Can Parachuting help?

[falkor2k15]

Yeah, but this is a bit more sophisticated because we are looking to recover till reaching a new high, i.e. always being able to find a way out of being stuck in mud.

Back to Positions, I just discovered that some outcomes are locked out depending on the starting position of the cycle:


The Double CL2 closure is only playable over 2 spins beginning with pos 1 = 2/3 * 1/3 = 22% to match 2-hit CL3 (before I thought 24% was slightly too high!).

Unfortunately, the double closure is not 3:1 payout nor 22%. It's only 33% as per the chart. The 22% is more for events starting on pos 2-3, so positions doesn't really offer much in the way of parachute potential.

Incidentally, after losing a CL2 (stitched & parlayed), you only have to double up instead of tripling up if you were to repeat the same bet. Of course a parachute would still be a better option.

I was testing a new concept of playing both dozen cycles and position cycles together. I made 1K then encountered this really rare event:


Another example of a rare event:

[falkor2k15]

2 ways of playing the front runners:




I doubt either could be recovered in 1 game, hence we need a gradual recovery using parachuting and other techniques discussed previously.

Positions seems more trouble than it's worth - doesn't seem to benefit us in the slightest. I'll look at hedging options (not really much room for overlap) and then call it quits.

[Tinsoldiers]

then call it quits.

There are multiple people here who are screaming systems don’t work to deaf ears. I am one who is looking for a mathematical model to work.  That will be only possible if you know why all the systems fail. IMHO Until you grasp that basic on why systems fail, you will be wasting time that could be spent well somewhere else and calling it quits at every attempt.

[falkor2k15]

There are multiple people here who are screaming systems don’t work to deaf ears. I am one who is looking for a mathematical model to work.  That will be only possible if you know why all the systems fail. IMHO Until you grasp that basic on why systems fail, you will be wasting time that could be spent well somewhere else and calling it quits at every attempt.

We know why systems fail. People just keep repeating the same advice over and over again, and not realising it's a waste a time. This topic has shown that you can reach the table limits if you try to recover too quickly, though I still need to finish this investigation regarding parachuting and other types of gradual recovery (stitching, parlaying, outer cycles, etc). At this stage, we just want to make sure positions is totally exhausted before moving on to the planned tests for Dozens + Lines - not to mention hedging. At the end I will then try to put everything together and see if the final strategy is able to guarantee recovery (or not).

[Scarface]

Falknor, I know you've did alot of testing with dozen cycles, using the dozen bets provided on the table.  Have you ever tried changing the dozens you play?  Dozen 1 could be the last 12 numbers hit.  Or it could be based on the wheel and not the table.  Or any numbers you choose to group together.  Just throwing this out there.

[Tinsoldiers]

We know why systems fail.

Why?

[falkor2k15]

Falknor, I know you've did alot of testing with dozen cycles, using the dozen bets provided on the table.  Have you ever tried changing the dozens you play?  Dozen 1 could be the last 12 numbers hit.  Or it could be based on the wheel and not the table.  Or any numbers you choose to group together.  Just throwing this out there.

Dozens is a convenient way to learn the concepts using only 3 outcomes/pigeons - and once we understand how smaller groups relate to larger groups we can then parachute from High/Low all the way to Numbers (or bidirectionally).

Why?

1) All bets are a collection of static independent bets
2) Unfair payout odds, i.e. break even + house advantage
3) Table limits

So please go back to page 1 and re-read why this topic exists.

[Blueprint]

So please go back to page 1 and re-read why this topic exists.

Tin.  You ran into the forum expert.  Haven't you learned?

[wiggy]

I've already explained the merits of the recovery methods posted here, which are totally original - based on multi-spin combinations - and never discussed before for the most part. Do you not understand what a cycle is yet? It just shows you haven't attempted to follow the topic properly. It's really not that complicated. I've even gone to the trouble of explaining all concepts step-by-step with examples, which saves up to 3 years of research for those unfamiliar with them. Cycles, hot/cold, stitching, parachuting, positions, hedging has been completely demystified in this one topic. Again, it's taken 3 years to reach this understanding and to be able to explain it as an idiot's guide because Priyanka, rrbb and Dyk spoke only in riddles.

It's appreciated Falkor!  It takes a lot to stay motivated when ideas/concepts that appear original and interesting don't hold up after some research/testing.

[falkor2k15]

Today, I had a deep think about why the concepts covered herein are guaranteed to work.

There must exist an event that is 99.9% guaranteed to recover your previous losses and make a 1 unit profit in itself, and loses only, say, a maximum of 2 units - keeping well within the house limits; however, the problem is that the event takes 1,000 spins to reach. That represents the most extreme case where each successive parachute has failed to satisfy a growing ratio. Contrary to that we can make 1 unit profit on dozens within the first 3 spins (CL2), so it's better to try to win in the short term first, otherwise we can rely on other events of increasing spin size more so than short term events of increasing unit size.

Parachuting on the same target event: if we fail to gain profit on CL2 as part of a 1-hit CL2/3 event we can recover our losses over 2-spins (stitched) at the same cost. You cannot do that with single-spin targets (notwithstanding hedging), as the cost will always grow. This is proof that we can beat roulette - but we must make sure we play each session until fully recovered otherwise we will lose any advantage that the parachute provided.

Parachuting from CL2 to Outer CL2 is, at a minimum, the same cost/payout as normal CL2. However, the ratio has grown from 44% to 48%. This is proof that roulette can be beaten - but we must ensure each session is played to full recovery. Incidentally, it may be possible to increase the payout on the Outer CL2 ever so slightly for that 48%.

[falkor2k15]

I thought I would do a hedge test on positions. Hedging is essentially putting more chips on a particular part of the board, so that the unit sizes across the whole board is uneven.

Here we target a 2-hit CL2 on position cycles and a 1-hit CL1 (2nd place MLE) on dozen cycles. Can be vice versa. For this trigger the cycles must be shifted (or out of sync).

As we discussed previously, parallel positions are problematic when it comes to parachuting in terms of some bets needing 3 dozens instead of 2 - and trying to avoid them:


So we can get 2 wins = 2:1 payout - same as a single dozen bet!


Or CL2 can win but not CL1 - still profits! (0.5:1)


Both Lose = -2 (not bad)! Extra chips are brought in after the first win...


Playing 2 hedges in a row: +5 with 3 wins and a break even:


Playing CL2 x 2 in a row: +4 with 4 wins (less payout despite more wins)


Playing just CL1 x 2 in a row: only +1 with 1 win and 1 loss (ignore the 0.1 bets)


Anyway, I think positions is a bad choice, but nevertheless has hedge potential as demonstrated. It shows how CL2 can be further parachuted on the same event without moving to Lines or Outer Cycles.

Dozen Cycles - Parachute Levels

1-hit CL2 = 0.5:1 - miss out CL1
1-hit CL2/3 = 0.5:1 - can win on CL2/3
2-hit CL2 (stitched) = 0.5:1 - reduced losses on CL3
2-hit CL2 (stitched & parlayed) = 1.25:1
2-hit CL2 (stitched) + Pos CL1 (hedged) = 2:1
2-hit CL2 (stitched & parlayed) + Pos CL1 (hedged) = at least 2:1

[falkor2k15]

I'm going to look into lines next... I realised that although CL2 and CL3 are 28% - obviously it's better to go with CL3 due to the extra spin. Also, as we established before, CL3-6 is greater than CL1-2, confirming that CL3 is better than CL2 despite the same stats. Check out the updated chart...



That payout seems quite high for 28%!   

There's no mistake though...

5/6 * 4/6 * 3/6 = 5/18 = 0.2777
Cost: 5 units
Stitched profit: 1+2+3 = 6 units
Stitched payout: 6/5 = 1.2
Parlayed profit: 1+3+9 = 13 units
Parlayed payout: 13/5 =  2.6



Here's a quote from Priyanka:
"Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa."

[falkor2k15]

So far it's made 4K on 2 different datasets, but there's still more levels to add:

I put Lines @ level 1, but it's going to be hard to add them at later levels, so outer cycles might work better.

BTW, I am still planning to test front-runner parachuting as well!

[falkor2k15]

An interesting fact: I was wondering which kind of extreme event is more rare:

Quick repeats, such as 27 27 27 27 27....
Or all uniques showing to the point of deadlock, such as 37 unique numbers before a repeat...
Which event should we try to avoid the most?

Well, since we are never likely to encounter 37 unique numbers in several lifetimes then that is the answer! And at a dozen cycle level we are constantly trying to get CL2 and avoid CL1 and CL3. Of course, CL3 is more rarer (22%) than CL1 (33%) - even though both break even or can reach table limits when playing them long-term.

[falkor2k15]

So we know that Line cycles is an even split between CL2-CL3, but CL3 is kind of favoured because CL3-6 has more chance than CL1-2, so we expect a cycle to go to CL3-6 and then repeat on CL3 for the most part. Regardless, any option is break even... just we don't want to be waiting around for too long choosing lower ratio options.


Now, the interesting thing is that Dozens CL2 is dependent on Lines CL2 more than any other outcome, so when we parachute we need to bet Lines CL2 instead of CL3. However, there are 2 types of CL2 on the lines - open or closed:
154
or
144
etc.

Unfortunately, it's an equal split between the two - but for CL3+ it sides more on closed; CL1 sides more on open.

Just to make sure I will need to re-test those stats later after completing the parachute plan on the dozens - in case it pushes towards CL1 or CL3 in more extreme situations (doubtful).