Total Coverage

[GLC]

Since there's a slight lull on the forum waiting for Chrisbis to get back from his shopping outing.  It must be a great meal.

Here's an idea that's happened by accident and seems to have some merit.

We place 9 bets on the table of 1 unit each.

1 unit on the 0/2 split
1 unit on the 1st dozen
1 unit on the 3rd dozen
1 unit on the left column
1 unit on the right column
1 unit on the 13,14,16,17 corner
1 unit on the 14,15,17,18 corner
1 unit on the 19,20,22,23 corner
1 unit on the 20,21,23,24 corner

When Chrisbis gets back he can show us what this looks like on his table layout method.  Thanks in advance Chris.

You'll notice that this covers the whole table so every spins wins something.  Well, win may not be the right word.  We never lose all 9 chips.

Here's how I've been playing it.  Every spin that results in a win of less than your units bet is counted as a loss.  Every spin that results in a win of more than your units bet is counted as a win.  It doesn't matter how much of a loss or how much of a win.

When you have a net of 3 losses, add 1 chip to each of the 9 locations. 

When you reach a new high bank, reset back to the original 9 each 1 unit bets.

This is in the test section because I just stumbled across it while goofing around with different ways to cover the whole table and still have a good chance to win some chips.

Analyze the bets and see if you can improve on them or do the same thing with fewer units.  Test this thing a little and you'll be surprised at how well it does.  It may even win with a flat bet.

Please, someone, show us that I've finally gone off the deep end.  Ralph?  Help!

GLC

[TwoCatSam]

Yes, you have, George.  I knew it the minute I say "left column" and "right column".  Still with my smarter-than-the-average-bear brain, I figured it out.

Sam

[Chrisbis]

Did I do it right for U George?
Happy to oblige. 

[Chrisbis]

I thought there was something wrong with this bet George.

Anything that lands, Col B/Doz 1 or Col B/Doz 3 will lose 6.00 units unless its #2
Anything landing on Col A/Doz 1 or Col A/Doz 3 will lose 3.00 units
Anything landing on Col C/Doz 1 or Col C/Doz 3 will lose 3.00 units

Did U think this thro and test George?
Losses will out sit their welcome even when smacked on the ar*e by a Progression Teacher!!! 

Here's the best outcome result You can have. (Zero and the corners are second best)
(don't know how I did it, but first spin, and I get a #2 !! fab!)

[Chrisbis]

A sample of spins I just ran........flat betting
[reveal]
#10......-3
#13......+3
#10......-3
#11......-6
#35......-6
#17......+9
#2.......+12
#14......+9
#2.......+12
#3.......-3
#12.....-3
#32.....-6
#24.....+3
#5.......-6
#13.....+3
#36.....-3
#8......-6
[/reveal]
Total = -3 

[Chrisbis]

We never lose ALL 9 units! (he did say that didn't he!)
But going backwards, is going backwards for me! LoL

Need smart azz progression list making out for the three types of bet contained within the framework of this bet.
Its one we can save for Great Gramp's return, and present on a silver platter!

I bet he breaks it down into mini loss sessions!

Can anyone hear the words "Framework" being shouted out from a departure lounge?

[GLC]

@ Chris:  Thanks for the help.  And you are right "We never lose all 9 units..." is a bald-faced lie.  What I forgot to type was, "...in one spin."

We could replace the 4 corner bets with 2 split bets to cover the 4 uncovered numbers and slip the 0/2 split up and only cover the zero.   This too would cover the whole table and with only 7 chips instead of 9.

My original thought was to play Trilogy, or harvesting the zeros but with some security bets to buffer a hit on the 5 uncovered numbers.

In the long run it may not work.  It's just an idea.  Although, it's impossible to create any bet that will lose more than the house edge over the long run so in reality this can't be any worse than betting a 9 unit flat bet.  Do we agree or not?

GLC

[Chrisbis]

I sort of agree ! lol   

[Ralph]

It looks like the "free spin bet" at Bv, we will never win and never lose as long it is no zero. The house takes 10% of the win on no zero wheel.
If we try to reduce the variance as much as possible, we lose according to the HE. The long run becomes short! 

We can only win a negative expectation game using the variance, and then for a limit of time.

[GLC]

I was trying to come up with a way to play "Harvesting the zero's" but using dozens and columns and eliminating the 4 outright losers at the same time.

The theory behind "Harvesting..." is based on the fact that when using a standard D'Alembert type progression for dozens, with normal win/loss rate, a profit of 1 unit per spin will be realized.  This is based on adding 1 unit to the bet after each loss and subtracting 2 units from the bet after a win.

Example:  bet 1 unit and lose = -1.  Add 1 unit to the bet and bet 2 units and lose = -2.  -2 + -1 = -3.  Add another unit to the bet and bet 3 units and win = +6.  +6 -3 = +3  thus a 1 unit win per spin.

Rarely do we get normal variance, and the zero takes a chunk every now and then also.  If we place a unit on the zero every spin, we should still be winning 2 units per 3 spins and whenever the zero hits, we will get a good payoff if they're hitting at normal rate or above.

If we play both dozens and columns per the above method we should be winning 2 units per spin.  1 unit for the dozens and 1 unit for the columns.  Our only losers are the 4 numbers that aren't covered by the 2 dozen bets and the 2 column bets plus the zero.   Our goal is to cover the 4 numbers with 2 chips on the split bet and 1 chip on the zero. 

Is it possible, with this set-up to increase our bet selection enough to have a long term winner??

Remember, we're covering the whole table, but we don't make money on every spin.  But we're playing our dozens and columns individually.  Plus 1 unit on a loss and minus 2 units on a win.  Then we bet differentially so that we're only betting on 2 dozens and 2 columns per spin.

What do you think?

GLC

[Chrisbis]

I think, yet again, this is another bet that needs a "Framework" putting to it.
The full analysis of where we are at any point, along with reset markers, and progression.

Also, set low '+', (plus) limits, and then re-track.
It will avoid 'some' deep drawdown, if spins land on the "undesirables"!!

Track, bet, achieve a Low target high, then reset, and re-track.
That is the way forward, as well as making the correct progression(s) list for the various "loss" positions.

If tracking can produce "Losers", then there could be a good position to jump in, and play.

EDIT

Also, the corner bets do not need progressing at the same rate as the other 5 units.
Maybe, even the 0/2 progress could be held back, until "Evens" position ids required.

[Nickmsi]

Hi guys . . .

I'd like to add my 2 cents concerning 100% coverage and it's progressions required.

A while back I coded the "Spider Web Theory" (the board is the Spider Web waiting to catch  "random" wherever it lands) which covers 100% of the board as follows:

Dozen 1 & 3, Columns A & C, Zero, Splits 14-17 & 20-23.

Attached is the sheet. 

The Coding automatically adds enough progression to each bet so that if it wins you will be in profit.

Playing Hit N Run this sheet could win for years, but there is the dreaded RFH (Run From Hell) waiting around the next corner.

Enjoy

Nick

[GLC]

Hi guys . . .

I'd like to add my 2 cents concerning 100% coverage and it's progressions required.

A while back I coded the "Spider Web Theory" (the board is the Spider Web waiting to catch  "random" wherever it lands) which covers 100% of the board as follows:

Dozen 1 & 3, Columns A & C, Zero, Splits 14-17 & 20-23.

Attached is the sheet. 

The Coding automatically adds enough progression to each bet so that if it wins you will be in profit.

Playing Hit N Run this sheet could win for years, but there is the dreaded RFH (Run From Hell) waiting around the next corner.

Enjoy

Nick

Nick,  Thanks for the spreadsheet.  So I re-invented the Spider Wed theory.  Approached it through the Trilogy method which is nothing more than two step played on all three dozens.  I just expanded it to dozens and columns.  In my testing, I move the 2 chips on splits around to the open spot which is determined by which of the dozens/columns are hitting or sleeping.

You're right, this thing seems to keep spitting out units.  With a "framework" as Chris calls it, it might actually become a viable system.

They all have their losing sequence, I'm just trying to find a system that has a small chance for the losing sequence to come around, if that's possible.

So far, No luck.  The problem is that this baby takes some quick calculations between spins.  It might not be playable for real unless botted.

Every spin we have to increase the 2 dozens and the 2 columns that didn't hit by 1.  Reduce the dozen and column that did hit by 2.  Calculate the difference so we only bet on 2 dozens and 2 columns.  I've been playing the zero using this progression 1 for 36 spins, 2 for 36 spins, 3 for 36 spins etc... every hit on the zero and I reset to 1.  I do the same for the two splits.  Play each with a separate line: 1 for 17 spins, 2 for 17 spins, 3 for 17 spins etc...

It gets crazy sometimes, but it's always pulled out to a new high balance where we can reset everything back to 1's.

I'm going to test it on non-zero at Betvoyager.  That will free up 1 chip for every spin.

I see why the idea is called the Spider Web Theory.

GLC

[Chrisbis]

If U test on BV NoZero George, I would keep the extra unit, and split it in half, and put it as a "Two Man" split shift
on 2/5 and 32/35, which narrows the focus down yet even further for the "Wheel/Roulette" machine (its RNG at the end of the day!), to hit a smaller target for absolute loss circumstances.
See below:-

(Can also shift it around between those two locations, and the other uncovered numbers (8/11 and 26/29)

[Ralph]

The HE kills the D'Alembert after a longer run. I have done a lot of tests and it is a sure loser in the long run. On a wheel using fair odds and allow many units before reaching the table limit it has been successful many times for 10000 of spins.

It does not matter if we have a wheel with one or two zeros (or none) as long the odds are fair. On BV NOZ we never get a zero, on one zero and two zeros with no HE  the payout is adjusted or the bet is paid back on a zero hit.(Not all bets).

I have found the EC is not the better, dozen one up and two down works better, but I have got the best results on double streets, using one up and six down. It can also gain very fast. A bad run takes time to finish, but it use to do, had a 90 sleeper, which is at most we can expect, and took it back. The bankroll needs to have "bullits" to stand the worse runs.  We can use up to five double streets, but such session takes very long to end, as we must treat them on individual basis (except how we reduce). All  double streets goes not bad at the same time, and we can reduce the six units on any double street, to eliminate the bets on a suspected sleeper, and take advantages of a run on a double street.

I use to start using five DB and take one away every spins which hits until the table is clean, sometimes I stop with one left and a new high.

I recommend to try (in fun at least first) it has been working very well.