JL and A's reverse slide tweaked

[GLC]

This is just a tweak on JL's reverse slide for those who don't like spending most of your time tracking for a betting opportunity.

I have 3500 spins arranged in a 4 wide matrix and I just did a quick perusal using the following method:


Bet progression: 1-1, 3-3, 9-9, 27-27, 81-81, 243-243  for a total of 844 units invested.
Even though we have to risk 844 units, I don't really think we'll ever need all of it.


I started betting against the slide/reverse slide forming starting on the second line of each row.


1 2 2 3
2 3         Right here I win because I bet against a 1 spinning


1 2 2 3
2 3 3 1
1 2 2 2  Right here I lost because I was betting against a 2 spinning
3 1 1 2  Right here I won in the 3rd line betting against a 2 and lost in 2nd line betting against 1.
2 1 3 2  Here I won in 3rd betting against a 1 and won in 2nd betting against a 3.
etc... forever


I examined 850+ games and they all won.
The highest bet I had to make was 27-27 which I had to make 5 times
I still had two more levels available if I had needed them.
At this point, even if I lose a complete progression, I'm still ahead.


I think with my Attention Deficit Disorder I can play this system without going crazy tracking.
I know that there's a loss in the mix somewhere, but if there wasn't, it would be unbelievable.  You would just sit down and start winning and when you had won all you needed for the day, pack up and leave.


As far as I can see, this is possibly what I've been looking for.  Fortunately, I'm in no hurry and I have a couple of years to find out for sure.  And you can rest assured that I won't risk a real bankroll until I'm 100% sure.


Thanks JL and A.


GLC

[GLC]

Here's an interesting observation.  I just checked those same spins against TurboGenius' system where he bets that the last for dozens won't spin in the same sequence again.  In other words if the last 4 spins were 1323 he bets against 1323 spinning in the next for spins.  I just expanded the idea to 6 instead of 4 to see how the results would stack up against the reverse slide idea and in my 3500 spins, I got very similar results but the slide edged out as a safer bet.  Granted 3500 spins is just a drop in the bucket for testing purposes, but it does show a tendency.


Betting that the last 6 don't repeat:


Over 850 wins.
Bet the 4th level 27-27 nine times.
Bet the 5th level  80-80 one time.
Never had to bet the 243-243 level.


Just for info.


GLC

[GLC]

If you like to really get revved up playing dozens, here's a 4 pronged attack.


X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X


X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X


X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X


X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X


We can play all 4 of these patterns at the same time.  After the 1st 4 numbers, we will be betting on every spin.  Sometimes there will be differential betting because if you lose a few times on a pattern, it will blend with another pattern.


I haven't tested this idea, just put it out there for us to start thinking about.  It may be to complex for us to play.


I won't even mention that we can play columns the same way at the same time.  On every spin we should be racking up some cash even if we're playing for $1 units. 


I'm sure we'd need a program to be able to calculate all the bets in time.  May ultimately be impossible to play.


Even if you could play it, after an hour your head would be spinning.


Hey, if it's a winning system let's go for it!  No sense dilly dallying around with a single bet here and there.  If we get a few chips on the table we'll also have to consider what to do about the zero.





GLC

[GLC]

The win rate on the 1st bet is so good, I think a safer progression other than the 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 243-243 progression will work even better.


This progression is based on winning 3 times in a row to fully recover previous losses.


For instructions on how to play this method read my topic "divide and conquer progression" under the "money management" section.

If lose     Bet     1st win     2nd win         3rd win          Total


-2           1-1         +1           NA                  NA                 +1
-5           1-1         +1           +2                  NA                 +1 (add 1 more for 2nd win)
-8           1-1         +1           +2                  +3                 +1 (add 1 more for 2nd win)
-12         2-2         +2           +3                  +4                 +1
-18         3-3         +3           +4                  +6                 +1
-26         4-4         +4           +6                  +9                 +1
-38         6-6         +6           +9                  +13               +2
-56         9-9         +9           +13                +19               +3
-80         12-12     +12         +18                +27               +1
-116       18-18     +18         +27                +40               +5
-166       25-25     +25         +37                +55               +1
-238       36-36     +36         +54                +81               +5
-340       51-51     +51         +76                +114             +3
-486       73-73     +73         +109              +163             +5
-694       104-104 +104       +156              +234             +8


The most you can lose is 694 units.


My note to add 1 more on the second bet means that we bet 1-1 and win 1.  This gives us 3 units to bet with.  Since we need an even number we either have to bet 1-1 again or add another of our units to the 3 units on the table and bet 2-2.  If we lose we will have lost 3 of our units.  That's why it goes from -2 to -5 instead of -4


I know that few if any of you will even consider this progression, but I post it here for posterity.  Also, I like to have all my progressions posted here so I can refer to them since I don't have all my notes in an orderly format.


G       

[GLC]

Here's a session I played on both dozens and columns using the standard martingale for double dozens 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 243-243.
I bet on 2 slide/reverse slides on both dozens and columns.
I don't start a new slide until I have finished the one I'm on.
That means I place 4 bets each spin.  2 on dozens and 2 on columns.
I'm playing the 1st 2 patterns on dozens and columns that I posted in my 3rd post.


Spins: 3 3 24 30 29 32 8 28 33 29 13 25 10 0 18 33 1 18 22 29 1 12 27 0 20 3 30 36 15 21 35 19 4 33 22 22 5 28 26 7 32 1 1 6 28 13 23 9 10 29 26 22 0 2 2 33 25 34 5 26


Dozens



1 1 2 3
3 3 1 3  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
3 3 2 3  L 2nd Row -2,  W 3rd Row +1
1 0 2 3  W 3rd Row +3, W 3rd Row +1
1 2 2 3  W 2nd Row +1, W 3rd Row +1
1 1 3 0  L 2nd Row -2,  L 3rd Row -2
2 1 3 3  W 3rd Row +3, W 2nd Row +3
1 2 3 2  L 2nd Row -2,  L 3rd Row -2
1 3 2 2  L 3rd Row -6,  L 2nd Row -6
1 3 3 1  W 4th Row +9, W 1st Row +9
3 1 1 1  L 2nd Row -2,  L 3rd Row -2
3 2 2 1  W 3rd Row +3,  W 2nd Row +3
1 3 3 2  L 2nd Row -2,  Win 3rd Row +1
0 1 1 3  W 3rd Row +3,  Win 3rd Row +1
3 3 1 3  NB                  ,  Win 3rd Row +1
                              -----                      -----
                               +7                        +10
Columns:


C C C C
B B B A  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
C B A A  L 2nd Row -2,  L 3rd Row -2
A 0 C C  W 3rd Row +3, L 2nd Row -6
A C A B  W 2nd Row +1,  L 1st Row -18
A C C 0  W 2nd Row +1,  W 2nd Row +27
B C C C  W 2nd Row +1,  NB
C C B A  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
A C A A  L 2nd Row -2,  L 3rd Row -2
B A B A  W 3rd Row +3,  L 2nd Row -6
B A A C  W 2nd Row +1,  W 1st Row +9
A A B C  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
A B B A  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
0 B B C  W 2nd Row +1,  W 3rd Row +1
A A B B  NB                   ,  W 3rd Row +1
                               -----                     -----
                                +11                     +8


We won +17 on the Dozens
We won +18 on the Columns for a total win of +35 in 60 spins.


GLC   

[vladir]

I like this, but it's extremly hard to track... And.... qill it really work long term? Simply testing this is hard..., so much to track....

[GLC]

I like this, but it's extremly hard to track... And.... qill it really work long term? Simply testing this is hard..., so much to track....

It is a chore to test.  This is where it would be nice for more people to be interested enough to invest a little time testing.  The problem is, it may not be intriguing enough to  warrant the time from others.  Not every system is that promising.  To each their own.


It's not necessary to play all four bets.  You could just play 1 on the dozens and 1 on the columns.  Or both patterns on the dozens only.


Time will tell if it holds up long term.


G

[GLC]

Another session:


2 3 2 3
1 3 2 2
1 2 2 3
2 3 2 2
1 1 3 2
1 3 1 1
2 1 1 2
1 3 3


31 spins
+20
Highest bet 9-9


If anyone wants, I'll give a detailed accounting of how I played this series.


I played the 4 patterns shown in reply #2 of this topic.


I played each pattern with a separate bank.


If 2 patterns crossed on the same spin, I bet differentially.


Cheers


GLC

[vladir]

I have been making my own tests (by hand)... it's a pain in the ass. Anyway, I tested this 2 occurrences from the 4 different you suggested:

(First, I always track last 16 spins - discard 0's)
X X X X
X X X X
X XX X
X X X X


So I will be betting against the oposite green and oposite red formingin in the next spins. It has not to be 1-1-1-1 or 2-2-2-2 . Any pattern seems to work. At least is what I think after the test I made.

Everytime I cleared both red and green, I retracked last 16 spins... I was able to win 50 sessions for both methods, never passing from  9-9 in a progression (for a total of +100 units in the end).

It seems a winning method, but... I could just have been lucky. It shoudl be tested against millions of spins... no tby hand of course....

[Nathanael]

I have been making my own tests (by hand)... it's a pain in the ar*e. Anyway, I tested this 2 occurrences from the 4 different you suggested:

(First, I always track last 16 spins - discard 0's)
X X X X
X X X X
X XX X
X X X X


So I will be betting against the oposite green and oposite red formingin in the next spins. It has not to be 1-1-1-1 or 2-2-2-2 . Any pattern seems to work. At least is what I think after the test I made.

Everytime I cleared both red and green, I retracked last 16 spins... I was able to win 50 sessions for both methods, never passing from  9-9 in a progression (for a total of +100 units in the end).

It seems a winning method, but... I could just have been lucky. It shoudl be tested against millions of spins... no tby hand of course....

24/37 = 64.87%  Odds of winning on 1 bet
100-64.87 = 35.13%  Odds of losing on 1 bet
.35X.35X.35 = .04288 or 4.29% odds to lose in 3 bets.  JL odds.
100-4.29% = 95.71% odds to win in 3 bets.  JL odds.
.35X.35X.35X.35X.35X.35 = .00184 or .184% odds to lose in 6 bets.  GLC odds.
100-.184 = 99.816% odds to win in 6 bets.  GLC odds.

Maybe not luck.

Nate