Can Parachuting help?

[junscissorhands]

Don't be so fucking rude RG.

Still desillusional thinking I'm Caleb. You think you're oh-so-smart, but you are wrong.

IP check tells I'm from Holland, idiot.

[RouletteGhost]

[falkor2k15]

First test is to use the following parachute levels (on the left) assisted by the ones on the right when the opportunity arises:


Before I bring in the lines I just want to see with my own eyes exactly how they behave during the longest High-Low+Dozens sessions that fail to recover.

[RouletteGhost]

First test is to use the following parachute levels (on the left) assisted by the ones on the right when the opportunity arises:


Before I bring in the lines I just want to see with my own eyes exactly how they behave during the longest High-Low+Dozens sessions that fail to recover.

Everyone understands completely

Go on.

[falkor2k15]

This is what I'm talking about: the art of recovery!

[Kattila]

Yes we did understand everything...

[falkor2k15]

Guys, you're lucky I'm just sticking to Cycle Lengths - otherwise with Ordinality it would seem even more difficult to understand - and yes when the Order 1 front runner wins on Dozen Cycles there is a dependency for other streams to also win on Order 1.

Anyway, you only need to understand what a cycle length is to understand this strategy. And since you all attended the Turbo topic for months on end - a sell out success - this should be like learning the alphabet and as easy as 123! Why do you think I try to explain everything with dozens!?

[RouletteGhost]

 Did explaining how something works before posting these charts ever cross your mind

Or is that just a silly thought

[Kattila]

Last one....      

[falkor2k15]

Did explaining how something works before posting these charts ever cross your mind

Or is that just a silly thought

You've joined the topic a bit late, so I suggest re-reading from page 1 to get up to scratch.

This recovery is masterful:


The session ended:
HCL2 vs. HCL1  = 4/5
DCL2 vs. DCL1/3 = 1/5

So it recovered the losses without the HCL2 recovering and especially without the DCL2 recovering! So it's those kinds of sets where I need to analyse the lines behaviour before we start to incorporate them as additional levels.

Above there was no LCL2s, which is nice, but the previous stats showed that the opposite might be true in the long run (will analyse more actual sessions to find out)

[falkor2k15]

Tomorrow I am also going to look at an alternative form parachute extension - just using dozen cycles - by increasing the spins to 3 and 4 per event target.

[falkor2k15]

This is what I'm talking about: the art of recovery!

Just to recap and reflect back. This example proves how Roulette might end up being beaten through an effective parachute method. Imagine each cycle is like a 50% EC bet - which is what it actually is - albeit over 2-3 spins instead of 1 spin.

If we doubled up then it would have looked like this:
1
2
4
8
16
32
64

However, we ended up with:
2
4
2
4
7
14
7

Why is that? Well. we lost 6 EC bets in a row - but by playing the 50% event over multiple spins with multiple hedges we was able to win on a few dozen event targets to help out with the EC cycle recovery. So, although one may get 19 heads in a row with a silver dollar - you'll be cashing in on the loose bank notes instead.

[Tinsoldiers]

You are deep entrenched in gamblers fallacy. Complicating the thoughts is not necessarily going to give an edge. They are all still individual and independent groups of putting money on the table. 

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

Point number one from your above response is not addressed in your methods.  Until you address that, I don’t think we are going anywhere.

[RouletteGhost]

Tomorrow I am also going to look at an alternative form parachute extension - just using dozen cycles -

JOY

can't wait to see an overly complicated chart depicting a 1, 3, 9 on double dozens

maybe we will use the saxon house

[/url][/img]

[falkor2k15]

You are deep entrenched in gamblers fallacy. Complicating the thoughts is not necessarily going to give an edge. They are all still individual and independent groups of putting money on the table. 
Point number one from your above response is not addressed in your methods.  Until you address that, I don’t think we are going anywhere.

That's what this method is trying to overcome... it's a gradual recovery against independent results that can can produce a permutation from hell - we might lose on 19 ECs in a row - but hedging and parachuting might help get us through the worst that random can throw at us during a lifetime, hence what is being explored here.