An idea for a MATRIX bet.

[Maui13]

Tracking is a bit of a cumbersome process ...
Can a software guru perhaps help us out here with something  

[Maui13]

Mmm.... I agree with you. I think that it was a big typo...
If we have 1C 1C 1C we should be betting 2 & 3 & A & B

[Colbster]

I put together an excel spreadsheet for tracking, but it is nowhere ready for uploading yet, just a thing for me to expedite testing.  I seem to be landing on 6 units on each of the 2 dozens, plus 1 unit on each split, meaning a total of 16 units.  Wins net a gain of 2 units each time.  (I am using BV no-zero, so this will change accordingly on other tables).  I am playing until a loss (-16 units), then moving to 12 units/2 units for the next 4 spins/wins to recover, then dropping back to the original stakes.

I think I will play with a win/loss goal of +48/loss at level 2 (which is -48 from highest point).

So far, I think this is very playable with the 4x matrix width.

Great idea!

[Colbster]

I have been playing against doubles to move to trips and finding too many losses (Playing only vertical repeats, not horizontal).  The odds of a repeat are 1-in-9, which means it will not be all that uncommon.  My 6-1, 12-2 method doesn't seem to feel safe, although I haven't actually lost yet.  I have been pushed up against it repeatedly, not ever getting to my goal before ending a session with hundreds of spins played.

I love the concept behind this idea, but think the number of units needed to properly cover the table is problematic.  I think the answer might be in Lanky's divisor method, as this system will have considerably more wins than losses.

Not totally writing it off, but I think we need quite a bit of tweaking on the money management side.

[GLC]

What if when we have 3 each 1C's we just bet 4 units, 1 unit each on dozen 2 & 3 and 1 unit each on column A & B.  I think this is the proper bet against 1C.  We don't just win or lose, we win +2 units or we lose either -1 unit or -4 units.

If 1a hits = -1
If 1b hits = -1
If 1c hits = -4
If 2a hits = +2
If 2b hits = +2
If 2c hits = -1
If 3a hits = +2
If 3b hits = +2
If 3c hits = -1
If 0  hits = -4

That 0 takes a big chunk when it hits.  Might want to put a little something on it.

The only time we have to increase our bet size is if we hit a 1c or zero or if we hit -1 2 times in a row.
If we hit 1c or zero, we need to go to 3 on all four locations.
Anytime we're even or plus we reset back to 1.

This is akin to F_LAT_INO's Consistent Winning Bet.  
If it looks promising, maybe Ophis could tweak his tracker for this system?

Geo

P.S.  I just tried this for about 50 spins.  Reached +35.  The most I had to bet was 5 units on all 4 locations.  I can tell that this does well most of the time, but we will need a stop-loss because it can lose quickly if we have some 4 location losses close together while betting larger units.

[GLC]

I just realized another way to bet this that is probably a little cleaner.

Let's say we have 3  1c's in a row and we want to bet against a quad.

We will have to bet 8 units to win on every spin except 1C or zero.

We bet 3 units on dozens 2 and 3 and 1 unit on corners 2,3,5,6 & 8,9,11,12.

We win 1 unit on a hit anywhere.

If we want to be very conservative, we could only bet 6 units.

2 units on dozen 2 & 3 and 1 unit on the 2 corners.

If dozen 2 or 3 hits we break even.
If 1 of the corners hit we win 3 units.

This 6 unit bet may not be feasible because of the tracking required before a bet.  With a good enough strike rate, I think risking the other 2 units is preferable.

What we do on a loss is up to your patience level.

We could increase our bets 4 fold and bet 12 units on doz 2 & 3 and 4 units on the 2 corners.

We would have to win 2 times to recover our 8 units lost.

This is more in line with JL's win twice to recover 1 loss and I think makes sense.

If the hit rate against losing 2 in a row is high enough, we could jump right to 24 on each dozen and 8 units on each corner.  1 win would completely recover.

2 losses in a row would cost us 72 units (8 + 64 = 72).

With as much tracking that will be needed to finally get a betting opportunity, this 1 unit to completely recover idea may be more desirable.

George

[GLC]

I decided to test my idea of betting 3 units on the 2 dozens and 1 unit on 2 corners and realized that you can't do this if your sector is from the middle column.

I was using 1C as an example.  In this case it works.  3 units on dozens 2 & 3 and 1 unit on corners 1,2,4,5 & 7,8,10,11(I had the corners wrong also.  Goes to show what happens when posting late in the night.)

The above method works so that any hit wins us 1 unit.

But if the sector we're betting won't repeat is 1B, this configuration won't work because the B numbers split our corners down the middle and we can't bet them.

1 solution would be to skip the 3 each B sectors and only play 1A,1C & 2A, 2C & 3A, 3C.

This is the best solution.

So, in conclusion, if you are only tracking for triggers of trips in columns A & C.  Then we bet against a quad forming by betting 3, 3, 1,1.

Example:  You have 3 2A's in a vertical or horizontal line.  We are betting against another 2A which would form a quad if it hit.  We would bet 3 units on the 1 dozen and 3 units on the 3 dozen and we would bet 1 unit on the 14,15,17,18 corner and 1 unit on the 20,21,23,24 corner.

If we hit anything other than the 4 numbers in 2A or zero, we will win 1 unit.

[GLC]

I have been having very good luck playing this a little different way.

I do not use a matrix.

I bet against whatever sector that hit last to not hit again on the next spin.  In other words I bet that a sector won't repeat.

I bet my 3,3,1,1 unit bets and if it does repeat I bet 24,24,8,8 that it won't repeat again.  That recovers in 1 bet the 8 units lost on the repeat.  I feel that it's pretty rare for a 4 number sector to hit 3 times in a row.  Of course the zero makes a back to back loss a little more likely.

If I get a 1B, 2B, or 3B sector hit, I just skip it and spin until I get a sector in either the A or C columns.

That's 72 units lost if you lose 2 in a row.  This is very aggressive.  You could instead, only go to 6,6,2,2 and recover in 4 wins or 9,9,3,3 would recover in 3 wins and put you at +1 since the loss.

You can pick how you want to play depending on your risk tolerance.

LOL,

George

[GLC]

Having tested this a few times, I have to say that I think in the long run it's not much different than any of the bet methods that cover most of the table leaving only a few losing numbers open.

It wins most of the time, but when you have some periods where your losing numbers hit close together, you give back most if not all of your winnings.

You can win for short periods with this idea, but be prepared to have losing sessions or at least a prolonged climb out of a hole or the need to make large bets hoping to recover in a shorter time frame.