With all of the John Legend stuff etc in the last few months I wrote something down in a notepad and forgot it till today:
I wrote Dozens down by four as in 2313.
2313
1123
3301
3122
etc etc....
I did 1000 double zero spins and never went more than 8 spins before matching a dozen with one in in the above line......seems bizzare as when i have looked at other dozen bet methods you always get sleepers from 10-20 times.
anyone ever test anything similiar?
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jun 02, 07:24 PM 2012
With all of the John Legend stuff etc in the last few months I wrote something down in a notepad and forgot it till today:
I wrote Dozens down by four as in 2313.
2313
1123
3301
3122
etc etc....
I did 1000 double zero spins and never went more than 8 spins before matching a dozen with one in in the above line......seems bizzare as when i have looked at other dozen bet methods you always get sleepers from 10-20 times.
anyone ever test anything similiar?
Hello Tomla
I went quickly through my SL live spins and found that it went more than 8 spins 3 times - once 11 spins. I don't think you can exploit something here. You may wait few virtual loses but basically you would get similar strike rate as in JL Reversed Code 4. I saw there 17 spins without match. O0
Regards
Tom,
I'll check out a few spins and see how it looks also. Even 8 to 11 between hits isn't that bad since we'll be betting a single dozen. Heck a dozen can sleep for a lot more spins than 11 tracking in a straight line. This might be exploitable, but I'm sure it'll involve some big bets to keep it out of the grinder territory.
GLC
On RX it went up tp 21 in 10K spins.
Are we playing the whole line? or only one win per line?
Quote from: Juiced91 on Jun 03, 04:43 AM 2012
On RX it went up tp 21 in 10K spins.
Are we playing the whole line? or only one win per line?
I think Tom was hoping that we could play the whole line. I also have seen a 13 and a 15. It's looking like we will have to be ready to bet a steep martingale progression for a full recovery on one win or get into a "grind your way back up" situation after a long stretch with no matches.
For betting dozens or columns, my favorite has always been the "Penthouse" progression:
111222333444555666 etc... Move 1 to the right on a loss and move 3 to the left on a win.
It can be adapted to fit your risk tolerance by changing the line:
112233445566 etc... or 11112222333344445555etc...
You can also ratchet up or down the risk by moving 5, 4, 2 or even 1 to the left after a win. The numbers below 3 increase risk of larger bet sizes and of course, the opposite for the numbers larger than 3.
If we're getting a better strike rate than expected, any of these will work. The work "work" meaning win a lot of small attacks and every now and then have to accept a large loss. With a higher than expected strike rate the small wins will outrun the large losses. That's the hope anyway.
GLC
don't waist your time hoping that this particular dozen (which hit in particular sequence before) won't sleep for too long.
2 me betting for any dozen or column or mix either sleeping,repeating or matching in any pattern, virtual loses, triggers, different style progression etc. wont produce strike rate good enough in d long run 2 make it successful method. 2 go 4 broke would be foolish as we found out in earlier posts. Tomla in 1k spins never saw more than 8 spins without match n Juice in 10k reported 21... ;D which is not surprising 2 me at all. If you shorten your progression d strike rate is simply not there.
I will try find the win loss ratio.
The Hope was that by using the matrix that you shorten the long sleepers.... Only can be checked by testing to see if it makes any difference
"due theory" is wrong. Nothing is due. if something does not hit frequently enough (more than average, which for dozen is once in 3 spins) then it does not make sense to "improve" it with long progression, which will make things worse. Nothing is "due".
link:://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/figs/gauss1.gif (link:://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/figs/gauss1.gif)
Something that does not hit for long time does not happen frequently, but once it happens it kills everything, and it will happen regularly enough
Well did 100K spins well actually 99996 spins in order to get the first bet line.
Losses = 66415 = 0.66 = 66%
Wins = 33581 = 0.34 = 34%
I used +1 on a loss reset to 1 on a win(just to see the longest loss which was 27). And it made 3000+ units albeit on a NZ table.
not really due theory but hoping that a 3,4,5 matrix might break up the general nature of playing straight roulette.....thanks for the test.
you reset after every win?
Quote from: Juiced91 on Jun 03, 12:56 PM 2012
Well did 100K spins well actually 99996 spins in order to get the first bet line.
Losses = 66415 = 0.66 = 66%
Wins = 33581 = 0.34 = 34%
I used +1 on a loss reset to 1 on a win(just to see the longest loss which was 27). And it made 3000+ units albeit on a NZ table.
I just dont see any advantage. Do another 100k spins and you will be down more than 3000...
And if you covered 0 then do d math ;D
well running another 100,000 would be interesting then.
guys, roulette kills any CONSISTENT patterns. but try to invent new patterns each time and u may be OK. if u use matrix, try to bet each time a new pattern on it. there could be lots of them. just my idea. think about it.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 03, 01:15 PM 2012
I just don't see any advantage. Do another 100k spins and you will be down more than 3000...
And if you covered 0 then do d math ;D
Just did another 100K and was actually up 3374 units :P . And yes reset to 1 on any win
make tests on different wheels. what happens on one wheel is not an indicator. and even what happens on a few wheels does not mean u will win on a long run.
Its RNG how would i use another wheel? :yawn:
use another RNG then.
try also this
link:://:.random.org/ (link:://:.random.org/)
u can use in "actuals" section the stuff i posted.
lots of spins, some of them in hundreds of thousands.
This particular RNG u r testing may have this kind of "temp bias", but it won't last forever
See it may be worth testing a bit........not saying its anything but 200,000 spins is something....might be worth looking further....
Thanks for testing Juiced!
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jun 03, 02:53 PM 2012
Thanks for testing Juiced!
Anytime dude. Did another 500K and it ended at 1966. And thats with a nonsense progression.
Did it hold at 34% thats the key I think--it should be 33.3%
To be honest i did not check
too bad that could be important, but thanks----the whole point I guess is that maybe by picking the right length of a matrix and the right bet you can beat the game....to me the matrixes just change the normal flow of a straight game---would be interesting to see more testing
Juiced, Interesting results. Your bet progression is interesting also. Would you mind running the system through your spins using the following progression:
1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 etc...
+1 on a loss and reset to 1 on a win. After a loss on the 2nd 2 you're just going in the hole more if you increase your bet size. If there's not stop loss, then you just play till you have a win then reset to 1. The most you should ever have to bet is about 32 times, and you may never live long enough to have a dozen sleep that long.
Even betting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 etc... might show some strange results.
Thanks,
GLC
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jun 03, 04:57 PM 2012
too bad that could be important, but thanks----the whole point I guess is that maybe by picking the right length of a matrix and the right bet you can beat the game....to me the matrixes just change the normal flow of a straight game---would be interesting to see more testing
That would mean that roulette behaves not randomly in certain patterns or sequences ;D
Of course there are some fluctuations but they happen randomly. If you are lucky and choose right
pattern you profit but it wont last.
Quote from: GLC on Jun 03, 10:52 PM 2012
The most you should ever have to bet is about 32 times, and you may never live long enough to have a dozen sleep that long. (I got carried away with this statement because, of course, we're not just betting on the dozen that hit furthest back)
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jun 03, 10:52 PM 2012
Juiced, Interesting results. Your bet progression is interesting also. Would you mind running the system through your spins using the following progression:
1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 etc...
+1 on a loss and reset to 1 on a win. After a loss on the 2nd 2 you're just going in the hole more if you increase your bet size. If there's not stop-loss, then you just play till you have a win then reset to 1. The most you should ever have to bet is about 32 times, and you may never live long enough to have a dozen sleep that long.
Even betting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 etc... might show some strange results.
Thanks,
GLC
so its 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 till i win never going more than 2?
Quote from: Juiced91 on Jun 04, 04:19 AM 2012
so its 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 till i win never going more than 2?
I'm just noticing that if you bet +1 on a loss, reset to 1 on a win, after betting 5 units you just start going negative even on a win.
You could use 1-2-3-4-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5. That would give you all the winning spins in the beginning, but you wouldn't lose so much if it goes past the 6th bet before you win.
Example:
If lose Bet If win
-1 1 +2
-3 2 +3
-6 3 +3
-10 4 +2
-15 5 0
-21 6 -3 From here on you keep going in the hole whether you win or lose. If you keep increasing the size of your bet by 1 unit, it hurts you because it just increases the amount you will lose when you finally have a win.
-28 7 -7
-36 8 -12 See what I mean.
Compare:
-1 1 +2
-3 2 +3
-5 2 +1
-7 2 -1
-9 2 -3
-11 2 -5
-13 2 -7
-15 2 -9 We're now at the same place as bet 8 above but we're only going to lose -9 units instead of -12 units when we win and the difference keeps escalating from here so if we don't win until the 15th bet we forfeit a really large amount compared to this method.
You could use 1-1-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4 to maximize the units won before going flat bet. There's and idea balance here to maximize wins in the long run.
What do you think, or am I confused? :o
GLC
It does alright. See graph
Would love to see 111111111 flat and georges new progression...the 111111 will tell a lot about if the setup has an advantage or not
Quote from: Juiced91 on Jun 04, 10:04 AM 2012
It does alright. See graph
Hello Juice
When i look at your graph it tells me that you can win 1000u in aproximately 20k spins (0-20k)
and lose 1000u in aproximately 20k spins (50k-70k). Yeah it does alright - 1400u in 200k spins which is about 0.14u average profit in a game of 20 spins :D
So based on this type of testing what would be your prediction 4 real play conditions - lets say 10 games daily? Do you consider this system playable? My point is that this type of testing involving large number of spins can only bury d system. Lots of them take a nosedive after 10k or 30k n never recover. Some of them behave like this one. There is no one that goes up steadily.
Regards
Regards
Yeah thats a valid point. I guess the only reason we test for many many spins to find the HG. Anyway here was a flatbet test.
Quote from: Juiced91 on Jun 04, 11:09 AM 2012
Yeah that's a valid point. I guess the only reason we test for many many spins to find the method. Anyway here was a flatbet test.
Yeah Juiced
Flat bet systems usually go down faster in testing. The ones especially with heavy progression can stay in positive territory 4 a while but inevitably comes large hit. If a system is easy 2 code or was coded already then Rx goes 2 work ;D
see it didnt go terribly down flat as expected......now it would be interesting with Georges MM?
thanks for all of the testing Juiced
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jun 04, 01:09 PM 2012
see it didn't go terribly down flat as expected......now it would be interesting with Georges MM?
thanks for all of the testing Juiced
The first graph i posted i used 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4 which is GLC's progrssion
Thanks Juiced ,, thats not bad either