Too much good to be true ?

[Lulloz]

Hello all,

when a system can be considered a good system ?

After reading a topic about Numeris, I have googled and find an interesting image.

Viewing this image I have an idea for bet selection and i'm trying to generate a system for playing it.

In attach a graph with 1000 real sping from Playtech rng.

In 1000 spins have lost progression 6 times and have always recovered losses with good profit.

Initial bank is 500 Euro, and stake are 0,50 with mild progression betting on 4 singles for max 16 spins.

Progression is:

1 - 0,50 x 4
2 - 0,50 x 4
3 - 0,50 x 4
4 - 0,50 x 4
5 - 0,50 x 4
6 - 0,50 x 4
7 - 0,50 x 4
8 - 0,50 x 4
9 - 1,00 x 4
10 - 1,00 x 4
11 - 1,00 x 4
12 - 1,00 x 4
13 - 1,50 x 4
14 - 1,50 x 4
15 - 1,50 x 4
16 - 1,50 x 4

If at 16 spin we don't have a win I consider session lost and start a new session with initial stake of 1 euro until recovered and after recovered we come back to 0,50 euro stake.

More to come.

[attachthumb=#]

[ADulay]

In attach a graph with 1000 real sping from Playtech rng.

Just to clear up a question, are these "real spins" or RNG spins?

Your quoted statement is opposed in its structure.

AD

[Lulloz]

Sorry, i know my english is very bad

Spins are from Playtech RNG roulette (Single 0 roulette PRO).

I'm testing if it worth to be discussed here or not.

After some days of test i can see if we can find a way to discuss and improve the system.

How many spins can be enough ?

[Jordan]

A system that needs 1000 chips BR it is just NOT a system.

it is betting like hell huge amounts of money in order to TRY to win.and in the end u will lose very badly!

[Lulloz]

Interesting Jordan, and by you experience how much is enough bankroll to play single ?

[Jordan]

IF I say IF there was a system that was a true winner it wouldn t need more than 40 chips in order to take care the bad sequances inside the sessions.

[Lulloz]

And you have a system based on singles playable with 40 chips that win ?

[Jordan]

No I don t .
Also U do not have a system that can win even with 1000 chips.

[iggiv]

IF I say IF there was a system that was a true winner it wouldn t need more than 40 chips in order to take care the bad sequances inside the sessions.

Jordan, it sounds like a science fiction to me. No more than 40 chips...

[Jordan]

OK let me tell this to U with a more analitic way.

If a system is a real edje winner it doesn t need PROGRESSIONS
Also it will never need more than 40 chips,because if it is making loses more than 40 chips ,then it will never recover....
If u have a real edje u can t have so bad accuracy of the bets(40 chips)....

[Kav]

It IS science fiction.

Fluctuations in Roulette are so dramatic that anything less than 1000 units total Bankroll is a joke.

[Lulloz]

I'm interested in what you say Jordan, very interested.

My "creature" for now is winning but i think it can be much better.

I have a system that seem to win with 1000 chips of starting bankroll and progression but i want a system more safe and more performant.

Please write your advice if you want, thx.

[Lulloz]

I'm no one in roulette but reading post in some forum, many experienced player say to start with a 3000 - 5000 unit bankroll to play safe.. to me starting with 1000 bank sounds great but Jordan have take me down to earth 

It IS science fiction.

Fluctuations in Roulette are so dramatic that anything less than 1000 units total Bankroll is a joke.

[Jordan]

U will read a lot of things in Roulette forums.
The point is to test anything that you will have from times to times and you will selfprooved that anything is losing close to -2,7...
It doesn't matter how many chips you have as BR...

BIGGER BR = more wins BUT when the loss will come it will be far BIGGER than the wins.
Small BR    = less wins BUT  when the loss will come it will be small.

IF a system is a winner it doesn't need PROGRESSIONS....
Progressions are for the systems that are losing and you just need to extend the loss in order to be KILLED instantly!

Any system should be bazed on the accuracy of the bets....

Keep that in mind.

[Anima-t3d]

You are right jordan. But I wonder about this:
-Let's say you have winning system in the long run (which also loses shorterm)
-Your base unit is $1
-You made a profit and then you make a loss which is locked in (like when you get connection issue's with online casino's or like you reached the end of a progression).
-If we bet $2 as a base unit till we recovered our losses and then switch back to $1. Wouldn't that give us an advantage over the casino? Because now the loss we suffered is only "half" as big to recover. Whereas if we win and then up the bet, the casino will win "double".

So if the casino has an edge of 2.7% wouldn't that mean if we up our bets by 2.7% on a loss we neutralise the loss? Of course the system must be a winning one in the first place.