Individual banks for THE ZONE

[GLC]

Fender, Stack, Atlantis, Scooby, Anybody,

I was just lying in bed last night meditating on my favorite subject when I had what may be a novel thought.

I was thinking about a system called "The Very Near Perfect" roulette system.  It is an expansion of the Garcia System.  It is based on splitting your losses into multiple banks to be recovered with different win sequences.  It's a little complicated and I've never taken the time and effort to learn and test the entire system, although I think it has promise.

I started thinking about separate banks and how they might make THE ZONE more profitable, or at least less volatile.

Here's how it would work.  Once a dozen qualifies you bet with your 1st bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 2nd bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 3rd bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 4th bank 1,1,2,3, etc...  You can have any number of banks you want, but we all know how long a dozen can sleep so a finite number is probably a good idea.

After you win, let's say on the 1st bet of your 3rd bank.  That makes you -7 in your 1st and 2nd banks and +2 in your third bank.  After another dozen qualifies, you start betting on spin 5 with 2,2,4,6.

Let's say we lose, so we bet with 2nd bank  2,2,4,6.  Let's say we win on the 1st 2 unit bet.  This wins 4 units, so we are now down -21 in our 1st bank, -3 in our 2nd bank, and +2 in our 3rd bank.

Another dozen qualifies and we bet from our 1st bank either 3,3,6,9 or 4,4,8,12 depending how aggressive you like to play.  Let's say we bet 4,4,8,12 and win on the 8 unit bet for a win of +8.  We are now at -13 in our 1st bank, -3 in our 2nd bank and +2 in our 3rd bank.

Well, this should give you the idea.  I haven't done any testing, but I think this idea has some merit not only for the ZONE, but for a whole slew of systems.  Maybe this has already been tried and didn't really make any difference in the long run. 

What do you guys think?  Is it worth testing or do you think it's a waste of time?

Of course, when I get some free time, I will give it a test and report back.  I won't be like a poster on another forum who said that he thought he had the holy grail but he wouldn't share it unless it lost then he'd be glad to share it with everyone.  Just what we're all waiting for.

Cheers for now,   

George

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi GLC,
That is an interesting concept. Since The ZONE is Fender's baby, I would really like to get his opinion on this but I think it has merit.

This method of betting would stop runs of losses on just bank roll. A definate number of optimum banks rolls will need to be determined though. I think I will give it a test to see what happens. Thanks...

Scooby Doo

[FENDER1000]

Fender, Stack, Atlantis, Scooby, Anybody,

I was just lying in bed last night meditating on my favorite subject when I had what may be a novel thought.

I was thinking about a system called "The Very Near Perfect" roulette system.  It is an expansion of the Garcia System.  It is based on splitting your losses into multiple banks to be recovered with different win sequences.  It's a little complicated and I've never taken the time and effort to learn and test the entire system, although I think it has promise.

I started thinking about separate banks and how they might make THE ZONE more profitable, or at least less volatile.

Here's how it would work.  Once a dozen qualifies you bet with your 1st bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 2nd bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 3rd bank 1,1,2,3.  If these 4 bets lose, you begin betting with your 4th bank 1,1,2,3, etc...  You can have any number of banks you want, but we all know how long a dozen can sleep so a finite number is probably a good idea.

After you win, let's say on the 1st bet of your 3rd bank.  That makes you -7 in your 1st and 2nd banks and +2 in your third bank.  After another dozen qualifies, you start betting on spin 5 with 2,2,4,6.

Let's say we lose, so we bet with 2nd bank  2,2,4,6.  Let's say we win on the 1st 2 unit bet.  This wins 4 units, so we are now down -21 in our 1st bank, -3 in our 2nd bank, and +2 in our 3rd bank.

Another dozen qualifies and we bet from our 1st bank either 3,3,6,9 or 4,4,8,12 depending how aggressive you like to play.  Let's say we bet 4,4,8,12 and win on the 8 unit bet for a win of +8.  We are now at -13 in our 1st bank, -3 in our 2nd bank and +2 in our 3rd bank.

Well, this should give you the idea.  I haven't done any testing, but I think this idea has some merit not only for the ZONE, but for a whole slew of systems.  Maybe this has already been tried and didn't really make any difference in the long run.  

What do you guys think?  Is it worth testing or do you think it's a waste of time?

Of course, when I get some free time, I will give it a test and report back.  I won't be like a poster on another forum who said that he thought he had the holy grail but he wouldn't share it unless it lost then he'd be glad to share it with everyone.  Just what we're all waiting for.

Cheers for now,  

George

Nice work George. I did try a few staking plans when I was proofing. the strategy. I have always known my staking plan is far from perfect . Here is the REAL PROBLEM. Most of your winners are falling on the 5th and 6th spins. But because most casinos bet in 1 pound/dollar increments Especially when I began 10 years ago. You couldn't stake in the optimum manner, which would be 1--1.5--2--3 which would deliver equal reward for the 5th an 6th spins. And a bit less on the 7th and 8th.

The only reason I settled for a progression over 3 games George is the amazing consistency of the 4th game. When it eventually arrived you would win nearly all of them. Otherwise your idea would make more sense not that it wouldn't work. It needs to be tried as the proof is in the pudding as they say. Again thanks for your input and effort in sharing this idea with us.

[GLC]

My initial testing doesn't look so good.  It appears that the 1st bank winds up taking a beating when there are a lot of losses in a row.  We would have to come up with another betting method for this to change the bottom line.

Someone else may have some different results.  I'm not saying this for sure tanks, just my first stab at it didn't do any better than Fender's original staking plan.

Oh well, all this thinking helps ward off dementia.  That's worth At least one bankroll.

Cheers

[Jordan]

GLC u seem like a nice person.
Unfortunatelly ur idea doesn t change anything at all.
1 bank or 2 or 3 or more are all the same.

and remember that there are NO good and bad betting selections...they are all the same

[ScoobyDoo]

GLC,
I don't understand why you would say that the first BR would take a beating.

Lets say we are using 3 BR's, and lets say you have 3 losses in a row starting with the middle BR. Each BR would have only one loss......If you had 4 losses in a row, BR#3 would have 2 losses and the others, only one. Your progressions would not esculate much compared to using only one BR. It seems to me to be a real benefit.

Scooby Doo

[GLC]

GLC,
I don't understand why you would say that the first BR would take a beating.

Lets say we are using 3 BR's, and lets say you have 3 losses in a row starting with the middle BR. Each BR would have only one loss......If you had 4 losses in a row, BR#3 would have 2 losses and the others, only one. Your progressions would not esculate much compared to using only one BR. It seems to me to be a real benefit.

Scooby Doo

Scooby Doo,

Here's what was happening.  I would bet a qualifying dozen and it would win on spin 10.  That means bank #1 is at -7 and bank #2 is at +1.  Next qualifying dozen wins on spin #14.  That means bank #1 is at -21 (because I increase the bets to 2,2,4,6 on #1), bank #2 would be at -5 (since it was not negative I didn't increase so only lost 7 units) and bank #3 is at +2.

If I don't win with the 1st bank soon, It's digging deeper and deeper.  Maybe there's a better way to play this.  How would you change what I'm doing, or did I give up too soon.

George

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi GLC,

I think I see WHY you are having those results. When you have a losing sequence, wait until that sequence finally WINS and THEN look for a different qualifying set. If you do that, you will have less losing sets.

Example: 1,2,1,2,.....2,2,1,2 Loss.....1,1,3 <- Three would have been a win. Now hunt for a

new loss sequence to start betting against.

Scooby Doo

[Bayes]

I thought the point of using separate banks was to redistribute your losses in the event of a bad run for a particular bank. If bets are divided between mutually exclusive and exhaustive events (so that if one bank is doing badly, the other(s) must be doing better) then you can move some of your winnings from a 'healthy' bank into one which isn't. The theory is that you are conserving your resources in the bad periods - playing not to lose. The downside is that much of the time you are treading water, but it's better than losing!

[ScoobyDoo]

Bayes,

You're right. Each time you have a winning or a losing betting sequence, you move to the next BR. Since there are on average 3 losing games and 7 winning games out of 10, this betting procedure should be beneficial to keep the progressions (3 Total) to the first or second at most per BR.

Scooby Doo

[FENDER1000]

Scooby Doo,

Here's what was happening.  I would bet a qualifying dozen and it would win on spin 10.  That means bank #1 is at -7 and bank #2 is at +1.  Next qualifying dozen wins on spin #14.  That means bank #1 is at -21 (because I increase the bets to 2,2,4,6 on #1), bank #2 would be at -5 (since it was not negative I didn't increase so only lost 7 units) and bank #3 is at +2.

If I don't win with the 1st bank soon, It's digging deeper and deeper.  Maybe there's a better way to play this.  How would you change what I'm doing, or did I give up too soon.

George

GLC try waiting for a trigger (losing dozen--9 spins or more) before implementing your idea. I think you will have alot more success...