Random Thoughts

[Priyanka]

So here is my break! Here comes my chance to take a break from chasing the 20k and test out, energize myself and prepare myself for the next attack. I am going to use this break to hone my thought process further. There are several random thoughts (yeah random!) that flows across my mind now. But I am going to park them at the moment and jump straight to what I wanted to achieve in this break. I intend to share those thoughts during this quest as and when they become relevant to seek further feedback from my fellow forumers who have extended excellent support so far. Thanks!



Ever since I started playing for real and associated myself with this community, I have disciplined myself to ask 4 questions before I place every chip on the table. Which, where, when and how much.



Which â€" Which position to play. This is normally guided by the system that I am adopting. Let’s say am playing Easy peasy system. Then the answer to “Which” is 1EC(high/low) and 1 line(3/4). If am playing GLC’s even chance system, the answer to which is one even chance. If am playing GG’s triple shooter the answer is 3 Even chance positions one of a kind.



Where â€" Where to place your chips. This is completely different from which position to bet. This “where” is normally guided by some conditions. Let me take an example of Easy peasy system. Depends on how you are playing it whether the last spin is “BO/RE/BE/RO” decides where to place your chips. While “Which” guides it is 1EC and 1line, “Where” guides the exact EC and the line to place your chips on.



Both of these combines to form your bet selection approach.



“When” â€" When to place your bets. There is a whole host of techniques around Virtual betting, “wait for x losses” before betting etc, stop session after 3 losses decides the when part. This can be essentially grouped under “Timing”



“How much” â€" How much to bet. This is essentially your money management within a session. All progression techniques, flat bet propositions will give the answer to this question.



Now that I have decided to ask these 4 questions before every bet, my next thought was, how do the answers influence the outcome and the bankroll. My thought process at this stage is (of course it will evolve over a period of time), Which and where is something that I control. For a moment, let us assume the outcome is perfectly symmetrical, i.e., I get 50 Reds and 50 blacks in 100 spins or I get all numbers from 1to 36 twice in 72 spins (give the green goblin a well-deserved rest for a moment. He must be tired working so hard for the casinos). Then “Which” and “When” leads us to controllable attributes. They are the elements where I can force my control on, just like I set a routine in my life to have breakfast every morning.



Now “Where” is something where eventhough I express my control on, the outcome is completely controlled by random. I can only predict what can come next. Prediction can be based on a number of parameters and in roulette when all pockets are equal, you cannot predict with any degree of accuracy unless you are GOD. It is like this, which all you gentlemen may be able to relate to, when Manchester United plays reading, you can predict with reasonable accuracy that Man U will win the match, but when Man U plays Man City, then it is a tough call. I wish in roulette some slots showed higher strength like this example. But unfortunately that’s not the case.



“When” is a concept that’s really tricky. I am neither mature not knowledgeable enough to discuss it. So will leave it at the moment.



So my quest during this break is real simple. If “Where” is not in your control, why lose sleep over it? Why can’t you adopt a static selection. Why can’t you adopt a selection which is pure random. I know there are hypothesis around that is against static bet selection. I completely agree with every one of you and to the record to me static bet selection does not sound right. But my question is, does a defined approach which is not static, is it right or is it a fallacy. E.g. FTL, is it right? How much better or different is it from static bet selection.



I am going to take simple systems that I am comfortable with. I am going to play them in Live wheel (I don’t want to get into RNG/Live wheel questions at the moment, as I agree with most if not everyone here that live wheel is best as RNG is not a reflection of true random). I am going to play 5 games of 50-100 spins for every system using a static bet selection, dynamic bet selection defined by the system author and a random bet selection. When I say bet selection, I mean the “Where” part and not the “which” part. My objective is not to determine which one is best, but to determine fundamentally whether it has an influence on game play.



Mr. Roulette wheel, here I come!

[teo]

Whichever side you decide to play...you'l be a winner on the long run.
The more you mix more confusions...simple and easy.
And btw--it is static 1/2 bet but you will never find better win ratio
on these basis in the game of roulette.Try the same in continuation
and you will see where it takes you.

[GLC]

Whichever side you decide to play...you'l be a winner on the long run.
The more you mix more confusions...simple and easy.
And by the way--it is static 1/2 bet but you will never find better win ratio
on these basis in the game of roulette.Try the same in continuation
and you will see where it takes you.

Teo,

If this works on the last 4 unique lines, why not on the last 2 dozens or columns?

If this works on the last 4 unique lines but not on the last 2 dozens or columns, shouldn't it work even better on the last 8 unique streets?  And even better on the last 12 unique splits?  The last 24 unique numbers?

Have you looked at these bets?

GLC

[Priyanka]

If this works on the last 4 unique lines, why not on the last 2 dozens or columns?

George, my two cents. There needs to be a balance between the odds and the occurences on chosing a betting locations. Dozens and columns give too little room for fluctuation and it is quite common to get three unique dozens, whereas it is not as common to get 6 unique double streets. The reason lies in the fact that as your chances get larger and larger, the duration for random to achieve a complete cycle of chances increases. This widens the opportunity window and a higher degree of predictability. My short tests indicate, it does not work well with dozens or columns and I ended up getting into deep progressions.

shouldn't it work even better on the last 8 unique streets?  And even better on the last 12 unique splits?  The last 24 unique numbers?

Hypothetically, it should. But lines give the simplicity that streets, splits and numbers don't give. May be a good idea for botting on streets, splits and numbers. Also, lines will keep your bet size limited as your base bet size is 4units whereas it increases with streets and upwards and hence the requirement for a larger bankroll.

Ofcourse these are my views and flat might give a completely different answer.

[teo]

Did all George,
Dozens/columns can't do in this manner,as it wouldn't be really unique but in continuation...about streets,
splits.....very diff.to wait for 8 uniques streets,or almost impossible to do so on splits,12 uniques.....but on
lines it is very playable....also on column lines-----1/4,7/10,13/16---you know the rest.Even better thisway,but it is another story.......am sure you will investigate.

[TwoCatSam]

Yanks

I did quite a bit of study on dozens and double streets.  Here is my reasoning:  For a dozen to hit, you have twelve chances.  Any hit takes eleven buddies with him.  For a double street to hit you have six chances.  Then the hitter only takes five buddies with him.

Does that make any sense?

Sam

[Priyanka]

Yes Sam. Understand what you are saying. But not able to relate your reasoning to the method. May be you might want to explain a bit more.

[TwoCatSam]

Yanks

Once, years ago, a fellow named Wardblack advanced this idea:

It is extremely rare for a dozen to sleep for 24 spins.  Happens, yes, but rarely.  Ward allowed as how all we needed to do was wait until 12 unhit numbers remained and we would have a dozen that had slept for 24 or more spins.  Sounds great.

It was then I learned the difference between a dozen and a dozen.  A dozen is fixed and immobile.  1 thru 12, for example.  Wards dozen could be four from each normal dozen.  It was not a dozen at all but 12 individuals.  There is a vast difference. 

Turns out the Ward 12 tended to be sleepers who did not hit as I thought they would.  The whole idea was flawed.  But it taught me a lot.

Sam

[Priyanka]

Thanks Sam! Valuable wisdom!
That's one huge learning. A dozen is a dozen and not a collection of any 12 numbers. A double street is a double street and not just a collection of any 6 numbers!

[Priyanka]

BO/RE/RO/BE - Is it all a myth? I have just completed the sample tests for Easy peasy system and it clearly tells that there is no  point in scratching your head over which location to bet if BO comes and scrapping into a tracker to track the numbers. You just need to taste a drop of wine to say how good it is.

Test strategy
3 sets of samples were independently and randomly taken from my spin database and tested for Easy peasy method as Atlantis plays it (using BO/RE selections), static bets (start with high and line 3 and switch to the opposites for every double loss), random bets.

Results - in the image attached.

Conclusion
For easy peasy system, it doesn't matter how you identify the "Where" part of bet selection. You could do it based on your phone number, you could count the number of bar ladies in the casino and bet based on that or you could simple bet looking at your watch, it doesn't have any influence on the game. What matters is you should bet either "High and line 3" or "Low and line 4". On a loss increase the EC bet by one and on a double loss increase the line bet by 1. Play in mini games with a target of +3. That's all that matters. "Where" part of the bet selection works equally bad or good irrespective of your bet selection being dynamic/static/random for the Easy peasy system.