Challange - Brett Morton

[Robeenhuut]

If somebody posts here that he can win 2 out of 3 or 4 out of 5 sessions on a regular basis then he is just an impostor and should be treated this way....

[ego]

I am pretty sure that you can win 2 out of 3 on regular basis.
3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 sure would be a hard core challange ...

[GLC]

Ego,  I haven't gone back and re-read his book, but if my memory serves me right he includes a lot of subjective decisions in his sessions, like knowing some footprints of the dealers, etc...

It adds an unmeasurable element to his play.  Makes it hard to pin him against the wall.

[Robeenhuut]

Ego,  I haven't gone back and re-read his book, but if my memory serves me right he includes a lot of subjective decisions in his sessions, like knowing some footprints of the dealers, etc...

It adds an unmeasurable element to his play.  Makes it hard to pin him against the wall.

Nothing more 2 add George.  If you post something with clear cut rules here then everybody will jump on ya like a dog over a mailman.  Be vague and you will be treated with some caution 

[ego]

Ego,  I haven't gone back and re-read his book, but if my memory serves me right he includes a lot of subjective decisions in his sessions, like knowing some footprints of the dealers, etc...

It adds an unmeasurable element to his play.  Makes it hard to pin him against the wall.

-

True GLC ...

I did not apply educated guess work as you can not out guess 50/50 - my opinion.
What i did is that i apply the best tight attacks known for even money bets.

It did not cut it on regular basis.
But then i turn clustering patterns into the probability using a dice - then i won 4 out of 5 session.
Now the testing is to short to make any conclusion.

[Tamino]

The  question of winning  4 out  of   5might not sound so  illogical,l.

A bankroll for   3 sessions  is  divided equally   into 3 ,  one  for each session.The attempt is  winning  2 out of 3 sessions.


The SAME identical bankroll  can be   equally divided into 5 , one for each session wth an attempt to win  4 out of 5 sessions.

Let it be known that I will NEVER claim  or have ever claimed of having ALWAYS   won 2 out of 3 sessions. That`s a pure phantasy by a certain poster who   has  the phobia  that one who claims to be  a winner is  atleast a partner  of the BELLAGIO  or  the WYNN.

.

Tamino!!!

[woods101]

Surely the win loss ratio of a cycle/game/session is not important, it is the amount lost and won per session that defines a winning ratio?

Woods

[ego]

Surely the win loss ratio of a cycle/game/session is not important, it is the amount lost and won per session that defines a winning ratio?

Woods

I would say both and that it also involve allot of psychology ...

Lets say that i always aim to hit Jackpot - then i will hit Bottom-Line-Target on regular basis at  1 or end up at Happy-Point at  3 ...

But if i skip the Jackpot territories i will gain more overall and maybe also Gold-Top.
When to push and when to hold profits is the question using MM.

MM

5 Loss-Limit
1 Bottom-Line-Target
3 Happy-Point
5 Gold-Top
? Jackpot

Result:

3 Reach Gold-Top at  5 but drop back to Happy-Point  3
1 Reach Happy-Point at  3 but fall back to Bottom-Line-Target at  1 reaching for Gold-Top
3 Reach Gold-Top at  5 but drop back to Happy-Point  3
-5  Did not reach Happy-Point and hit Loss-Limit
5 Reach Gold-Top and 300 trails end so this session would end up with least Happy-Point  3

That is a total of 10 won and 5 loss

5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session
1 Reach Happy-Point at   3 but fall back to Bottom-Line-Target at  1 reaching for Gold-Top
5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session
-5  Did not reach Happy-Point and hit Loss-Limit
5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session

Total 16 won and 5 loss ...

So cycles does matter with psychological state of mind - as if i only would aim for Jackpot territories if i won 4 session out of 5 and then allow me to drop back to lower win targets.
It is more complex if you think about it.
When to be satisfied and not push for Gold-Top or Jackpot and in the same time increase your overall success.

For me it seems that you push once for Gold-Top and skip Jackpot - but if you won four out of five session you could push for more and see if lady luck is on your side.

[ego]

I would say both and that it also involve allot of psychology ...

Lets say that i always aim to hit Jackpot - then i will hit Bottom-Line-Target on regular basis at  1 or end up at Happy-Point at  3 ...

But if i skip the Jackpot territories i will gain more overall and maybe also Gold-Top.
When to push and when to hold profits is the question using MM.

MM

5 Loss-Limit
1 Bottom-Line-Target
3 Happy-Point
5 Gold-Top
? Jackpot

Result:

3 Reach Gold-Top at  5 but drop back to Happy-Point  3
1 Reach Happy-Point at  3 but fall back to Bottom-Line-Target at  1 reaching for Gold-Top
3 Reach Gold-Top at  5 but drop back to Happy-Point  3
-5  Did not reach Happy-Point and hit Loss-Limit
5 Reach Gold-Top and 300 trails end so this session would end up with least Happy-Point  3

That is a total of 10 won and 5 loss

5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session
1 Reach Happy-Point at   3 but fall back to Bottom-Line-Target at  1 reaching for Gold-Top
5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session
-5  Did not reach Happy-Point and hit Loss-Limit
5 Reach Gold-Top win target end session

Total 16 won and 5 loss ...

So cycles does matter with psychological state of mind - as if i only would aim for Jackpot territories if i won 4 session out of 5 and then allow me to drop back to lower win targets.
It is more complex if you think about it.
When to be satisfied and not push for Gold-Top or Jackpot and in the same time increase your overall success.

For me it seems that you push once for Gold-Top and skip Jackpot - but if you won four out of five session you could push for more and see if lady luck is on your side.

Well i can use a sloppy footprint using clustering patterns with the probability using a dice and hit some very nice strike ratio using Brett Morton's Money Management Strategy ...

Testing a new set up.

MM units:

5 Loss-Limit
0 Bottom-Line-Target (Break Even-Point)
2 Happy-point
4 Gold-Top
? Jackpot

Stay and only push for Gold-Top and skip Jackpot.

+4 Session 1
+4 Session 2
+4 Session 3
- 5 Session 4
+4 Session 5
+4 Session 6

That is five session out of six ...

[ego]

Well i can use a sloppy footprint using clustering patterns with the probability using a dice and hit some very nice strike ratio using Brett Morton's Money Management Strategy ...

Testing a new set up.

MM units:

5 Loss-Limit
0 Bottom-Line-Target (Break Even-Point)
2 Happy-point
4 Gold-Top
? Jackpot

Stay and only push for Gold-Top and skip Jackpot.

+4 Session 1
+4 Session 2
+4 Session 3
- 5 Session 4
+4 Session 5
+4 Session 6

That is five session out of six ...

Now the losses :-) during 300 trails as above ...

- 5 Session 1
- 5 Session 2
- 5 Session 3
+0 Session 4

[ego]

Every one should test to win 2 out of 3 or even with higher strike ratio using tight MM plan.
That show how difficult there is to win with tight MM rules.

Much better then using one bankroll and go all in to win a small % as noting is due to happen.
All in and you lose it all sooner or later.



I will from now on skip the staking plan "parlay" as i can't win using it.
It depends on getting chops of wins on regular basis - that is hard and cruel and very difficult.

I will change staking plan and test others also experiment with different set up with the MM.
I was thinking if you are up +1 then why would you continue.
When loses chop you try to hit first win target and if so puch to Gold-Top or hit Bottom-Line-Target at break even point.
I think that might increase the variance winning more sessions in a row.

MM Units

- 4 Loss-Limit
+0 Bottom-Line-Target (Break Even Point)
+1 Happy-Point
+2 Gold-Top
+? Jackpot

[ego]

I don't give up and still searching ...

Test the following MM ...

- 5 Loss-Limit
+0 Bottom-Line-Target
+2 Happy-Point
+4 Gold-Top
+? Jackpot

Test cycle's even money bets.

+5 Jackpot
+0 Bottom-Line-Target
+2 Happy-Point
- 3 Loss-Limit
- 3 Loss-Limit
+2 Happy-Point
+0 Bottom-Line-Target

300 Trails and seven sessions - 5 sessions won and 2 sessions lose.
Total 9 units win and 6 units loss.

Playing and push each session.

- - -

Now if i did not push for Jackpot and end at Gold-Top the result would be as follows.

+4 Gold-Top
+0 Bottom-Line-Target
+4 Gold-Top
- 3 Loss-Limit
- 3 Loss-Limit
+4 Gold-Top
+0 Bottom-Line-Target

Total won 12 units and lose 6 units.

[ego]

Will test further using cycle's with the probability of a dice with clustering patterns.
That is the only way i can find some kind of footprint or signature following the flow.

It looks that it would not be impossible to win 2 out of 3 sessions - tests will show result on regular basis.
It just hard to rap your mind around how much you should push for each session - that make a big difference of the totals.

[ego]

-

First i was thinking that Brett Morton's bet selection was naive using previous six events.
But i change my mind after making some heavy testing and find the bet selection being valid.

Lets say you clustering the distribution into patterns of three you will get eight possibility's.
Then you can treat each individual clustering pattern as one side with a dice with eight sides.

Now if one side repeat it self you get a similarity - same formation.
Can be RBRRBR or BBRBBR or RRRRRR and so on ...
It is in the same line of thinking as how Brett Morton describe a bet selection of six with similarity using formation.

Now a dice with eight sides looks as follows ...




-

Now i notice with my testing that you get several clustering patterns between before same side repeat again.
You can see it as you get 30 50 70 100 trails between or rolls or events to occur.

We could describe each clustering pattern as one roll with one dice with eight sides and you get plenty as the odds is 7 in 8 for each roll.
My conclusion is that a sequential game based upon that is valid or that Brett Morton is right to that point using a valid bet selection.

Issues do with Brett Morton is that he is using the staking plan Parlay.
That is based upon winning at least twice and more to succeed.

I have tested them all playing with and against the flow using colours and formations and there exist no way to Parlay with success winning four session out of five with that staking plan.
He claims using some kind of footprint and i find there is not such march.
With that point of view i can't see how Brett Morton' claim is true.

But i am pretty sure that you can win more session then you lose based upon this kind of bet selection.
Is just that using Brett Morton's money management does not allow a game with errors - so i have no clue yet what kind of staking plan some one should use to get a optimal game plan.

Cheers

[ego]

-

First i was thinking that Brett Morton's bet selection was naive using previous six events.
But i change my mind after making some heavy testing and find the bet selection being valid.

Lets say you clustering the distribution into patterns of three you will get eight possibility's.
Then you can treat each individual clustering pattern as one side with a dice with eight sides.

Now if one side repeat it self you get a similarity - same formation.
Can be RBRRBR or BBRBBR or RRRRRR and so on ...
It is in the same line of thinking as how Brett Morton describe a bet selection of six with similarity using formation.

Now a dice with eight sides looks as follows ...




-

Now i notice with my testing that you get several clustering patterns between before same side repeat again.
You can see it as you get 30 50 70 100 trails between or rolls or events to occur.

We could describe each clustering pattern as one roll with one dice with eight sides and you get plenty as the odds is 7 in 8 for each roll.
My conclusion is that a sequential game based upon that is valid or that Brett Morton is right to that point using a valid bet selection.

Issues do with Brett Morton is that he is using the staking plan Parlay.
That is based upon winning at least twice and more to succeed.

I have tested them all playing with and against the flow using colours and formations and there exist no way to Parlay with success winning four session out of five with that staking plan.
He claims using some kind of footprint and i find there is not such march.
With that point of view i can't see how Brett Morton' claim is true.

But i am pretty sure that you can win more session then you lose based upon this kind of bet selection.
Is just that using Brett Morton's money management does not allow a game with errors - so i have no clue yet what kind of staking plan some one should use to get a optimal game plan.

Cheers

Today's file from random org


2
2
2 ROLL 1

2
2
2 ROLL 2 - ONE FORMATION / REPEAT

1
2
2 ROLL 4 WON

2
2
2 ROLL 5 LOSS

2
1
2 ROLL 6 WON

1
2
2 ROLL 7 WON

2
2
1 ROLL 8 WON

2
1
1 ROLL 9 WON

1
2
1 ROLL 10 WON

2
1
1 ROLL 11 WON

2
1
1 ROLL 12 WON

1
2
1 ROLL 13 WON

2
2
1 ROLL 14 WON

1
2
1 ROLL 15 WON

1
2
2 ROLL 16 WON

2
2
2 ROLL 17 LOSS

2
1
1 ROLL 18 WON

2
1
1 ROLL 19 WON

2
2
1 ROLL 20 WON

2
2
2 ROLL 21 LOSS

1
2
1 ROLL 22 WON

1
1
1 ROLL 23 WON

2
2
2 ROLL 24 LOSS

2
2
2 ROLL 25 LOSS