrior,
I have a couple of questions.  First, why did you design it so we have to wait for the same column to get triggered before continuing betting after a double loss?
Second, why did you only use the dozens to initiate columns and not the columns also?  I know that's a little confusing since I'm using columns to represent two aspects of the system.  What I mean is that we could have playing columns that are initiated by A B & C as well as 1  2 &  3 giving us more bets.

I have an idea what the answers are, but wanted to know if you've tested both ways and found your way to be the most porfitable.  It'll save us some time testing alternatives if you've already done it.

Thanks,
GLC

GLC yes i tested both ways i found that for some reason putting colums first i got losses of 2 in a row alot more often dont no why so i thought to just stick to the dozen first ,and the way i play i wait for the first match although there are so many hit s on the first ,but i found if i lost 2 in a row after the match ,i would wait for the next trigger on that line because in all the results i had  2 in a row losses ,only 0nce in 5000 tries so i thought i would go with that , but you are a genious and you dont even no it ,but your idea about playing for only one  section is fantastic  im testing as we speak,but the waiting in between spins is a factor so im working on how to fill that in with a min. bet until the trigger comes up again i few ideas but i have to test which one would suit this best ,this bet would have to finance the main bet for when the trigger comes up and use that profit towards the progression,so for ex i win 2 units i would add that to my progression that way it extends the progression on the main bet,just an idea so far .

[justanothergambler]

warrior did you test the interchanging idea ?

[warrior]

warrior did you test the interchanging idea ?

whats that?

[justanothergambler]

what's that?

look up at my previous post  in this page