Let’s Talk ( Ideas/Theories/Random)

[nottophammer]

And I predict the number of people who will play this way.... Zero.

[6th-sense]

And I predict the number of people who will play this way.... Zero.

I think a lot don't understand what Mel  is saying ..He's gave his method precisely..there is and are a few variations of this amongst the stats on both sides of streams

[Blueprint]

Bc there are many ways to interpret many different things.   We're back to the same old of "you need to see through what I'm saying..." yada yada of the priyanka days.   We all know that led everyone nowhere.

[TRD]

93% sounds like a significant number .. but it ain't.

Especially with playing 3DS, having 93% chance to get a hit in 6 spins.
Playing flat, only the first spin is profit.
2nd spin is already break-even.
6th spin hit is -12, & 4 hits behind to get break-even, 5 to profit.

You would be better of playing simple EC 1u, at a 98.16637,
being at -4 on the 6th spin hit,
playing the same amount of number cost-effectively (6x18= 108ⁿ),
having much better 'base' to recover or vp from ..

.. then potentially move two notches in-risk dimension to ds,
& get that two hits on 3DS (if we are going by those stats).

(which btw, makes me question the premise of betting 3DS over 6 spins at 93% probability
rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.msg225763#msg225763%;
first, why would it be any different than 6xEC at the same 18ⁿ/spin rate at ≈98%..
& if it really is .. then, on surface, we are better of playing simple EC, for various reasons)

========================================================================
ⁿ -- numbers played

If you have a look at the Attack Ultimate image,
at about 70ⁿ till DZ bet -- left -side or 108ⁿ (on a rare -3 first bet result)
you have an 70-75% chance to close the game already by (-2,-3) - with one or two hits;
about +80% with 80ⁿ or 118ⁿ (adding 2DS or 2xDS after DZ bet) on each side;
& 92-93% by including (-11) if progressing in-risk to DS, (-13) to Quads district.
I mean closed game, in profit already  vs  (-12) with one hit or (-9) with two --

all vertically flat, horizontal expansion to max two positions, & regression to
one position after the first hit.

Seems much better to me than any of the below.

========================================================================

Further, applying vertical progression to 3DS to close with one or two hits;
•  with one
spin1 (±0)    ..  3DS 1u .. (+3, -3)
spin2 (-3)     ..  3DS 2u .. (+3, -6)
spin3 (-9)     ..  3DS 4u .. (+3, -12)
spin4 (-21)   ..  3DS 8u .. (+3, -24)
spin5 (-45)   ..  3DS 16u (+3, -48)
spin6 (-93)   ..  3DS 32u (+3, -96)
!! (-189) !!, basicaly Marti
•  two hits
spin1 (±0)    ..  3DS 1u ..   (+3, -3)
spin2 (-3)     ..  3DS 1u ..   (±0, -3)   â†' 3DS 1u (+3)
spin3 (-6)     ..  3DS 2u ..   (+0, -6)   â†' 3DS 1u (+3)
spin4 (-12)   ..  3DS 2u ..   (-6, -6)   â†' 3DS 3u (+3)
spin5 (-18)   ..  3DS 3u ..   (-9, -9)   â†' 3DS 4u (+3)
spin6 (-27)   ..  3DS 5u .. (-12, -15) â†' 3DS 5u (+3)
!! (-42) !! here onwards the vertical progression increase rage accelerates real quick,
even with an extra divisor applied.


======================================================================

If that 93% percentage holds on any bs (cardinal & ordinal), then what is the point &
advantage of any of it .. any of these assembling patterns -- none.

To get that bs perfomance percentage higher, we would have to isolate some events,
that overall produce (much) better than expected/average bet selection performance .. or accuracy.

Or at least, a few of such, which to me is the definition of = bet stitching.


MoneyT101 shows that playing for YN event only, so a single DS per spin,
that fulfills the potenial YN outcome on the very next spin.
to the point of playing flat.
Does it really?

If you look at the 13-spins image, firstly, the criteria that fulfill the potential YN completion,
is basically playing the last outcome, including the repeat cycle defining element;
with the criteria effectively sievings out some spins along the way.

On the basis of the defining element, the first factor, having better performance on the first few spins of the repeat cycle, it might very well perform better, at least it adds a properly quantified reason why it would potentially work.
Then, as the factor two, the only thing that remains is to prove that YN criteria sieving out some amount of spins
along the way is actually long-term effective, by sieving out a sufficient amount of otherwise 'last outcome no-hit' spins.

Both factors together, would then form the first candidate for bet stitching.

================================================================================

But, frankly, I have no idea what the generated no-hit gaps are long-term.

I'd very much like to have a look in it, but rather than simulating this endlessly spin by spin, I would rather skim through the spreadsheet for this particular bs assembled, to see if it actually holds true.

@MT101 -- would you post the DS spreadsheet, since you already have it coded?


======================================================================

I've mentioned the playing of YN+NY, as the best performing stats overall,
which constitute continuous betting on each spin.

But I had a wrong interpretation of the values in the table presented;
as is, in 13 spins only 3 hits come out playing on average 2DS/spin ..
which is the same as playing YN alone ..
& as such 2DS 3 hits on 13 spin basis offers no advantage.

==============================================================

[TRD]

Bc there are many ways to interpret many different things.   We're back to the same old of "you need to see through what I'm saying..." yada yada of the priyanka days.   We all know that led everyone nowhere.

Exactly, rather than playing catch-up .. say it straight -- in general.
Enough of the guru bullshit, if there was even a way to qualify a guru.

For a newbie (& here I don't mean roulette, but the topic overall), just to acquire the vocabulary you guys are using .. to be just able to read let alone comprehend the concepts & use them .. is long toll.

[TRD]

Then, as the factor two, the only thing that remains is to prove that YN criteria sieving out some amount of spins
along the way is actually long-term effective, by sieving out a sufficient amount of otherwise 'last outcome no-hit' spins.

*This is separate.....I ran 200 spins just to give you an idea on the 4 combinations
NN   79
NY   50
YN   39
YY   32

+

I did 1000 spins on Double street
NN   411
NY   229
YN   232
YY   128

So for the flat net-positive playing single DS (YN criteria);
the YN hitrate has to exceed the 20% of the total spins,
with the added benefit of sieved-off spins (YN=n/a, no-bet).


For 200 spins;
39/200 .. is 0.195 , surprisingly just above the positive net threshold by 0.5% (+2.5u)
practically just above break-even without accounting for sieved-off spins ..
which amounts to (≈all the) profit.

For 1000 spins;
232/1000 .. is 23.2, or the hitrate 3.2% above the break-even rate already (23.2*5 amounts to +116u)
without yet accounted for sieved-off spins, amounting to additional total profit.

In total 1200 spins;
271/1200 .. is 0.0258, or 2.58% above break-even (+12.9u) by itself alone.


MT, what's the average rate of these no-bet spins?
If those average to at least 0.2 of the total, then truly
here's something resembling a golden mine
(in 13 image spins are 6, which is nearing ½,
but that base is not sufficient to judge anything)

.. one candidate for bet stitching, at any rate already,
judging by so far 13, 200 & 1200 spins as it at least ≈breaks even.

[TRD]

Correction, in 13 here's  --  4x 'NY+YN' hits,  3x YN hits.

[MoneyT101]

And I predict the number of people who will play this way.... Zero.

Youre right and thats one of the reasons why i will let this idea die.  For those still interested i highly recommended to look a little deeper

[TRD]

Correction, in 13 here's -- 4x 'NY+YN' hits, 3x YN hits.


4x -- NY+YN;
spin1  .. no-bet
spin2  .. 2DS ..  -2
spin3  .. 2DS .. +4   (+2)
spin4  .. 2DS .. +4   (+6)
spin5  ..  DS  ..  -1   (+5)
spin6  ..  DS ..  +5 (+10)
spin7  .. 2DS ..  -2  (+
spin8  .. 2DS ..  -2  (+ 6)
spin9  .. 2DS ..  -2  (+ 4)
spin10.. 2DS ..  -2  (+ 2)
spin11.. 2DS ..  -2  (± 0)
spin12.. 2DS .. +4  (+ 4)
spin13.. 3DS ..  -3  (+ 1)


3x -- YN;
spin1  .. no-bet
spin2  ..  DS  ..  -1
spin3  ..  DS  .. +5  (+  4)
spin4  .. no-bet     (+  4)
spin5  ..  DS ..   -1  (+  3)
spin6  ..  DS ..  +5  (+ 
spin7  .. no-bet     (+ 
spin8  .. no-bet     (+ 
spin9  .. no-bet     (+ 
spin10..  DS  ..  -1 (+  7)
spin11..  DS ..   -1 (+  6)
spin12..  DS .. +5 (+11)
spin13 .. no-bet    (+11)


alternating coverage, 2x positions â†' 1x (on hit)
so on 'wide' coverage hit, reduce the horizontal dimension a notch
focused (selection) .. primarily YN â†' (if YN=n/a) .. NY â†' (NY=2 or more) .. low derived criteria

5x, 'YN+NY'â†''YN';
spin1  .. no-bet
spin2  .. 2DS ..   -2
spin3  .. 2DS .. +4   (+ 2)
spin4  ..  DS  .. +5   (+ 7)          NY: two options 4,5 â†' low derived = 5
spin5  ..  DS ..    -1  (+ 6)            here should expand to 2x positions, but only one available YN=1
spin6  .. 2DS .. +4  (+10)
spin7  ..  DS  ..   -1  (+ 9)          YN=n/a, NY=1,5 â†' low derived =5
spin8  ..  DS  ..   -1  (+           YN=n/a, NY=3,5 â†' 5
spin9  ..  DS  ..   -1  (+ 7)          YN=n/a, NY=1,3 â†' low derived n/a .. any=1
spin10.. 2DS ..  -2   (+ 5)                                (same as hit, current hot, long quiet+just appeared, etc..)
spin11.. 2DS ..  -2   (+ 3)
spin12.. 2DS .. +4   (+ 7)
spin13..  DS  ..  -1   (+ 6)          YN=Nn/a,YN=1,3,4 â†' any=134  (variance chaotic, plenty unique ds)
spin13..  DS  ..  +5  (+12)                                           â†' same as hit =6  (repeat trend is strong)

[Blueprint]

93% sounds like a significant number .. but it ain't.

Redd stated there's an easy way to make this 100%... but I'm not so sure.

[TRD]

I wrote an 'abstract' & a practical application 'intro' to what's gonna ..

[TRD]

.. but even knowing an intro took me about a year from something like these
gamblingforums.co m/threads/never-bet-on-the-last-of-something-informational.18685/page-3
& the next page, basically the first major version

(note: pay attention to concept of thependulum progression maneuver in deeper or
the 2nd recovery level,to traverse variance cost-effectively & with wide hits still being
somewhat proportional to the exposition amount .. & as well take advantage of the
variance returning in favor);

to the version 5 .. mind that, five changes/upgrades in order of magnitude ..
(to other woking versions in-between aka 2.1, 2.3, 2.4â†'3 ..)
to bring vast majority of the games (98.5%) under -55,
1% under ≈(-100,-120), 0.15% towards (-200),
& about 0.05%, very rare extreme games beyond that,
going over 100 spins in length.

[TRD]

To go deeper, as a few starting pointers:
you'd have to first-off use more of the districts (Q,ST) -- so extend the spectrum of,
or add notches to, the in-risk progression dimension;
second-off, extend the wide's vp increase starting point as far as possible,
meanwhile, still keeping a great ratio between wide's gains & focused block costs;
third-off extend the in-risk game closing all the way to the single ST focused block;
fourth-off, max off the vp amount & after that using another divisor of multiple-combo
game-closing requirement;
fifth-off, (potentially) apply the use of a high coverage guaard position (DZ or EC),
with various application criteria
sixth-off, ideally, use a sophisticated form of bet selection, to maximize its performance ..
or said differently having the recursive performance parameters triangle
(max drawdown, max length, average profit/spin ratio) maximized as well --
as such the system ain't bs centric, or in other words irregardless of the bs applied,
its 100% winning not contingent on the bs, but all the system constituents
carrying the ≈same importance in handling the (recovery of the & profit of )
the outstanding debt.

[TRD]

That being said;
if 1000u bankroll (for a good measure) ain't too much for you (..compounding effect),

the system v1.0 stats over ≈4000 spins .. but played waaaay over that
(in these spins none of the games breached -200)

TOTAL GAMES finished by 752      100%
1st spin                                  387    51.46276596     51.46276596
Attack (-5 or -6)                     215    28.59042553     80.05319149
LEVEL vp1                               92     12.23404255     92.28723404
LEVEL vp2                               27       3.590425532   95.87765957
LEVEL vp3                               14       1.861702128   97.7393617
LEVEL vp5                               12       1.595744681   99.33510638
Peaked, R2 (2nd recovery l.) 5        0.664893617          100%

GAMES LENGTH 757          100%
<10 spins            662   87.45046235
10 till 20               53      7.001321004
20-50                    32      4.227212682
50-80                     6       0.792602378
80+                        4        0.528401585

+1245 in 3913 spins
0.318007663 u/spin, avg profit



.. even the version1.0 wins 100% already;
given that avg is ≈300 spins to 100u, & that some rare games extend over 200 to 300 spins alone,
you'd have to play a session, here & there, two days at B&M dealer table to get that 100u session completed .. nonetheless.

[TRD]

third-off extend the in-risk game closing all the way to the single ST focused block

given the image tracks DS .. after a certain exposition amount, not yet closed with 2Qâ†'ST,
you could apply 2â†'DSâ†'DS with an additional hit ..

given MT101 implied dozens as well .. you can use that count to place guaard position
(one dozen often goes quiet, for various degrees of length)