Check out this system

[Carsch]

This system has been doing good with a few tests i've done, except that it busted today with some spins from Germany.  I might need to improve it.  It's easy to play and i'm sure some of you will find it interesting.

Bets are on RB, HL & OE. . . . . . . (3 outside bets all at the same time)

Go up 1 as you lose, 1 down as you win (no individual progression)

Example, if our net balance is down 1 unit, then we bet 2 units on all three (RB, HL & OE)

Bets will be based always on the number B4 the last hit.  So, if we have 7,29. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 is the number B4 last (we bet on 7)

Here is an example:

7 <--------B4 Last
26
--
30 <-------bets start here
19
8

So, we want to be on RED because 7 is Red

We want to bet on LOW because 7 is Low

And we want to bet on ODD because 7 is Odd

In this example

we win 1 unit for RED
we lose 1 unit because 30 is EVEN
and we lose 1 more unit because 30 is HIGH

Since we're down 1 unit, our next bet would be 2 units on all bets. 


Below is sample:




. . . . . . Bet. . . . . . RB. . . . . . . HL. . . . . . . . OE. . . . . . . . . . Net Total

32
28
2. . . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . -1
18. . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . -3
00. . . . 3. . . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . . . -12
4. . . . . 4. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . -9
1. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . . . -5
27. . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . . . -11
1. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . . . . -2
19. . . . 2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . +4

13. . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . +5
12. . . . 1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . . . +4
23. . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . +2
20. . . . 3. . . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . . . . -1
27. . . . 4. . . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . . . . +11

21. . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . . . +10
9. . . . . 2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . +12

11. . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . +11
13. . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . +13

21. . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . +12
9. . . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . +14

3. . . . . 1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . +15

9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +18

20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +15
20. . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +9
8. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . +3. . . . . . . . . . +12
21. . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +10
5. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +7
27. . . . 4. . . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . . +4. . . . . . . . . . +19

[VLS]

Welcome to the Forum Carsch.

Plenty of us sure remember you. Nice to see members from the "old school" are still active 

[MrJ]

I complimented you at GG for this but I do have a question/comment. There are certain methods I classify as.....maybe only play it at a busy table. Any method where you need to do a little calculating, have your 3 stacks ready (whatever it might) etc. I dont think I would play this if only ONE other person was at the table, any comment on this?

Also, in terms of units for the $5 min. tables. We would have to start 5 5 5. When we need to go up, would it go to $6 or $10?  Ken

[Carsch]

thanks again for the welcome, Victor.  :)

[Carsch]

I complimented you at GG for this but I do have a question/comment.   There are certain methods I classify as.  .  .  .  .  maybe only play it at a busy table.   Any method where you need to do a little calculating, have your 3 stacks ready (whatever it might) etc.   I don't think I would play this if only ONE other person was at the table, any comment on this?

The only calculation needed for this system is that you know your total balance after a first loss.   No need to track what RB, HL and OE are doing.   With your first loss, you know you have to bet 1 unit on all decisions.   Another loss and you know you have to add another unit (2 units).   On a win, you know you have to take away 1 unit, and so on; so there should be no problems there.   Simply keep in mind what your balance was after a first loss, that's all.   

Also, in terms of units for the $5 min.   tables.   We would have to start 5 5 5.   When we need to go up, would it go to $6 or $10?  Ken

Considering that $5 is one unit, your next bet would be $10, then $15, $20 and so on. 

[MrJ]

Thank you sir.  Ken

[buffalowizard]

Hi Carsch

I'm not sure if you made a mistake but on your set of numbers you go from betting 4 units and then you win and it goes straight down to 1 unit.
Do you ever lower the unit size by more than one at a time?

Thanks for your method

BW

[Carsch]

Hi Carsch

I'm not sure if you made a mistake but on your set of numbers you go from betting 4 units and then you win and it goes straight down to 1 unit.
Do you ever lower the unit size by more than one at a time?

Thanks for your method

BW

Any time you're +-1, or you've recovered all your losses and back to your previous net balance, you bring your bets to 1 unit whether you last bet was 10 units or 4, or whatever.  I guess this is what you're referring to.

[Carsch]

Someone brought this to my attention.  It's a mistake a made, and he's right.

2. . . . . 1. . . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . -1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . -1
18. . . . 2. . . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . -2. . . . . . . . +2. . . . . . . . . . -3
00. . . . 3. . . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . -3. . . . . . . . . . -12
4. . . . . 4. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . +1. . . . . . . . . . -9

Wouldn't you have won +4, +4, +4 on this spins which would have brought you to even and your next bet would be 3 units on each even chance?

[WannaWin]

Hello Mr. Carsch,

How good to see you here. I remember your from GamblersGlen forum.

Do you have the Roulette Xtreme code for this method?

Maybe have some graphics for this system already on your computer?

I like to see the performance in some graphics if available.

Thank you very much in advance.

WannaWin

[Hermes]

When you bet last before you win half the chops and streaks, you lose all doubles. Playing all ECs will balance the chops/doubles disadvantage and the progression should give something back. But when zeros & doubles strike often (on double zero roulette) it could be a disaster.
I know that to make a good EC system needs a genius like turbo turbo. Not an easy subject.
Hermes

[Carsch]

Hello Mr.  Carsch,

How good to see you here.  I remember your from GamblersGlen forum.

Do you have the Roulette Xtreme code for this method?

Hi! So this is where all the GG members are! :)
No, i don't have Roulette Xtreme.  Unfortunately, i'm always doing my tests by hand. 

[Carsch]

When you bet last before you win half the chops and streaks, you lose all doubles. 

That's correct.  However, since i'm playing RB, HL and OE all at the same time, it conpensates in case that is happening on one sector.

Playing all ECs will balance the chops/doubles disadvantage and the progression should give something back.  But when zeros & doubles strike often (on double zero roulette) it could be a disaster.

What is ECs? I've been out of the gamble scene for a while now, so i'm behind with some of the terms used.

[MrJ]

Even chances. (1-1).  Ken

[Carsch]

Thanks Ken