Can Parachuting help?

[falkor2k15]

This follows on from the topic:
Can Hedging help?

No matter how I play Roulette the long term result always seems the same: break even and lose 2.7% to the house advantage.

So why is it that stitching and parachuting has often times been promoted? What is it about these concepts that might help us with a break even game? Frankly, I can't get my head around it, but with some analysis perhaps we can get them to "speak to us" and tell us what it is we are meant to be doing to improve our game - since Priyanka has become introverted, reddwarf became avoidant, and Dyksexlic lost his tongue. Yes - this is beyond remote viewing! So let's begin the reverse-engineering process...

Let's say we want to play the game of 2 dozens. Our goal is to win on a 2 dozen bet (66%).
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but triple up on units
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +1

Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 2 - win
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but add 0.5 units to each
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +2.5

Simply put: we either win the single-spin bet or we lose. Win or lose we have a choice of increasing our unit size = positive or negative progression.

But we also have a choice of parachuting, say, to lines:
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet lines 5+6
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +2

Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 2 - win
Bet lines 5+6, but add 0.5 to each
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +6

In the first example we risked 2 units and were able to recover on a loss ending in +1 at the expense of a further 6 units!
In the second example we risked 2 units and were able to parlay/positively progress ending +2.5 - but we expect less chance to win both bets in a row = 44% instead of 66%. The total loss is only 2 units, but we would expect more losing games than winning games.
In the third example we risked 2 units and were able to recover on a loss ending in +2 at the expense of only a further 2 units - but we would usually expect such a recovery to take longer.

So what have we learnt here?
*Increasing units on a loss could recover our losses quickly - but break the bank just as quick in a single game
*Parachuting on a loss does not require an increase in units - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank
*Increasing units on a win can extend our profit - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank
*Parachuting on a win can extend our profit - but can take many games to achieve and chip away at the bank

Besides the above we can go further and say:
*Parachuting on a win can result in more profit per game compared to parlaying/positive progression
*Parachuting and Parlaying can take longer to recovery on a loss - but if you are lucky it can also recover immediately on the next spin as per increasing units.

So what does that tell us about their usefulness in the break even game of Roulette....? Well, the above analysis shows that instead of losing all our money in the first game, we might have got the same profit (or more) at a cheaper price from parachuting. We expect to make profit over many games as opposed to one game in our life, so already we should be looking towards parachuting to avoid breaking the bank too soon.

Parachuting is also telling us something about the nature of recovery vs. profit acceleration. Which one might be our goal and why? A positive approach is shown to be better for short term games, but in the long term should we continue to fight positively to have the black cloth pulled over the table or should we fight for recovery through continuous parachuting? Are both long term goals created equally?

Up next: stitching.

[falkor2k15]

Stitching is more commonly used over multiple spins (can also be used on a single spin).

When we switch from playing the single spin 66% double dozens to multi-spin dozen cycles (within a Non-Random repeats framework), each game "up-scaled" now occurs over X cycles instead of X spins. Therefore, our sessions can involve a lot more spins - but with the same type of fixed % ratio targets. And, once again, depending on whether we hit the target we can choose to recover our games or accelerate our profit (the jury is still out on which one is the best approach). To keep things simple let's just stick to "recovery" for now:

Let's now play the game of dozen repeats in 2 spins = 44% (CL2)
Spin 1: dozen 2
Bet dozen 1+3
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win
Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 3: dozen 1 - lose (CL3)

Above I lost at the first attempt to hit CL2 from stitching 2 bets together - but instead of losing money I broke even!

Let's try again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
Bet dozen 1+3
Spin 2: dozen 2 - lose (CL1)

Above I already lost on spin 2 and can't possibly achieve CL2 so must abort the attempt - though only lost 2 units in the process.

Let's try again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 2 (CL1)

Instead of betting twice to hit the target, I was able to reduce the number of bets down to one by missing out CL1 (a different kind of parachuting in it's own right). So am still at -2 in recovery mode unaffected by the previous CL1 outcome.

Again:
Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 1
bet 1+2
Spin 3: dozen 1 - win
CL2

Now we are back at break even. Let's try to get another CL2 and turn that into profit.

Spin 1: dozen 2
No bet
Spin 2: dozen 1
bet 1+2
Spin 3: dozen 3 - lose (CL3)

-2 again

Our tally so far: we had 2 x CL3s (22%) and 2 x CL1s (33%), but only 1 44% CL2 (below maths expectation). However, we have yet another way to play this target - the time now seems ripe to stitch AND parlay our bets:

Spin 1: dozen 1
Bet 2+3
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win
bet 1+3, but add 0.5 units to each dozen
Spin 3: dozen 3 - win +2.5

= 0.5 profit

Failing the above we could have parachuted to line cycles to aid us further with recovery.

So what did we learn?
*A target can be lost @ break even instead of minus.
*Regardless of what approach we take (recovery vs. profit acceleration) we can prolong our sessions further with less chance of breaking the bank through stitching, an additional type of parachuting, and the ability to combine stitching with parlaying.

Up next: stitching on the same spin = hedging

[falkor2k15]

Correction: we didn't break even in the first game, but we only lost 1 unit. Perhaps a different kind of target, such as CL3, can be lost at break even instead:

Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet Dozens 2+3
Spin 2: Dozen 2 (win)
Bet Dozen 3
Spin 3: Dozen 2 (lose)

Above we broke even.

So what did we learn?
*A target can be lost @ break even instead of minus (or at least with reduced losses).
*Regardless of what approach we take (recovery vs. profit acceleration) we can prolong our sessions further with less chance of breaking the bank through stitching, an additional type of parachuting, and the ability to combine stitching with parlaying (or stitching with parachuting even?).

[falkor2k15]

Before we get into the most difficult concept of same spin stitching/hedging, there's still a few more things to consider here:

What makes a good target? One that is easy to parachute from - say, High/Low (to Dozens and beyond)? One that can break even on a loss, such as Dozens CL3? One that is based on a more likely event or higher ratio (MLE)?

There are other kinds of multi-spin event targets too, such as defined by same:
Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet Dozen 1
Spin 2: Dozen 2
Bet Dozen 1
Spin 3: Dozen 1 - win (CL2o1)

Order 1 (63%) has a much higher ratio compared to CL2 (44%), but it's not possible to stitch and parlay it. However, you can still play such a target with both types of aforementioned parachuting.
a) 3-hit Order 1
b) 2-hit Order 1 (miss out CL3o1)
c) 1 hit Order 1 (miss out CL2o1)
d) Parachute to Lines

With Cycle Lengths - seem to be the better choice - we can also target more than one with just 1 bet initially:
Spin 1: Dozen 1
Bet 2+3
Spin 2: Dozen 2 - win

We could essentially just stop there having hit a CL2+3 target, otherwise parachute to playing 2 hits per cycle - targeting CL2 specifically (MLE) as before. So our session progresses like this:
a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines

And when we choose to utilise parachuting we are actually changing our target in an attempt to recover our losses or accelerate our profits, but here we have parachuted in such a way that the new target partially covers the old overdue target in a bet that partially amalgamates both together:

Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet dozens 2+3 again, but triple up on units
Spin 2: dozen 3 - win! +1

Bet dozens 2+3
Spin 1: dozen 1 - lose
Bet lines 5+6
Spin 2: line 6 - win! +2

Perhaps such a well coordinated parachute - with or without parlaying - would offer an advantage towards completing our session at a new high (or with the profit margin expected from parlaying)

[falkor2k15]

Addendum:

Let's say we were playing one of these and monitoring the other:

a) 3-hit Order 1
b) 2-hit Order 1 (miss out CL3o1)
c) 1 hit Order 1 (miss out CL2o1)
d) Parachute to Lines

a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines

Instead of parachuting to lines we could first parachute to an amalgamation of the above 2 games if, say, CL2 and Order 2 were below maths expectation:
a) 2 hits CL2o2 (stitched and parlayed)
b) Parachute to Lines

Also, if we were playing for accelerated profit instead of recovery, the main game may work better in reverse:
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
a) 1 hit CL2/3
e) Parachute to Lines

[falkor2k15]

Not forgetting other ways to increase the span of a session through multiple repeats or outer cycles with higher MLE ratios instead of parachuting to lines:
1... 62% chance repeat will be on 1, i.e.:

11
121
1231
131, etc.

121... 71% chance 2nd repeat will be on 1, i.e.:

1 2 1 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 3 1

1... 44% chance repeat will be on Cycle Length 2, i.e.:

121
122

CL2... 76% chance repeating cycle length will be CL2, i.e.:

CL2 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL3 CL2

But then it becomes too complicated to play.

[falkor2k15]

To reflect back: it seems our goal in Roulette is to be able to say at the end of our life:
"I only lost my entire savings because number 34 appeared 5 times in a row"
or
"Thanks to number 12 being thrown into the mix of 34,34,12,34,34 I was able to recover a few sessions later - overcoming other bad sessions along the way - and go on to make several grand"
or
"It took a few attempts, but I won at Roulette by parlaying up to 50K because I had a good run without anything too extreme happening"

Each spin in Roulette is independent, but to be able to come out and say one of the above statements would be nigh on impossible playing a spin-by-spin game. With a multi-spin repeats framework we are able to utilise additional concepts, such as stitching and parachuting, to be able to dodge extreme events by tracking and following the most likely events with extra chances, more leeway and additional protection against losing our entire BR during the process. It all begins with this:

"I only lost at Dozen Cycles because there was no CL2 or Order 1 in site, so I had no choice but to parachute to Lines"

[falkor2k15]

I've swapped one around:

c) 1 hit CL2 (miss out CL1)
a) 1 hit CL2/3
b) 2 hits CL2 (stitched)
d) 2 hits CL2 (parlayed)
e) Parachute to Lines

Here's a practical demonstration prior to considering a parachute to Lines:

[falkor2k15]

This also works on 3 EC options albeit modified for CL2 specifically defined by option 1 - requires even less units for more spaced out sessions:

[falkor2k15]

Here's a comparison chart for the different dozen cycle bets:

Of course more bets exist, but they become increasingly lower in ratio - a bit like what would happen with a parachute to Lines. However, it might make more sense to parachute in the other direction when betting for uniques - hope to get definitive answers soon.

[RouletteGhost]

after all these years and you still have not figured out noone understands your 1980s level charts

[falkor2k15]

after all these years and you still have not figured out noone understands your 1980s level charts

People are too lazy to understand - but they won't be once I get a working method (if I get a working method)

[junscissorhands]

No you won't, it loses or breaks even.

[falkor2k15]

No you won't, it loses or breaks even.

We know that - hence the new concepts being explored in this topic that might help us with a break even game.

[Scarface]

Keep it simple.  Play what's hitting