Building The Optimum System.

[daveylibra]

I was going to call this thread "Building the Holy Grail" but maybe that would be seen as leading to false promises, hence "Building the Optimum System."

The idea is that this thread should be used for ideas that fall into certain criteria. I think that a usable system, if there could be such a thing, should -

a) Consist of a minimum number of spins. After all, what's the use of a 1,000 spin chart, we cannot sit and play such a thing. And I really don't trust/ want to get into the realm of bots.
b) Entail a min bet to max bet ratio. I don't think anyone should be laying 100s of units on one spin, and again it's not practical.

So, how about a maximum of around 74 spins (2*37)?
& an absolute max bet of 5 units? With some systems we may want to increase the amount of numbers played, but never more than 5 units on each.

Now, I have roulette extreme, but have only recently acquired it and so have not mastered the coding yet. If anyone posts ideas, it would be ideal if they could be tested with Rx or something similar, and what we would be looking for is something that shows profit in most trials, and not a large drawdown in trials that never reach above 0. And we don’t need to graph more than around 74 spins, but we need to compare around 100 graphs to see how good the system is. This I would be prepared to do given the correct code!

So let me kick off with one idea I have.
We play 19 numbers. This could be any numbers, but how about the 1st 19 that show, including repeaters?
We then stake according to the “retirement system” (this can be looked up.) Target 6, divisor 6. We round up to the nearest integer. We stop when we reach the target or get to our maximum spins.
The idea behind this being that we have a 19/37 chance to win each spin. On a loss, we lose a bit more than we gain on a win, but this is more than made up for on account that we are rounding up our stake. Could be tricky to code, though?

[Scarface]

I'm just thinking out loud here, just throwing idea out there.  But you need at least 1 hit every 36 numbers just to break even.  More than 1 hit every 36 numbers to profit.

There are many, many ways to play 36 numbers
3 numbers for 12 spins
12 numbers for 3 spins
4 for 9, 9 for 4
6 for 6
1 for 36....etc

Why not mix it up?  Raise bet by 1 unit on a loss.  Anytime you get 2 hits in a cycle you profit

[ignatus]

There are many, many ways to play 36 numbers
3 numbers for 12 spins
12 numbers for 3 spins
4 for 9, 9 for 4
6 for 6
1 for 36....etc

Why not mix it up?  Raise bet by 1 unit on a loss.  Anytime you get 2 hits in a cycle you profit

This gave me a crazy idea, scarface thx! i call it the "scarface-system"
Now begin,

STEP 1. BET the 2 last hit numbers for 18 spins (1u) (at any hit, you re-start, betting the last 2 hit) IF no hit, (within 18 spins) goto Step 2;
STEP 2. ADD A third number; (+current hit number) Re-BET those 3 numbers (and double up) Now, do the next cycle of 12 spins, (at any hit, restart at STEP 1) IF no hit goto step 3.
STEP 3. ADD A fourth number (+current hit number) Re-BET those 4 numbers (and double up) Now do the Last cycle of 9 spins, (at any hit restart at STEP 1) IF no hit, that's GAME OVER.

First test won... This progression is not "perfect" ofcourse, but it's Ok,......just a crazy idea!!

[Bigbroben]

Not a bad idea actually...

Just tested and it went ok until step 3 failed.  Just for the heck of it I continued a step 4: 6 nrs for 6 spins ( double-up) and a step 5, 9 nrs for 4 (double-up again).  Got a hit at step 5, went from -330 to 90, +240 with 8u on nrs.  Previous high before fall was 108 at about spin 100.
Could benefit from little adjustments.  The most frequent gap is 1, then 2, and so on.  Could try by betting last 2 nrs instead of keeping the first 2, the betting the last 3, then 4.

[ignatus]

"The Scarface-system" 4/4 Games won....

[ignatus]

WELL. From further testings i got 3 losses in a row, so i guess it was a bad idea. sry. :S (just my luck!)

[Roulettebeater]

WELL. From further testings i got 3 losses in a row, so i guess it was a bad idea. sry. :S (just my luck!)

I read your first comment and noticed your enjoyment !

It was too early to celebrate the HG

[evs]

DAVEYLIBRA to create a system, all conclusions must be confirmed or refuted in terms of mathematics and physics!  and not be an empty sound!

[daveylibra]

Hi EVS, well I don't think we could ever write a mathematical formula to confirm we will win, no matter what anyone claims.

Here is a maths problem that needs a genius to solve.

Suppose we assume we will win x bets from y spins (EC.) How do we proportion our bets to minimise the stake and ensure we are 1 ahead at some point?

I think something similar to a fixed line Labouchere is required. Eg 100 spins, we aim for 40 wins, x=40, y=100.
I've asked some brainy guys, no-one can solve it!

[evs]

DAVEYLIBRA roulette is almost always a long distance is negative for the player you are right!  but if you want to create everything you can!  just need to understand what you're dealing with!
P.S. the flow of your thoughts I like!

[evs]

 DAVEYLIBRA Suppose we assume we will win x bets from y spins (EC.) How do we proportion our bets to minimise the stake and ensure we are 1 ahead at some point?
I think something similar to a fixed line Labouchere is required. Eg 100 spins, we aim for 40 wins, x=40, y=100.
I've asked some brainy guys, no-one can solve it!
in P.S.  I did not mean these thoughts.
just always ask people why.  if the answer is not worthy of attention, do not believe!

[Scarface]

Hi EVS, well I don't think we could ever write a mathematical formula to confirm we will win, no matter what anyone claims.

Here is a maths problem that needs a genius to solve.

Suppose we assume we will win x bets from y spins (EC.) How do we proportion our bets to minimise the stake and ensure we are 1 ahead at some point?

I think something similar to a fixed line Labouchere is required. Eg 100 spins, we aim for 40 wins, x=40, y=100.
I've asked some brainy guys, no-one can solve it!

Exactly!  There has to be a way to create an algorithm or mathematical formula to solve this. 

They say 60 wins out of 200 is the worse you'll see for an even bet....based on over 10 million simulations.  So, if we know we can get 60 wins per 200 spins there has to be a way to determine a way to use a progression safely with this ratio.

So, there is no math guys here that can figure the out? The catch is that whatever it is, it will have to work no matter where those 60 wins fall in 200 spins.

[Roulettebeater]

Exactly!  There has to be a way to create an algorithm or mathematical formula to solve this. 

They say 60 wins out of 200 is the worse you'll see for an even bet....based on over 10 million simulations.  So, if we know we can get 60 wins per 200 spins there has to be a way to determine a way to use a progression safely with this ratio.

So, there is no math guys here that can figure the out? The catch is that whatever it is, it will have to work no matter where those 60 wins fall in 200 spins.

Well the problem isn’t in the number of wins one can achieve, the problem is in the order of wins ... and so far there is no mathematical model that can deal with chaotical order of wins sparsed over a range of spins

[Scarface]

There really seems like there should be a mathematical model for problems similar to this.  If someone can come up with a model on 60/200 that works no matter where the 60 wins fall, I would call that a Holy Grail

[Roulettebeater]

There really seems like there should be a mathematical model for problems similar to this.  If someone can come up with a model on 60/200 that works no matter where the 60 wins fall, I would call that a Holy Grail

Put mathematics aside ... can you tell me how should the progression comes ahead with this output :


W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W

W=60
L=140

Noway!