You know that 24 reds or 24 blacks show once during 1 million.
The extreme and nothing is due to happen.
This way i want to show you how you can place only 14 attempts covering 24 independent trails or a sequence of 24 as a pattern.
This is for fun.
Then main reason i post this is because its is pretty amazing that you can reduce 10 attempts covering 24 trails with only 14.
Here is the explanation.
We all know the principal of 1/3 where we clustering patterns into three outcomes / groups.
I come up with an idea how to cover all possibilities that not all 8 patterns / combinations will have a show.
That is a sequence of 24 trails.
Now i will try to explain how it is done.
First we will start with out colours and just look at the formations.
There is 4 existing formations.
XXX
XOX
XXO
OXX
Now no matter what formation show first i bet same will repeat with one single bet.
XXX
X
Here i would bet X next
Or if we hade following formation
XOX
X
I would bet O next
If no win then i get two different formations
XOX
XXO
Then next bet, the second bet would be betting that one of does two formations would repeat.
Then you wait to see what formation will match before you make one single bet.
If the formation starts with XO then you would bet for XOX
It the formation starts with XX then you would bet for XXO
Lets say we lose and get three unique formations.
XOX
XXO
XOO
Now you have only one formation left if not one of does previous three will repeat.
And we have only placed two single bets.
So now XX or XO will be dominating formation and with this example above it is two formation that start with XO.
So next bet would be for a change XO, the third bet.
XOX
XXO
XOO
X
Lets say will lose
XOX
XXO
XOO
XX
Then we would place our last bet that XXO would show.
This is a total of four single bets.
Now we lose them all and all 4 formation show.
XOX
XXO
XOO
XXX
Now if you do this with colours you bet as follows.
If the first color is Red then you bet first there will be black.
If not you then follow the march i describe above.
So that is a total of 6 single bets.
If you would lose you would get all 4 formation with the same colour.
RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
Next would be playing Red as not black would show following the same march as i describe.
Does would be 8 single bets and a total of 14 single bets to cover the 24 trails or that all 8 patterns would have a show.
RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
BBB
BRB
BBR
BRR
Quote2 2 1
2 1 1 LL
1 2 2 W
1 2 2 LW
2 1 1 W
2 1 1 LW
2 2 2 LL
2 1 1 LW
1 2 2 W
2 2 1 W
2 1 2 LL
2 1 2 LW
1 1 2 W
1 1 1 LW
2 1 1 W
2 2 2 LL
2 1 1 LW
1 1 1 W
1 2 1 LL
1 1 1 LW
1 1 2 LW
1 2 1 LL
2 1 2 W
1 2 2 W
1 1 1 LL
2 2 1 W
1 2 1 W
1 1 1 LL
1 1 2 LL
2 1 1 W
2 1 2 LW
2 1 1 LW
2 2 2 LL
1 1 1 W
2 1 2 W
1 2 1 W
1 1 1 LL
1 1 1 LW
2 1 1 W
2 2 2 LL
2 2 1 LL
2 2 2 W
2 1 1 LL
2 2 1 LL
1 2 2 W
2 2 1 W
2 2 2 LW
1 1 1 W
1 2 1 LL
1 1 2 LL
1 1 1 W
2 1 1 W
2 1 2 LW
1 1 2 W
1 1 1 LW
2 1 1 W
2 1 1 LW
2 1 2 LW
2 2 1 LL
1 2 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 1 2 W
1 2 1 LL
2 2 1 W
2 1 1 LL
2 2 2 LL
1 1 1 W
2 2 1 W
1 1 2 W
2 1 1 W
2 2 2 LL
1 2 2 W
2 2 1 W
1 2 2 W
1 1 2 LL
2 2 1 W
2 1 1 LL
2 2 1 LW
2 2 2 LW
1 2 1 W
1 1 1 LL
2 2 2 W
2 1 1 LL
1 2 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 2 2 W
2 1 1 W
2 2 1 LL
2 2 2 LL
2 2 1 W
1 2 2 W
1 2 1 LW
1 1 1 LL
1 2 1 LW
1 2 1 LW
1 2 2 LW
1 2 1 LW
2 1 1 W
1 1 1 W
2 1 2 W
- LoL - this is still new for me and i discover its only 13 attempts covering 24 trails.
Correcting this topic.
RRR
RBR LL
RRB LL
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LL
Wrong again i was thinking right the first time.
The last bet is to cover three bets.
RRR
RBR LL
RRB LL
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LLL
So its 14 but still amzing.
I'm late I'm late I'm late! LoL
Interesting Ego
Believe it or not, If you look up something I did when I first joined here called "streaks and toggles" its similar in action
Continuously modifying your bet to fit the bill.
(BTW...you saying does instead of those stops me in my tracks every time lol)
I don't get it ego.
What end of the story?
So what?
I'm afraid it's an interesting curiosity,but useless.
In addition, the math negative expectancy is still the same and the personal permanence is not affected by your approach.
RRR
RBR L
RRB L
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LLL
LoL i reduce the bets down to 12 covering 24 independent trails.
You just bet the formation at first state with 4 bets.
Then you cover colours and no repeats for the next 12 outcomes placing 8 bets.
Following the march i describe.
I am so clever LOL :twisted:
ego - In the real World where exactly have you been playing your clever method & how much money are you UP so far ?
He don't play roulette,only experiments...so he said.
Awesome ego.
Quote from: ausguy on Dec 13, 02:23 PM 2013
ego - In the real World where exactly have you been playing your clever method & how much money are you UP so far ?
Why do you like to question people about their wins and losses. Just appreciate the fact that they are sharing their systems.
They aren't forcing you to play them.
Can someone explaine how this works .
Hello . . .
Attached is a Tracker to help test Pattern Betting of this type.
The Tracker simply tracks the formations of the 8 patterns of XXX, OOO, XOX, OXO, XXO,OOX, XOO, OOX.
When it finds that the last 6 patterns are Unique (no repeats), then it bets that the next 2 patterns will not be unique, ie. it bets for a repeat.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks...I.
OK..........here I go again!! :D
I have F9ed this thing a hundred times. I have never seen anything lose so little.
Isn't this what Jl touted?? No, but close to it. Wouldn't it be a lark if Ego completed Jl's work. Sorry, Ego. It's YOUR work!!
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Dec 14, 02:43 PM 2013
OK..........here I go again!! :D
I have F9ed this thing a hundred times. I have never seen anything lose so little.
Isn't this what Jl touted?? No, but close to it. Wouldn't it be a lark if Ego completed Jl's work. Sorry, Ego. It's YOUR work!!
Sam
Sam can you please explaine to me how this work .
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Dec 14, 02:43 PM 2013
OK..........here I go again!! :D
I have F9ed this thing a hundred times. I have never seen anything lose so little.
Isn't this what Jl touted?? No, but close to it. Wouldn't it be a lark if Ego completed Jl's work. Sorry, Ego. It's YOUR work!!
Sam
got one in 10 times
Quote15
35
14
35
4
25
31
29
35
23
33
10
12
18
25
3
34
21
15
18
27
6
16
23
16
8
27
3
28
1
22
20
17
22
23
15
3
32
1
Quote from: warrior on Dec 14, 04:45 PM 2013
Sam can you please explaine to me how this work .
The tracker Nick attached explains it all. Basically there are 8 ways a r/b can form. This wait until six of them have formed and bets there WILL be a repeat.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Dec 14, 05:44 PM 2013
The tracker Nick attached explains it all. Basically there are 8 ways a r/b can form. This wait until six of them have formed and bets there WILL be a repeat.
Sam
Are we waiting for these 6 unique patterns then we bet the last 2 to repeat . If so that's a lot of waiting. Or a betting from the first pattern?
You could see it quicker if you use my idea of lines as EC's
I will try this.
Yes, you do wait for six to form and then bet. It is a long wait............
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Dec 14, 08:30 PM 2013
Yes, you do wait for six to form and then bet. It is a long wait............
Got it thanks .
There are 2 thing that confuse me:
1- The way EGO and NICKMSI make the patterns:
EGO NICKMSI
1 R
2 R
3 B RRB RRB
4 R RBR
5 B BRB
6 B RRB RBB
7 B BBB
8 R BBR
9 B BRB BRB
which is the correct way to build the patterns?
2- When to bet.
I still don't understand how Ego place the bets. It is clear that NICKMSI does it different as EGO.
Can anyone please help me?
Ricardo
To wait for 6 different 3 spins patterns means to get old at the roulette table.(probability 1 out 500)Lol
There used to be a guy called Eirescott who posted a strategy along similar lines to this called the 'Birthday Paradox'.
But that was in some of the old Baccarat forums. Anyone interested might still be able to google it.
I just remembered 'Imspirit' wrote a bit about it on his blog.
Here you go......
link:://imspirit.wordpress.com/tag/birthday-paradox/
Ok....by status.....we are saying this
we see
RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
BBB
BRB
then RB
we "know" this will be a repeat
So it could be RBB or RBR......so all we have to do is bet red, or black.... :-\
its Black, but we bet red so we lose
now BB....and we know this wont be unique also, so its definitely going to be B (theres no choice)
Is that correct? Its a definitely?
can't believe I'm being this dense but..... @Turner (or anyone else for that matter!), why can't it be BBR? Why can't it be a unique sequence?
Hi Blood Angel . . .
Yes, you are correct. The pattern could be unique and you will lose. It could also be a repeat and you will win.
This pattern type betting will win and lose according to the laws of probability and eventually will lose due to the house advantage.
Most people do not have access to Trackers/Bots and testing systems manually can be tedious and time consuming so the purpose of the Tracker is to allow members to quickly and easily learn about Pattern type methods and they will see, with a little effort, that this will not work in the long term.
I have found that when actively engaged in the learning process (like with a Tracker) people will have a quicker and greater retention of the subject matter.
This Tracker is not exactly Ego's method, as I am still confused as to how he exactly plays it but it is a Pattern based method so I wanted everyone to see and learn how Pattern based methods work or don't work.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your reply.
I'm pretty sure that I speak for everyone here when I say, "thank you", to you for the trackers you upload to here and other Forums. As you quite rightly say, they save us a lot of time.
Quote from: Blood Angel on Dec 15, 07:04 AM 2013
can't believe I'm being this dense but..... @Turner (or anyone else for that matter!), why can't it be BBR? Why can't it be a unique sequence?
BA...
I was being a little tongue in cheek...as i too don't see a reason BBR can't show either.
Also, If you look at the 1st bet, it lost, but wasn't unique, therefor the last 6 from that point arnt unique, so there is no trigger.
Its a "Sam-ism"
"and what if I joined the table a few spins later?"
One guy sees BBB as being a definite...according to the statement....and the other guy sees no trigger and thinks anything could happen (and its the same 3 spins)
Quote from: Turner on Dec 15, 10:21 AM 2013
BA...
I was being a little tongue in cheek...as i too don't see a reason BBR can't show either.
Also, If you look at the 1st bet, it lost, but wasn't unique, therefor the last 6 from that point arnt unique, so there is no trigger.
Its a "Sam-ism"
"and what if I joined the table a few spins later?"
One guy sees BBB as being a definite...according to the statement....and the other guy sees no trigger and thinks anything could happen (and its the same 3 spins)
Gotcha! Thanks for the reply mate.
Well i can not drop this and i will start from the beginning.
Come with questions and i will try to answer.
I am about to try this method with real money and play baccarat.
I been thinking to add the Star progression.
Quote from: ugly bob on Dec 15, 05:46 AM 2013
There used to be a guy called Eirescott who posted a strategy along similar lines to this called the 'Birthday Paradox'.
But that was in some of the old Baccarat forums. Anyone interested might still be able to google it.
I just remembered 'Imspirit' wrote a bit about it on his blog.
Here you go......
link:://imspirit.wordpress.com/tag/birthday-paradox/ (link:://imspirit.wordpress.com/tag/birthday-paradox/)
The insight that Imspirit presents and the tests run confirm that if we think there's a Holy Grail, we're sadly mistaken. It does take a very long time for many of us to come to that final conclusion. We get more enjoyment from the chase, I think, than if we were to catch the prey.
I'm not saying you can't win at roulette. I'm saying that it takes more than a mechanical method and a sprinkling of luck to stay ahead in the long run. If 100 people played a system for 1,000,000 spins, would any of them be lucky enough to be a winner at the end? I doubt it. After 500 bets, maybe half would still be ahead. After 2,000 bets it might be down to only 25% would be still ahead. Another 2,000 and I doubt that more than 5% would still be ahead. After 10,000 maybe on 1 man left standing. If someone were super lucky, he might last for 20,000 bets, but I doubt it.
To a purely mechanical system throw in good money management, self-discipline, intuition, precognition, remote viewing, and a bucketful of luck and maybe you have a winner still on his last day.
I happen to have Eirescott's Grail method that I think I can e-mail to anyone that's interested in his final product. I say "think" because sometimes I can have trouble sending files in a format that can be used by the recipient. But most of the time things go well.
Send me a PM if you're interested.
GLC
Dear GLC,
I am interested in Eirescott's Grail method, particularly if it is e/c etc. I do alot of testing on excel and have been for three years with not much luck. i am currently looking at JWK method.
Unfortunatly you have blocked me!!
Best Regards Koolkat
I get so good results with this method, so i been thinking to play with real money.
How to cover 24 unique outcomes with only 15 placed bets.
Lets take clustering patterns into lines of three.
Principal of 1/3.
This is 8 unique combinations/patterns.
I can cover all possibilities for each patter will not have a show once.
1. BBB
2. BPB
3. BPP
4. BBP
5. PPP
6. PBP
7. PBB
8. PPB
To be continued - i have to think how to explain this extreme method.
There is also version where you can reduce the bets even more.
- - -
Ok let me start with how i come up with the idea.
I just wanted to reduce bets.
Lets say you have four formations.
XXX
XOX
XXO
OXX
Then if i get
XXX
Then i do nothing and just wait for the next outcome
XXX
O
Now if the formation will repeat, then i will get following formation OO if not then i get a new formation
XXX
OXO
Then i have placed one bet only and wait for next outcome
XXX
OXO
X
Well now i have to wait again for one more outcome because the formation can be any of the previous two, they can start with XX or OX¨
XXX
OXO
XO
Now i will bet for a repeat of the previos formation as we have a match, that is XOX and only one bet
XXX
OXO
XOO
I miss again and have 3 uique formation with 9 trails and i have only placed two bets
Now i wait for one new outcome before next decision
XXX
OXO
XOO
X
Now i have to play XO as i have two shows of it
XXX
OXO
XOO
XX
I miss and that was the third bet, now if next bet dont win with XXX formation, then i will have 4 unique formation with 12 trails and i make a total of 4 bets
XXX
OXO
XOO
XXO
This is how i started the experiment.
Place 4 bets and cover 12 unique trails or4 unique patterns.
To be continued ...
- - -
This is about that a dice with 8 sides will repeat at least once and not show each side once with no repeat.
A dice with 6 sides has 98.5% to show each side with no repeat and is more rare with 8 sides.
And it also capture zig zag ...
Now on topic.
You could see how you could betting against 4 formation to show once each with 4 bets, as i describe above.
Now if you would do the same thing with banker and player then you have add one more bet for each sequence.
Lets say you have BBB then you would start each bet with P as you would avoid to get 4 unique patterns that begin with banker.
BBB
BPB LL
BBP LL
BPP LLL
That is a total of seven bets.
Now you dont want 4 unique patterns that begin with player, so next bet you only have to bet once to avoid that.
Then you repeat the formula all over again.
BBB
BPB LL
BBP LL
BPP LLL
PPP L
PBP LL
PPB LL
PBB LLL
15 bets cover 24 unique trails to show or prevent 8 sides to show once each, alternate.
- - -
No matter what any one say so do i get very good results.
This is from todays random org file.
6 loses once during 300 trails or 3,5 shoe ...
2 1 2
1 1 2 W
1 1 2 LW
2 1 1 W
2 2 1 LL
1 1 1 W
1 2 2 LL
2 2 2 W
1 2 1 W
1 2 2 LW
2 2 2 W
1 2 1 W
2 1 1 W
2 1 1 LW
1 1 2 W
1 1 1 LW
1 2 2 LL
1 1 1 LW
1 2 2 LL
1 1 2 LL
2 1 1 W
1 2 1 W
2 2 2 W
1 1 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 1 2 W
2 2 1 W
1 2 2 W
1 1 1 LL
2 2 2 W
2 2 1 LW
1 2 2 W
2 2 1 W
1 1 2 W
1 1 2 LW
2 2 2 W
1 2 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 2 2 W
1 2 1 LW
2 2 2 W
1 1 2 W
2 1 2 W
1 2 1 W
1 2 2 LW
2 2 2 W
2 2 2 LW
1 1 2 W
1 2 1 LL
2 2 2 W
1 1 2 W
1 2 2 LL
2 2 1 W
2 2 1 LW
2 2 2 LW
2 1 1 LL
2 1 2 LW
2 1 2 LW
2 1 1 LW
1 2 1 W
2 1 2 W
1 1 1 W
1 2 2 LL
1 2 2 LW
1 2 1 LW
2 1 2 W
1 2 1 W
2 1 1 W
1 2 2 W
1 2 2 LW
1 1 2 LL
2 2 1 W
1 1 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 1 1 W
1 1 2 LW
2 1 1 W
2 2 2 LL
2 2 1 LL
2 1 1 LLW
2 2 2 LL
2 2 1 LL
1 1 1 W
1 1 1 LW
1 1 2 LW
1 2 2 LL
2 1 1 W
2 2 2 LL
2 2 1 LL
1 2 1 W
2 1 2 W
2 1 2 LW
2 2 2 LL
1 2 2 W
2 2 2 W
1 2 1 W
2 2 2 W
2 1 2 LL
1 1 1 W
1 1 1 LW
@koolkat
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4995.msg50106#msg50106 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4995.msg50106#msg50106)
maybe this helps you further.
cheers
hans
I am not saying this is my holy grail, but it looks very stable, i run some more testing and the winnings and loses chop very nice using this method, see attach files from random org ...
1200 trails ...
Ego, From analyzing your 1200 trials, it does look very stable. It looks like a total win of 20 units flat betting. One test was +1, another was +10, another +13 and the last -4 flat betting. To increase profits, a simple D'Alembert progression would increase profits without every having to bet too large a unit amount or go too deep in the hole.
Playing it with a flat bet should be a very stable ride without having to risk a huge bankroll. Twenty units over about 600 bets is a very small edge but what do you expect with a negative expectation game. It is tight enough that it could just be a favorable series of numbers.
With a flat bet, you it shouldn't get too out of hand if the tide turns. A reasonable stop loss of say 20 units should protect your bankroll. Of course, 1 unit won for every 30 bets will require a large enough unit size to make the time investment worthwhile.
GLC
Thanks GLC ... i will get back with better explanation about the method ...
I have created the very best method that exist for the principal of 1/3.
I have never seen any one write about the method where you clustering patterns into 1/3 and get so good results that i get.
Very small down swings and very high hit ratio.
I just feel happy after solving this method.
Thanks for sharing, I will definitely look into this, but at the moment I'm too busy testing my current method. Unfortunately I don't have programming skills, so it can take a very long time to test something. I was working on my previous system for 3 months every minute of my free time, and at the end, well... I gained some experience.
Thanks for sharing Ego.
I'm going to take another look at it in the evening.
link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29479/#new (link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29479/#new)
follow that link and you will find a new explanation that is clear as water ... and let me know if you find any public method that create such good strike ratio ... LOL
Hi ego
Great work there. I did a quick further analysis on the results(hopefully no mistake) -
24/5 : 3L = 6, 4L = 1, 5L = 1, 6L = 0, 7L = 1
25/5 : 3L = 4, 4L = 2, 5L = 0, 6L = 0, 7L = 0
26/5 : 3L = 3, 4L = 1, 5L = 1, 6L = 2, 7L = 0
27/5 : 3L = 4, 4L = 5, 5L = 1, 6L = 1, 7L = 0
28/5 : 3L = 8, 4L = 1, 5L = 2, 6L = 0, 7L = 0
29/5 : 3L = 3, 4L = 4, 5L = 1, 6L = 2, 7L = 0
30/5 : 3L = 9, 4L = 1, 5L = 2, 6L = 0, 7L = 0
31/5 : 3L = 3, 4L = 3, 5L = 0, 6L = 1, 7L = 0
From the distribution of loss sequence a cutoff be set at -5 or -8 per loss series. The latter is the better choice but this is only a small sample and a larger population will give better representation IF the loss fall off is -7 and this profitability pattern is maintained. May need to take into account the 5% commission banker or super6 1/2 payout. On roulette how to handle the zero - ignore? Need more test to better determine this and worthy of further study.
Bets after 3L and 4L is best combination imho.
Your latest 11bets for 24 unique shows this distribution(hope no mistake)
3/6 : 0L = 35, 1L = 11, 2L = 9, 3L = 5 4L = 0
Impressive! This latest is practical to sit on 1 table to play the whole shoe whereas the 15 bets for 24 unique its better if you table surf a number of tables, say 1 doz. Will test today at b&m casino. Keep up the great work!
Nice test results, thanks ...
Cheers
For some strange reason complicated, incomplete and confusing system descriptions seem to attract great interest :-\
Complicated probably yes. Incomplete and confusing no. Differs from person to person that depends much on intellect amd experience.
For best explanation follow the link that ego provided. If you have specific queries post them. Ego might reply.
This system merits further test @ b&m casino with baccarat. If you have real results pls post below as contribution to determine that its not temporary or localised on nature. That'll benefit everyone including yourself. Looking forward to your contributions. Cheers!
Ps make sure you get your understanding correct 1st. Else youre feeding us false info/data.
Follow ego link to see latest update results of baccarat data from b&m casino.
I've been reading this thread for almost 2 hours, and still having a hard time understanding it. But some of the examples finally starting to make sense.
I'm gonna try to explain what I have figured out through this example: link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531 (link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531)
So, it starts like this:
2 and 1 can be any even chance bet, red/black, player/banker, etc. whatever you prefer.
We start with waiting for a trigger, and it comes after the first two spins matches with one of the previous first two, then we bet that the third spin will repeat a previous sequence.
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 2
1 2 2 L After 1 2 has shown, we bet 1, expecting that 1 2 1 will repeat. 2 comes, we lose.
1 2 2 W Same situation, but the last time 1 2 happened, we got 2 for the third spin, so we bet 2 this time, and it wins.
1 1 1
1 1 2 L After seeing 1 1 1, then 1 1 we expect a repeat, so we bet 1, and we lose.
1 2 1 L We bet 2 expecting that 1 2 2 will repeat again.
2 2 2 Here I don't understand why we don't bet 2?
1 2 1 W 1 2 comes again so, we bet 1 and win.
1 2 1 W Same here.
2 2 1 Again, why don't we bet for 2?
2 2 1 W As explained above, after seeing 2 2, we expect that 2 2 1 will repeat, and it does so.
1 1 2
1 1 2 W The same thing goes on.
1 2 2 Here, I don't know why we don't bet 1?
2 1 1
1 2 1 L
1 2 1 W
So this is how I see it, it might be completely wrong. Why don't we bet at the questioned spots? Do you reset after a win or something?
Quote from: ati on Jun 09, 05:02 PM 2014
I've been reading this thread for almost 2 hours, and still having a hard time understanding it. But some of the examples finally starting to make sense.
I'm gonna try to explain what I have figured out through this example: link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531 (link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531)
So, it starts like this:
2 and 1 can be any even chance bet, red/black, player/banker, etc. whatever you prefer.
We start with waiting for a trigger, and it comes after the first two spins matches with one of the previous first two, then we bet that the third spin will repeat a previous sequence.
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 2
1 2 2 L After 1 2 has shown, we bet 1, expecting that 1 2 1 will repeat. 2 comes, we lose.
1 2 2 W Same situation, but the last time 1 2 happened, we got 2 for the third spin, so we bet 2 this time, and it wins.
It came out 1 and since there two 1 2 we bet for 1 2 to come out for a repeat.
1 1 1
1 1 2 L After seeing 1 1 1, then 1 1 we expect a repeat, so we bet 1, and we lose.
1 2 1 L We bet 2 expecting that 1 2 2 will repeat again.
It came out 1 and since there two 1 1 we bet for 1 1 to come out for a repeat.
2 2 2 Here I don't understand why we don't bet 2?
***controversial. I dont know either.
1 2 1 W 1 2 comes again so, we bet 1 and win.
***again, controversial bcos of the above.
1 2 1 W Same here.
2 2 1 Again, why don't we bet for 2?
After win row, reset with row 1 2 1 W as starter row.
2 2 1 W As explained above, after seeing 2 2, we expect that 2 2 1 will repeat, and it does so.
1 1 2
1 1 2 W The same thing goes on.
1 2 2 Here, I don't know why we don't bet 1?
After win row, reset with row 1 1 2 W as starter row.
2 1 1
1 2 1 L
1 2 1 W
So this is how I see it, it might be completely wrong. Why don't we bet at the questioned spots? Do you reset after a win or something?
For the benefit of the rest, there are 3 sequence that ego came up with, 15 bets for 24 unique, 11 bets for 24 unique and his latest sequential betting method. The above example is based on his latest.
Let's hope that ego will come up with his pdf file to provide clearer explanation. Lets wait for his response.
Quote from: luckyfella on Jun 09, 08:24 PM 2014
For the benefit of the rest, there are 3 sequence that ego came up with, 15 bets for 24 unique, 11 bets for 24 unique and his latest sequential betting method. The above example is based on his latest thats WIP me thinks.
Let's hope that ego will come up with his pdf file to provide clearer explanation. Lets wait for his response.
Try getting one of those big plastic skull caps that have electronic coil pickups on, connect the wires from the skull cap coils to small coils on your monitor screen , then you can get tune in to the wheel's frequency . Think of a winning number this will give you about as much chance of winning.
Quote from: ati on Jun 09, 05:02 PM 2014
I've been reading this thread for almost 2 hours, and still having a hard time understanding it. But some of the examples finally starting to make sense.
I'm gonna try to explain what I have figured out through this example: link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531 (link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/extreme/msg29531/#msg29531)
So, it starts like this:
2 and 1 can be any even chance bet, red/black, player/banker, etc. whatever you prefer.
We start with waiting for a trigger, and it comes after the first two spins matches with one of the previous first two, then we bet that the third spin will repeat a previous sequence.
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 2
1 2 2 L After 1 2 has shown, we bet 1, expecting that 1 2 1 will repeat. 2 comes, we lose.
1 2 2 W Same situation, but the last time 1 2 happened, we got 2 for the third spin, so we bet 2 this time, and it wins.
1 1 1
1 1 2 L After seeing 1 1 1, then 1 1 we expect a repeat, so we bet 1, and we lose.
1 2 1 L We bet 2 expecting that 1 2 2 will repeat again.
2 2 2 Here I don't understand why we don't bet 2?
1 2 1 W 1 2 comes again so, we bet 1 and win.
1 2 1 W Same here.
2 2 1 Again, why don't we bet for 2?
2 2 1 W As explained above, after seeing 2 2, we expect that 2 2 1 will repeat, and it does so.
1 1 2
1 1 2 W The same thing goes on.
1 2 2 Here, I don't know why we don't bet 1?
2 1 1
1 2 1 L
1 2 1 W
So this is how I see it, it might be completely wrong. Why don't we bet at the questioned spots? Do you reset after a win or something?
The above trot reminded me of something.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=6844.msg63490#msg63490 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=6844.msg63490#msg63490)
".....but you will have to bet decent size units to hang with it...." GLC comments about flat bets
Any punter with serious size bets go with flat bets only, the grind is part of the package. Any form of progression is a no go. Need to stay far away from the grave, the basic priority even before any talk of win.
All you need is a small skew that repeats, consistent and small negative swings. The latter is utmost important where 95% of the focus lies. Thats the secret to winning.
I add two files and will continue this topic with new development.
If you want to understand this bet principals you should read the two PDFs i attach ...
I will rob the casino tomorrow with my version that cover all possibilitys with 99.76% odds ...
Cheers
This is how the results look like when you don't use any kind of trigger - just follow the random flow.
2015 07 16
LLWLLWWWWLWWLWLLLWLLWWLWLLWWLLWWWLWLLWWWWLLLWW
2015 07 15
LLLWLWLWWWWWLLWWLWWWWLWWWWLWLWLWWLWWLLW
Quote from: Nickmsi on Dec 14, 09:53 AM 2013
Hello . . .
Attached is a Tracker to help test Pattern Betting of this type.
The Tracker simply tracks the formations of the 8 patterns of XXX, OOO, XOX, OXO, XXO,OOX, XOO, OOX.
When it finds that the last 6 patterns are Unique (no repeats), then it bets that the next 2 patterns will not be unique, ie. it bets for a repeat.
Cheers
Nick
Just downloaded tracker and is read only do we have a working tracker? Thanks
Just downloaded tracker and is read only do we have a working tracker? Thanks :thumbsup:
Hey Sturrock. Got my email ? Maybe we have something here
Could someone please explain the method used again? I seem to have problems understanding the bet selection. If you look at the attachment. Why is the selection "B" for a loss on row 26 when the only repeating pattern in the last 6 would be "R"? Or should I bet on the pattern that has not show in the last six?
Is everybody winning with this? I have tested for a week now and only seen 4 losses in a row just once. Is anybody playing this and what are your results like? (I'm using the tracker)
Is any body there ?
Quote from: sturrock on Jul 30, 02:20 PM 2015
Is any body there ?
I'm here Sturrock. Max L still 4? Wouldn't this be better suited to Baccarat?
Hi Sam Glad your there 8). Yes still only 4 losses in a row so far but haven't played it that much since I posted. But will give it a good test the weekend. I haven't played baccarat for years I will have to have a look at that. Have you played on either? If so how are you finding it?
Cheers
Dave.
Played all over the weekend have now seen 5 x losses in a row now But only once.
Bit scary as playing marty but well up now and using casinos money. I will carry on and
see how it goes. I will let you all know :thumbsup:
Maybe it's an idea to use this money management strategy?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15750 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15750)
+1 on a loss
-2 on a win
if win is with a 1. next bet is 2. Then on an other win its 1 again.
Eight losses in a row :( Thats the end of that then lol
All good things come to an end regardless how clever.
Fortuna soon takes what she has given.
There you go - now you understand that even if you have 99% of winning so can you end up with 8 loses.
This means that odds and probability - no matter how good they are you will still lose.
Cheers
I solve the HG and Birstday Paradox, i attach all Three files.
1) eriscott HG
2) Birstday Pardox discussion
3) Nick excel sheet
Both eriscott and the Author for the Birstday Paradox got it wrong and i have the solution.
You need to read both documents to understand the five bet solution to cover all compinations no matter what 6 uniq combinations you got with the random flow.
Here is one example where the assumption from both is wrong.
For example lets take this string of formations
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP
Now the assumption is that if you get PP next you can not match with PPB or PPP as both alredy has hit.
But this is wrong.
If you look at the sequense again you also see that all P combinations has hit.
So even if we would get PB we could not match with PBB or PBP as both alredy hit.
Here is the sequense again.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP
Now you bet Before you have a result and you bet P once with one single bet and you cover all previos four patterns to have a chance to repeat once, no matter if you get PP or PB.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP P
Easy and it takes a total of five bets to cover all possibilitys from this position.
Assume you got a B result, then you can see above that we have BPP and BBP.
This means that if you get BP next you would bet P and if you got BB you would bet P next.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BP
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BB
But lest say you have a new situtaion similiar towards the PPB and PPP example where you can not bet both.
For example BPP and BPB where both begin with BP and you not match your next bet to cover the two possibilitys.
And again the solution is similiar as the first one.
You only have to wait for one B to show and bet P next to cath the begining of the formation BP.
One single bet.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BPB BP
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BPB BP
This work as a cancelation march where you then force for a non repating formation to show.
So we cover both situation with one single bet each.
Now to the final stage where you have seven formation and only one missing pattern to complete the hole cycle to alternate with no present repeats.
For example with following sequense:
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BBB
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BPB
Then you have to bet up to Three times to cover all possibilitys.
Total five bets with the othe two bets.
And again we are using the cancelation term.
As all four formations with P patterns has a show, then the only way to cover all possibilitys to Catch one repat among the them is to bet P once.
If a loss you force the beginning of the last B pattern to show, which is missing or will repeat.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BBB P
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BPB B
Now assume we don't get a repeat of the previos P patterns and we get a B result.
Then we again face a situation where we have to patterns that begin with the same formation and end with two differen results, BPP BPB.
So our next bet after B show is for P once to cover the BP formation and cover both patterns BPP BPB to repeat once.
Now to the last final cancelation bet and we have lost four bets with no present repeat.
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BBB BB
Here you simply bet for BBB to repat once and if not then you have 8 uniq patterns show with no present repeat.
This might not improve the original or change any thing, but i just want to show have you cover all possibilitys to repeat once with placing a total of five bets.
As the autors of both Writings argue you can not cover a situation where two similiar patterns has a show, which is wrong.
Cheers
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BBB BBB
PPB PPP PBP PBB BPP BBP BBB BBP
Will have to read this.
Thanks Ego!
Well i test the excel sheet and once i won 22 session and once i won 136 sessions.
But i belive that is only variance and fluctation and that the probability is still 1 in 64 even if the odds is 98.5%.
I Think that gap methodology would produce better results where you would bet against back to back with 98.5% probability.