F_LAT_INO - Promised Constant Win Bet (Sectors-Splits) Proving Grounds

[GLC]

that would be a 456 chips bankroll...
we should aim for 500 chips profit target with this model?

True enough Alberto, but I just ran your 1st test session on this thread and had you been betting the Grand Martingale for 5 steps, you would have won 302 vs 132 with the original method and 1128 vs 392 with the reverse method.

That's a higher win to stop loss ratio than a regular martingale.  I'm not necessarily saying we should bet like this, I'm just saying if a regular martingale wins, a grand martingale will always win more.

I recall reading some postings by a member on another forum, gingermolloy.  He started looking at roulette from a methematical perspective and came to the conclusion that the grand martingale is the best method of betting as far as win/loss vs risk is concerned.  He came to this conclusion before he had ever heard of the grand martingale.  I'm not a math guy, but I was impressed with that sequence of events.

That's not an exact quote, but it reflects the point he was trying to make.

Just musing, Alberto.  I barely have the guts to test this way of betting much less actually being able to play it for real.

George

[albertojonas]

Two more sessions with straight martingale

session 5 = +38
session 6 = +508

total = +1942 (WWII)


in 6 sessions wowowo its a lot

+- 300 average


the only thing is that is not possible at least for me to play the 2 versions at same time.

About the Gran Martin...
It is the next step of my testings.
i will start to play with 1000 bankroll
and stoploss 500 for each side of the system
wintarget 500 for each too

Lets see

[albertojonas]

It's easy on the paper....


Just for the kicks. Last session replayed with Grand Martingale

Dream session + 1000 on about 100 spins
this would average 10 chips a spin, does not come any better than this.

[GLC]

That would be great if possible.As I have come lot of times on situations
like this;

last 4               furthest 4

1                          3
5                          4
6                          7
9                          8.........and what to do here when both playable???

One can play both individually.

Guys,

I know this is crazy and you probably can't do the calculations and make the bets in time,  but what if we could play both furthest and last 4 at the same time?

Like with Random VS Random.  When one is losing the other would be winning and vice versa.  Play each progression separately and anytime we are at +10, we restart both progressions.

Crazy.   (I need more smilies.

G

[albertojonas]

Guys,

I know this is crazy and you probably can't do the calculations and make the bets in time,  but what if we could play both furthest and last 4 at the same time?

Like with Random VS Random.  When one is losing the other would be winning and vice versa.  Play each progression separately and anytime we are at +10, we restart both progressions.

Crazy.   (I need more smilies.

G

That would be wild

[Twisteruk]

Guys,

I know this is crazy and you probably can't do the calculations and make the bets in time,  but what if we could play both furthest and last 4 at the same time?

Like with Random VS Random.  When one is losing the other would be winning and vice versa.  Play each progression separately and anytime we are at +10, we restart both progressions.

Crazy.   (I need more smilies.

G

That would be beyond my abilities to do !!! 

[ophis]

Guys,

I know this is crazy and you probably can't do the calculations and make the bets in time,  but what if we could play both furthest and last 4 at the same time?

Like with Random VS Random.  When one is losing the other would be winning and vice versa.  Play each progression separately and anytime we are at +10, we restart both progressions.

Crazy.   (I need more smilies.

G

If you are sure that this  will work and perform better than original idea i can do the software to deal with calculations.

But please make some test on paper first.

After we will find optimal version of this system i am willing to share bot with system designer and most contributing members.

[F_LAT_INO]

Guys,

I know this is crazy and you probably can't do the calculations and make the bets in time,  but what if we could play both furthest and last 4 at the same time?

Like with Random VS Random.  When one is losing the other would be winning and vice versa.  Play each progression separately and anytime we are at +10, we restart both progressions.

Crazy.   (I need more smilies.

G

George mate,
Have spoted it long ago........but .........rarely do you come in such
furthest/last situations when both bets are fulfilling conditions to bet on both.

One side must win/unles it hits a middle/---winning 2 units on one side then-contnuing
on the other.
But I wouldnt practice this.If playing furthest continue,same with last.My 2 cents.

[Twisteruk]

If you are sure that this  will work and perform better than original idea I can do the software to deal with calculations.

But please make some test on paper first.

After we will find optimal version of this system I am willing to share bot with system designer and most contributing members.

Ive found optimal to be Furthest bet selection

Like the look of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 progression

Will do some more testing 

[F_LAT_INO]

If you are sure that this  will work and perform better than original idea I can do the software to deal with calculations.

But please make some test on paper first.

After we will find optimal version of this system I am willing to share bot with system designer and most contributing members.

Good on ya Ophis.
Am on this for more then 2 years.
Doing a bot/for those that play on line would be great.
My suggestion.........SHOWING FURTHEST 4 ------AND LAST 4........BUT ONLY WHEN IT FULFILS CONDITIONS TO BET....EITHER SIDE.Thanks for contributing.

[ophis]

I have another idea. Maybe would be better to follow the trend?

I.E.  play furthest 4sectors then If progression > than 5 SWITCH to closest 4 sectors (if they qualify) and now keep  betting on closest 4 sectors  util u get progression > 5 then switch to furthest back and so on...

[Twisteruk]

I have another idea. Maybe would be better to follow the trend?

I.E.  play furthest 4sectors then If progression > than 5 SWITCH to closest 4 sectors (if they qualify) and now keep  betting on closest 4 sectors  util you get progression > 5 then switch to furthest back and so on...

I like the sound of that 

[ophis]

Good on ya Ophis.
Am on this for more then 2 years.
Doing a bot/for those that play on line would be great.
My suggestion.........SHOWING FURTHEST 4 ------AND LAST 4........BUT ONLY WHEN IT FULFILS CONDITIONS TO BET....EITHER SIDE.Thanks for contributing.

Ok for now I can make program that will require manual input of numbers but will keep track of sectors and notify if 4furthest or 4closest qualify as trigger and slist numbers to bet.

It should be done today or tomorow as I have most implemented in bot already. Need to just come back from work first.

Sry for misspelings im on bloody pda.

[Twisteruk]

Ok for now I can make program that will require manual input of numbers but will keep track of sectors and notify if 4furthest and 4closest qualify toas trigger and slist numbers to bet.

It should be done today or tomorow as I have most implemented in bot already. Need to just come back from work first.

Manual Input of numbers is no problem

Notification of when a 4furthest or 4latest qualify would be excellent, I know George would love that ! (wait till he wakes up and reads this !)

How are you able to have this close to completion already ? Have you been working on it in anticipation ?

thanks for your contribution, it sounds like the glue to hold all the pieces together !!!

[ophis]

Haha actualy this system is v easy to implement.    Doing AI for GUT was nightmare (still not fully completed)

Im following this thread since it had 11 page. Time spend coding abot 5 hours.

Didint test it yet on dublin sine from last 2 days i got DC every 30-50 spins and my girl had a bday so didint have to much time.