Stitching bets in a Non-Random game

[Person S]

What about positive progression?
But I think we need a method such that when it comes to increasing bankroll, the progression returns to its starting point. But there may be more interesting options.

[falkor2k15]

Exactly. That was only the intro, innit... so now we need to figure out how to improve upon it... not even close to a finished system yet.

[Rinad]

        hi Guys, I play a lot of mini games stitching and somewhat not .  the important thing for me is the following.

  the time to do it and not to do is crucial.  I want to get a higher return on my winning bets to overcome the long term losses.   but at the same time keep things simple enough that i can apply in real games.
so i recognize that the house edge will have to catch up with me but most likely wont if I dont repeat those special bets too often.
I can also play a positive progression that involve from 5 to 8 legs.
example. I play a 1 unit on high, 2,4,8,16.   now I am ready to bet a 32 unit bet.  i had to wait a while to get to that place.
but now I will not reduce my 32 unit bet but will reduce my real estate to 15 numbers instead of 18 numbers.
I said numbers for the sake of anderstanding .  to me a ec bet contain 18 numbers.
but I am willing to reduce my 18 numbers to 15 numbers to get the extra paid off.
I could play in this manner many other ways.
I could play the 32 units on a 3rd column because I am playing a high ec. (maybe it does not matter really which dozen)  but the timing is there.  if I win one of those high bets it will take the house a long time to catch up.
this is one example. there is no stitching in this example but could easely add one if I wnted to.
the regression of one big bet once you reach the level of a positive progression is a great way to get ahead.
my 2 cents.  stitching should happen in rare times to gain its best return in my opinion.
if they get repeated too often the house will catch up. that is why we see those graphs of thousands of spins where the law of large bets and numbers turn everything south.

God bless
Rinad

     

[Person S]

Hi, and thanks for your contribution to this conversation.
Obviously, the freer you feel, the more confident your bets become. You can see that you have a reasonable method.
You can also share your philosophy of the sewing concept, for example, we use the instructions recommended by experienced players. True, we have them in a conceptual version and are not yet applicable on real battlefields. I also suggest that positive progress is a good way to manage and increase bankroll, respectively, based on a good method.

[Rinad]

     stitching bets and overlaping bets is a way to extend a strategy for reaching a target.
I am taking a new path in my game for some time now. i have read and study a lot of "Trend followers" playing the markets for decades and i can see that they have done well in building whealth compounding their winnings.
I am certain the same can happen with roulette. but players are looking for a "weekly" paid check and that is a big mistake. 
getting 50 unit win per day is almost impossible to achieve and dangerous.
the process is more important then the short term outcome. I am buidting muscles of self control by taking many small losses until the big moves take place and we all know that getting use to the small wins for weeks will make it hard to the average player to take a loss when the day comes.  preserving capital is most important.
I think stitching a target may sound useless for some because the randomness of the game tells us that in the long run it all loses, but the fact remains .  I want the house to chase me and not the other way around.
most know that playing a neg.prog  is a losing game in most instances.
knowing that , why not being on the other side if that is true ?
because for most the outcome is first and the process second. )even know the outcome later on will crash)
mixing a positive progression and overlaping the bets put us in front of the house and we dont have to repeat the same targets over and over once we won. 
I am still learning this way of playing and I hope some will see the mistake in playing the traditional way of a system that pays you like a job and not a investor.
anyway I love this topic and hope it wont loses itself over time.
thx
Ronad

[falkor2k15]

Next, we should try to incorporate everything we've learnt from this topic - including Rinad's useful feedback - into combating the variance of EC cycles like a game of Chess:

o1 - 3:1
CL1 - 1:1
CL2 - 1:1
CL2o1 - 1:1
CL2o2 - 1:1
CL2o1 stitched - 1:3
CL2o2 stitched - 1:3

And we should first try to achieve this without using positions or any parallel streams from Dozens, Lines, Streets or Numbers, etc. Also it won't be possible to hedge anything either, so our hands are completely tied to make it more of a challenge.

As Rinad said: the most important thing is when to stitch!

[Person S]

Falkor - let's denote the concept of variance. In a game of cycles, it seems these waves are quieter, in a random stream it can become a tsunami.
Accordingly, the variance has - beginning - middle - end. The duration of the variance is also not predictable, and the value of the chips at these moments is large. There should be entry points somewhere. I am practically not familiar with this monster, and how it behaves in roulette. Surely there are durations or something else.
Peace for everyone!

[falkor2k15]

Well, I think we need to look at 3 things first:
1) Brick design, i.e. stats says they dozens are 33% each and there should be an equal distribution in the long term, i.e. 3 uniques at at time.
2) Law of the Third: we know that repeats will happen quicker than brick design
3) Cycles and the defining element

When it comes to cycles and unequal outcomes, CL1 (50%) is more likely to repeat than CL2o2 (25%) because it has a higher ratio. However, if CL2o2 defined the cycle then it only requires one more appearance to be awarded the repeat, so we get 25% CL2o2 vs. CL1 + CL1 (1/2 * 1/2) = 25%
So if both are 25% derived, which one is likely to define the next cycle?
Order 1 is 75% so that would beat CL2o2 - even if the latter defined the cycle.

So once we've studied what's meant to happen normally - only then can we move onto the variance, i.e. what happens when things go pear-shaped.

However, we have special tools to help - namely stitched versions of CL2o1 and CL2o2 that are akin to Super Mario Bros. power-ups!

We also have more than one way of betting for a unique or a repeat thanks to multi-spin cycles.

I think we should begin this challenge by initially looking at what happens when the 7 individual bets encounter a losing streak from hell like what we did with Dozens CL2 vs. stitched CL2.

[falkor2k15]

I've uploaded simulations of the 7 bets here in case anyone is interested in analyzing what happens with other parts of the EC cycles when they lose:
Download 7bets.zip...

[Rinad]

    hello Guys, I think of stitching as a way to prolongue a losing dozen, losing for 2 spins or 1 cycle , by also transforming the losing dozen into 2 double streets within that same dozen, and therefore adding 2 extra spins for the play.
stitching dont always need to be a exterior play. so by adding the 2 double streets into play after losing the dozen I am creating a way to save the early proposition. stitching a losing dozen to 2 ds.
in the same manner i could stitch 2 double streets into 4 single streets, ect...
at the end I could lose only if a single number dont show within a cycle.  or 36 units loss playing flat bet.
just a thought. it could be viewed as a parachute but not in the traditional way it is played.

Rinad

[falkor2k15]

Hey Rinad, parachuting to dozens or lines is cheating! There is already a lot happening in just EC cycles alone:

If aiming for a repeat or unique you can choose a combo to bet on behalf of or an individual target:

WINNING STREAK
o1 - extreme o1, more CL1, more CL2o1
CL1 - extreme CL1, extreme o1
CL2 - extreme CL2, more CL2o1, more CL2o2
CL2o1 - extreme CL2o1, extreme o1, more CL1 (missed out)
CL2o2 - extreme CL2o2, more CL1 (missed out), more o1
CL2o1 stitched - extreme CL2o1, extreme CL2, extreme o1
CL2o2 stitched - extreme CL2o2, extreme CL2

EXTREME o1 (3:1)
o1 (3:1)
CL1 (1:1)
CL2o1 (1:1)
CL2o1 stitched (1:3)

MORE o1 (3:1)
CL2o2 (1:1)

EXTREME CL1 (1:1)
CL1 (1:1)

MORE CL1 (1:1)
o1 (3:1)
CL2o1 (CL1 missed out) (1:1)
CL2o2 (CL1 missed out) (1:1)

EXTREME CL2 (1:1)
CL2 (1:1)
CL2o1 stitched (1:3)
CL2o2 stitched (1:3)

MORE CL2 (1:1)
--

EXTREME CL2o1 (1:1)
CL2o1 (1:1)
CL2o1 stitched (1:3)

MORE CL2o1 (1:1)
o1 (3:1)
CL2 (1:1)

EXTREME CL2o2 (1:1)
CL2o2 (1:1)
CL2o2 stitched (1:3)

MORE CL2o2 (1:1)
CL2 (1:1)

If you lose the repeat or unique then you can guage what is likely to happen on a loss:

LOSING STREAK
o1 - extreme CL2, extreme CL2o2
CL1 - extreme CL2, more CL2o1, more CL2o2
CL2 - extreme CL1, extreme o1
CL2o1 - extreme CL2o2, more CL1 (missed out), more o1
CL2o2 - extreme CL1o1, extreme o1, more CL1 (missed out)
CL2o1 stitched - extreme CL1, extreme o1
CL2o2 stitched - extreme CL1, extreme o1

Given that different targets have different options at different payouts, what kind of strategy could we devise..?

[Person S]

It is difficult to understand what is written here, why not switch to a more accessible way of presentation?
You claimed that CL1o1 + CL2o1 = 75%. But if we track cycles and only after they appear make a bet, then the statistics will change. For example - CL1 / CL2o1 / CL2o1 / CL2o2 / - here CL1 appeared, but there was no bet, (we waited for cl2) a bias in the statistics. And what about CL3?

[Rinad]

   I agree that the presentation could be simpler .  I appreciate the hard work you have done with charting, meaning you are very passionate about finding a real method.
however sometime the mind has to be free from too much infos in order for the imagination to see a clear pathway to a solution.
the greater benefit to stitching I have learned is this;  it enables the player to not get eaten by the law of large numbers.
second;  it enables the player to exit a play when he brakes even caused by the stitched play.
third; it increases the odds of winning period since we are creating more then one out, like a poker hand where your cards can get you a flush,straight, a full house,  from the same first 3 cards.
so it can always lose but that is part of any method. exept that creating more "outs"  can turn a losing proposition into a brake even one most of the time, which should be the first target after a loss.

the goal is to find a serie of plays that can be formed into a Method.   since there are so many alternatives we need to reduce them to a few plays.   maybe ec ,doz.       dz ,streets.....
we know that what should work for one should work for others.  that would be the easy work.

thanks Guys for sharing your ideas and interests in this under-rated Topic which hold a real key to winning I know.

Rinad

[Person S]

Theoretically, at the initial stage, the goal of sewing is to increase the number of chips. The combination of events is not because the probability of coincidence is higher, but rather the speed and increase in the payout ratio.

[falkor2k15]

It is difficult to understand what is written here, why not switch to a more accessible way of presentation?
You claimed that CL1o1 + CL2o1 = 75%. But if we track cycles and only after they appear make a bet, then the statistics will change. For example - CL1 / CL2o1 / CL2o1 / CL2o2 / - here CL1 appeared, but there was no bet, (we waited for cl2) a bias in the statistics. And what about CL3?

There's no CL3 with EC cycles. That's why it's the most simple cycle formation I know of - made up only of 2 equally-likely pigeons. However, I will be using the outcomes of that to create new Outer Cycles of 3 unequal pigeons that can reach up to CL3.

Yes, we are betting after an appearance that defined the previous cycle and forms the starting partition of the next cycle/outer cycle. That's why I brought up the example of 50% vs. 25% really being 25% vs. 25%. The reason we do this is to create some kind of butterfly effect and keep within the finite cycles framework - to avoid curve fitting.

It seems complicated, but it's not really; just 2 pigeons creating outer cycles of 3 pigeons, albeit with 7 different bets - many of which can cover 2 pigeons instead of 1 and influence a winning or losing stream in the long run.

We have 3 different deadlock situations:

CL1, CL2o1, CL2o2 = a proper CL3 deadlock.

(CL2o1, CL2o2) or (CL1, CL2) could also act as deadlocks or early CL2 repeats (example o1 repeat: CL2o1, CL2o2, CL1) where we miss out CL3 - or even "keyframes" for considering whether to risk encountering a proper CL3 deadlock by continuing the mini game, i.e. current cycle.

And a stitched CL2o1 immediately following the appearance of CL2o1 would give us an outer CL1 repeat @ increased payout odds, so perhaps that's when it should be used - depends how our fixed betting template matures and evolves over time vis-à-vis analysis of the stats vs. variance.

Given all the situations that can arise with EC outer cycles and 7 bets we should potentially be able to find an optimal way to change our fixed template and betting plan with a fine-tuned edge in mind.