Bet to lose after a win

[Carsch]

I've realized that with certain systems (mostly with those you don't get more than 2 hits in a row) it's a good idea to play 'to lose' after a win.
In other words, while using your system, after a win, on the next spin,  instead bet the opposite of what you'd bet...........that is, bet what you think would make you lose. Win and go back to your system rules. 

[Ralph]

If we use to lose, it may be better betting opposite. What is opposite to a number straight up? 

[Carsch]

 

[VLS]

What is opposite to a number straight up?

The totality of the uncovered numbers!

You better either have 2 numbers left out (Euro wheel, or 3 American wheel) or...

This: Cover 36 numbers and get +1 on a hit.

[Ralph]

The totality of the uncovered numbers!

You better either have 2 numbers left out (Euro wheel, or 3 American wheel) or...

Cover 36 numbers and get  1 on a hit.

I did a test, and the results was about the same. Normal a higher variance makes more win or moreloss, if try long, no diff at all.


I feel better use one number, as in a short run it may gain or cost a few, a double miss leaving one uncovered hurts.

[GLC]

Carsch buddy,  this is very similar to Iceman's system.  The one where he had a 2nd dimension, even a 3rd dimension if you wanted to go that far.  All you did was follow the last in the 1st dimension and every other bet in the 2nd dimension, you bet for an opposite decision.  If you won in the1st dimension, you bet for a loss in the 2nd dimension.  If you lost in the 1st dimension, you bet for a win in the 2nd dimension.

I guess what you're suggesting is that every time we have a win in the 1st dimension, we bet for a loss in the 2nd dimension.

Icy suggested +4 or -8 for a win target and a stop loss.

GLC

[Carsch]

"2nd and 3rd dimension"
That sounds like something  'Win to Lose' suggested (if i'm correct, that was one of his handles on the Gambler's Glen board). In fact, his system, as he explained it to me, also suggested to 'play to lose' (bet for a loss) after a win. Of course, as i first mentioned, the idea would work best on certain systems, not all systems.