Trying to win 1 out of 2 or 3

[GLC]

This is an idea based on some of the stuff presented in the topic "Beating Roulette With Math."

I am intrigued with the idea of breaking spins into sets of 2 or 3 and just trying to win once in each set.  So if we are playing sets of 2, if we win our 1st bet, we don't bet on the second spin.  If we lose our 1st bet, we double that bet for the 2nd bet.  If we win the 2nd bet, we won our 1 unit for the 2 bets.  If we lose both bets, we add the units lost and divide by however many times we want to win to recover.

If we bet 1 unit and lose then bet 2 units and lose, we have lost 3 units.  If we want to recover in 1 attempt, we would have to go to 3 units on the 1st bet and 6 units on the 2nd bet.

If we want to recover our 3 unit loss in 3 attempts, we just stay at 1 & 2 and if we win 3 times without losing again, we are recovered.  

If we want to recover our 3 units in 2 attempts, we must bet 2 & 4.  After 2 wins we will have recovered our 3 units +1 to boot.

If we lose say 3 times in a row that will be (1+2) + (2+4) + (3+6) = 18 units to be recovered.  Just divide this by the number of attempts you want to recover in and that will give you the number of units you must win on either bet in each set.

Another option is to recover each of the 3 lost sets 1 at a time.  This will be safer, but will also take a lot more winning sets because they will be at smaller units.

I have briefly tested this with 2's and 3's.  I prefer dividing our spins in sets of 3 bets.  That gives us 3 chances to win.  Our bet is 1-2-4 (or if you prefer 1-2-3 using the last bet as a recovery bet).  Any win gives us our 1 unit.  If we win on the 1st or 2nd bet, we don't bet the next 1 or 2 bets since we have reached our goal.

Of course there's no limit to the length of each set.  You could go on to 4 spin sets or 5.  There will be a lot of No-Bets in the longer sets.

That this system feels like it gives us an edge may just be an illusion that always comes with systems that you don't bet every spin.

This is just an interesting concept.  I don't know if it has any real value for long term winning.  I'll play a few more sessions and maybe post a chart for your perusal so you can see exactly what I mean although it's pretty self explanatory.

Thanks,

G

[GLC]

Here is a short session I played:

Bet selection is Follow the last:

Sets of 3 betting 1-2-4.

B   NB

R   -1   -1
B   -2   -3
B   +4   +1   +1

R   -1   -1
B   -2   -3
B   +4   +1   +2

R   -1   -1
B   -2   -3
B   +4   +1   +3

0   -1   -1
B   +2   +1   +4 When 0 hits bet previous spin
0   NB

B   +1   +1   +5
B   NB
R   NB

B   -1   -1
0   -2   -3
B   +4   +1   +6

B   +1   +1
B   NB
B   NB      +7

R   -1   -1
B   -2   -3
B   +4   +1   +8

B   +1   +1
B   NB
R   NB      +9

B   -1   -1
R   -2   -3
B   -4   -7   (7/4 = 2)

R   -2   -9
R   +4   -5
0   NB

R   +2   -3
B   NB
R   NB

R   +2   -1
R   NB
R   NB

0   -2   -3
R   +4   +1
B   NB      +10

That's a quick session to +10 I played it on Betvoyager demo mode.

G

[Fripper]

Hi george

This concept is very good but alone I don't think it can win in the long run, but you never know.  I think that's why Belgian aplied it to the 65/135 rule. Because that is a ratio of 1:2.

I usually play with pairs.

You can also play with 3 figures, or 4 and so on..

Keep in mind that the more figures you divide your losses in, the more wins is needed to win your 1 unit.

Keep on testing George  

[GLC]

Fripper,

Thanks for your observations.  I know that as a stand alone system it has a good chance of breaking down in the long run.  But for one of F_LAT_INO's assortment of systems that he plays for 4 or 5 units and then moves on to another one, it could be pretty good.

Another session from Ladbrokes demo mode.

Sets of 3's.  Follow the last.
Ignore zeros for bet selection purposes.

B        NB

B        +1        +1        +1
B        NB
B        NB

R        -1         -1
B        -2         -3
R        -4         -7          (7/3=3) So try to recover in 3 wins

R        +3         -4
R        NB
B        NB

B        +3        -1
R        NB
B        NB

R        -3        -4
R        +6        +2        +3
R        NB

R        +1        +1        +4
B        NB
B        NB

R        -1        -1
R        +2       +1        +5
B        NB

R        -1        -1
B        -2        -3
R        -4        -7

R        +3        -4
R        NB
R        NB

R        +3        -1
B        NB
B        NB

B        +3        +2        +7
R        NB
R        NB

R        +1        +1        +8
B        NB
R        NB

R        +1        +1        +9
R        NB
B        NB

B        +1        +1        +10
R        NB
R        NB

Still waiting for the clump of losers with few winners in between to see how deep this thing will go and how hard it is to recover from a deep hole.

George

[chrisbis]

To extend this Title George how about this.

Track, an play for one win.

then miss natural bet,
then track and play for a second win,
then miss two natural bets
then track and play for a third win
then miss three natural bets
then track and play for a fourth win,
then miss four natural bets,
etc etc,

Do U understand what I mean here George?

U set up a wave formation along the win lines, hoping to catch a good ripple.

[GLC]

Chris,

When you say track and play for 1 win.
How do you track?  What if you don't win the 1st bet?

What do you mean by a natural bet?
Do you go until you lose or is there a stop point before losing?

What kind of progression do you use?

If I ever win anything with this do you want a developer's fee?

If you ever win anything with this just send me cash in the mail.
Just kidding.
Although I am interested in answers to all my real questions.

Thanks Pal,

George

[GLC]

Aside from Chris' wave idea, and after playing a few more sessions to +10, I'm not sure this way of betting on the EC's give us more wins than just betting every spin. 

It's always a little deceiving when we don't bet a lot of spins when playing a system, because it feels like we have done well by winning after 200 spins, but it may be that we would have won just as much had we bet the same number of bets without skipping any bets.  In other words, if we bet 75 times in the 200 spins, we may have won the same percent of those 75 bets had we not skipped any spins between bets.

It would take a lot of testing to determine if this is so or not.

Have fun.

George