The Masaniello Method

[romano0327]

Hi guys, I find this betting method interesting for multiple reasons and there could be some fixes that could be done to it to make it profitable, but I am a bit confused about some of the rules. I understand that if the outcome of 20 spins is 10 reds and 10 blacks in whatever order they come, then we loose 100 units. But I am a bit confused about the rules on the pdf, can someone help me understand them better 

"The betting operation is very simple. We determine which side corresponds to the top of the table (blue
area) and which side corresponds to the bottom (yellow zone). For this example we will use Manque
(blue) and Passe (yellow).
We start from the top-left corner with a waiting spin (bet value 0). The appearance of the chosen side
indicates which way to go: if it is "manque", then we move horizontally, to the right; if it is "passe" we
move vertically, downwards.
For example, "manque" came out. Now you move to the right into a blue box (manque), and bet the
number of units shown in the table (1).
What do you bet?
You always bet the amount of the current area where you are (higher or lower) regardless of the type of
even chance which came out. If passe comes out twice but we are still in the area of manque, we'll play
manque."

Thanks.

[Let Me Win]

Blue = Red

Yellow = Black

First spin no bet wait for the result:

Result is 18 Red

So because the result was Red we move across the square 1 space to the right and bet the sum of that square on Red for the next spin.

So we now bet $1 on Red

Result is 27 Red.

So because the result was Red we move across the square again 1 space to the right and bet the sum of that square on Red again for the next spin.

So we now bet $2 on Red

Result is 6 Black

So we go down the Square this time and our next bet is $1 on Red again.

Result is 24 Black

So because black won we go down again 1 square and bet the sum which this time is 0

So we sit the spin out and wait for the result.

The result is 28 Black so because won we go down the square and bet the sum for the next spin which is $2 on Black.

We keep doing this until we fall off the square either going across or downwards.

Once we fall off the Square we will have either won 20 units or lost 100 units.

[Let Me Win]

According to LOTT, what if this was built with 18 + 18, for a 36 spin cycle? Things """never""" got balanced on 36 spins right? 
The point is, I think the more the spins, the lower the profit %.

It's a good idea.

If some maths guru can work out the formula to calculate the bets then it could be reverse engineered for any type of betting location/payout.

The 20 spins could be extended to 40 spins in the original method. There are endless possibilities.

Regarding perfect balance in 36 spins I onced tried waiting for 18 hits and 18 non hits and then flat betted the 18 non hits but it didn't really work out.

It would be good to see this idea if someone can work out the staking.

So the result would be you always win X unless 18 unique numbers (no repeats) come out in exactly 36 spins in which case you would lose Y.

[romano0327]

Let Me Win,

Thank you for replying, thats how I was doing it, but what if the result continues being RED and we continue moving to the right until the end of the chart?  Basically after 10 reds in a row we will reach the end of the chart, will this also be considered a loosing session? I thought a loosing session would only happen after 20 spins and if the outcome was 10 reds combined with 10 black.

[romano0327]

Why is there another Zero at the right end of the chart horizontally? Thats what is making me confused about some specific scenarios.

[ahlidap]

Basically after 10 reds in a row we will reach the end of the chart, will this also be considered a loosing session?

No, in that case, you've won 20 units! (in fact it is 21 or 22 if using the pdf table).

[Let Me Win]

Why is there another Zero at the right end of the chart horizontally? Thats what is making me confused about some specific scenarios.

Any time you encounter a 0 on the square it means no bet that spin and you sit it out and wait for the wheel to decide which way you will go next.

[romano0327]

Thank you guys, I think everything is clear now.

[daveylibra]

Guys, for some reason I cannot download the pdf on the 1st page, I just get a blank screen...

Now, what if we wait for, say, 5 reds and 5 blacks in any order before we commence?
Would that not lower the odds of the next 20 being 10 red 10 black?
Because we would have by then seen 15 and 15 in 30 spins.
Or are we back to the age old problem of past spins being irrelevant?

[Joe]

Or are we back to the age old problem of past spins being irrelevant?

I'm afraid so.

[Scarface]

For what it's worth, the chance of equality in 20 outcomes is 17.6%. Not surprisingly, the expectation is negative :

(1 - 0.176) * 20 - 0.176 * 100 = -1.12

But it seems like a fun system to play.

I haven't looked over the system yet, just basing this on the original post.  But if the probability of equality is 17.6% to lose 100 units, wouldn't that mean that the probability to win 20 units be 82.4%?

[Let Me Win]

If the correct answer is 17.6% then I took it to mean something like this:

We play 100 games

17 games we lose 100 units (1700)

83 games we win 20 units (1660 units)

So every 100 games we play we will lose 40 units

[Let Me Win]

Once upon a time there was a horrible evil man from Greece who set up his own roulette forum and invented his own roulette bet that he named after himself.

On his forum this bet was discussed by a superhero who was called Reyth who did tons of work for the evil Greek who couldn't even be bothered to exchange details with him over a four year period.

Our superhero Reyth left the Internet and nobody knows where he is today but before he left us he did some great posts about this method so I will reproduce any here that I think that can be useful.

Here is the first one....

In reality the session should end when one of three events occurs:

a) Exit the matrix from the right side
b) Exit the matrix from the bottom
c) Land on the lowest right space in the matrix (loss of 100 units)

I want to stress a few things:

1) I have run tests myself and show a win rate of 84%.  With a 1:5 profit/loss ratio, that is a hole big enough to drive a mack truck through.  The system as presented in the OP is presented with that understanding, not as a ready made HG.

2) I think the test results MIGHT improve if the matrix is started over at the beginning with any par/+ balance.

3) In the tests I ran, if the length of the matrix is DOUBLED, it only loses 6 times in a row as a once-in-a-lifetime event (as opposed to 9 times with the original system).

4) The genius with this progression system is not the method as presented but the IMPROVEMENT over the Martingale; this progression risks LESS to gain MORE.  When we risk less, this frees up capital that can be used to lengthen the progression.  A longer progression means a smaller chance of losing; i.e. a stronger system.  When we gain more, its also an opportunity to bet less which allows for the progression to become even longer.

5) With the PROPER configuration using the calculations of this formula I am confident that I can create a winning system.

[Let Me Win]

The superhero Reyth had this to say in 2016:

Well the progression is not separate from the betting system, I get the feeling that the bet amount is ALWAYS calculated with the number of bets remaining and their structure in mind.  It is very clear that the system will win by doing the following:

A) Initially finding a streak and betting very heavily and successively into it, using the profits to create a favorable betting millieu which increases the odds of success

OR

B) Successively retreating bet after bet until a streak is found and performing A

OR

C) Simply cornering the wheel with a single bet after having failed 9 times in a row with A & B

Basically, A & B is a combined system that takes 9 successive shots at finding a streak.  I heard someone say that the chances of bets lining up in bunches is greater than choppy bets but I have no idea how that even makes any sense, so instead, I think the key here is NINE SUCCESSIVE ATTEMPTS which means the odds must line up with 9 failures in a row which is where the 83.89% comes in. 

Looking at 18 stations and checking the percentage of hitting within the 9th bet is 99.75%.  C appears to be a last ditch effort to save everything in a single shot which is obviously used as a backup when things have gone wrong.

That's the only explanation I have.

[Let Me Win]

The superhero Reyth again this time from February this year.

This progression is designed for EC's.  This diagram shows how to easily use Black and Red.  We start at the white "0" that is in the upper left.  When a Red hits we move downward one space, when a Black hits we move right one space.  The color shows our bet selection, and the numbers are how much we bet. 

This is guaranteed to win 20 units or bust out at 100; compare that to a Martingale where you will win 1 unit or bust out at -1023.  The chances of achieving this +20 unit win is 83.89%.

With the above instructions, this is a stand-alone system but we have the freedom to operate as we wish.  For instance, I just had a game where I rec'd 4 black hits in a row, using the progression 2,3,4,5.  The next bet calls for 4 units but instead of continuing, I just halted all betting and started over with a profit of +5 units.

Furthermore, the LOGIC behind this progression is truly deep and amazing.  If we can understand it, we can use it for any bet selection.  I guess this can be called a dynamic-progressive progression; i.e. a mixture of up as you lose AND down as you lose AND up as you win AND down as you win.

The 2 men that created this system were mathematicians and considered this progression to be optimized, as stated.  For some reason they felt that taking existing profit and risking it over a series of 10 mandatory bets to always achieve a +20 unit win, was optimal -- even if it resulted in a loss of 100 units in the attempt.

Commonly, we will encounter bets where we have have existing profits that are less than 20 units and the system pushes us onwards to risk that profit because we must achieve a 10 bet total to achieve a completed game, that being the only way to obtain the +20 units.  If this risk is early in the betting, I feel inclined to take the risk but as we come nearer to the 10th bet, I am not inclined to risk any profit at all.  Also, when the bet amount remains the same or lower (while in profit) I feel like I should quit.  I wonder if this will achieve better results than just pushing onward all the time...

Here is what I am trying right now.  When we first start, our bankroll is the "zero point".  Anytime we achieve our "zero point" OR any profit, we raise the "zero point" to the new profit (or keep it the same) and start over in the chart.  We can keep surfing this way as long as we want or just quit at +20 units.  THE RISK: If we achieve our "zero point" in the second column or row, instead of starting over on the chart, we can "go for it" and attempt to win dynamic profit.

What I have discovered is that there is no need to "suicide it"/all-or-nothing to gain the +20 units.  We can modify our risk by taking profit in multiple chunks.



Does anyone speak fluent Italian?  The reason is because all of the secrets of this method are written in that language.  This system is not a fixed progression as shown here but is really a series of dynamic ratios that then create the progression: number of bets, win goal, stop loss.  I would like to know what these ratios are so I can calculate them.  Can anyone at least point me to the site in Italian where these are revealed?

It may be possible to create a dynamic application of these ratios to always achieve a desired win amount in [X] # of bets, where the ratios are re-calculated as our session progresses and we always keep the 84% chance of success.

Combine the above with the ability to use other bet selections besides the EC's and we could easily have an HG