Pattern Hunting on Even Chances

[GLC]

Begin by tracking until a pattern is established.  Could be as few as 3 spins.

RRR is a pattern.  RBR is a pattern.  RRBB is a pattern.  RRBRRB is a pattern.

Bet that a pattern will continue.  If you have RRR bet that the next color will be Red.  Don't bet just once, bet 3 times.  In other words if you are betting that Red will continue and a Black spins, bet that Red will hit a second time.  If Black or Zero hits then bet one last time that Red will hit.  We have to lose 3 times before going to our next bet.

These patterns aren't necessarily based on the last 2 or 3 spins, but more so on the recent history, say the last 15 spins.  In other words, check to see what has been happening if you have BBR.  Has this pattern been staying Red or has it been going back to Black and bet that what has been happening will be what the wheel is doing at that time.

If there are no recent patterns to mirror, then use the common ones shown above.  And remember, you have 3 shots for a pattern to match recent history.

Now comes the bet progression.  We will bet a mini martingale of 3 steps.  This is not too dangerous.  All we need is 105 units to play a session.  Level1 = 1-2-3; level 2 = 2-4-8;  level 3 = 4-8-16; level 4 = 8-16-32.  If we lose at the 8-16-32 level it is not our day.

Our 1st 3 bets are where we are going to make our money.

If we lose these 3 bets, all bets after that are recovery bets.

Our money bets are 1-2-4.  If we win on any of the first 3 bets, we win 1 unit.
If we lose these 3 bets, we move to level 2 bets of 2-4-8.  Since we are down 7 units, we must win 4 times at level 2 before we can drop back to level 1 bets.

If we lose at level 2 before we recover our 7 units, we move to level 3 = 4-8-16.  Every win at this level recovers 4 units of the 14 units we lost at level 2.  Once the lost bets of level 2 are recovered, we drop down to the level 2 bets of 2-4-8 until we recover the lost bets of level 1.  When we have recovered all lost bets, we drop back to level 1 betting.  All wins at this level are profits.

Any time we are at a new high point in our bank, we bet the 1st level of 1-2-4.

Since this is not a strictly mechanical bet, but relies on some subjective decisions by us, we have a reasonable chance to win long term.

Pick you own win target.  10 units is very reasonable.

This is very easy to play and can be played on any even chance bet, but Red and Black are easiest to recognize, so I'd start there.  Eventually, you can play it on all 3 e.c.'s at once.

Enjoy,

George

[Kairomancer]

Currently I am testing Gizmos's Reading randomness selection method.

I wonder if this is an effective money management/progression strategy for reading randomness.

[gizmotron2]

Begin by tracking until a pattern is established.  Could be as few as 3 spins.

RRR is a pattern.  RBR is a pattern.  RRBB is a pattern.  RRBRRB is a pattern.

Bet that a pattern will continue. 

I do like this forum's software. You isolate (select) some text to quote and it comes up already redacted as a quote.

There are isolated trends or patterns that are just three or four in sequence size. In fact they are the majority of trends. But what is wonderful at times is that these size opportunities come in swarms that last from 30 minutes to an hour. For that stretch of time you can kill the casino if you are a good hunter. I don't try to teach with talking about it. I like to show actual examples. This is the most important aspect of Reading Randomness. These micro trends, as I refer to them, are at the heart of good skill.

I wonder if this is an effective money management/progression strategy for reading randomness.

When you can beat these micro trends with flat betting you will see why progressions dig big holes that you must recover from. RR is also about not digging holes. I just take one win off of each micro trend. That does not mean that you can't try to win three times in a row with several micro trends.  I know for a fact that just three net wins per session can make you a millionaire. All you have to do is think about it. I can win almost every session if I just wait for good parts. It's not easy and progressions feed impulsive behaviour.  I don't need the progression because three net wins is enough.

For those having a problem with the claim I give you this. $25 chips, a maximum straight up bet in most Native American Casinos, will make you $450 on each win. Three times that is $1,350.  If you only gamble 20 days per month then that is $27,000. You take that to a year, you get $324,000. In just three years you have a million.

[Kairomancer]

You calculations make it sound like there are no losing sessions playing flat.
Sorry I do not believe it.

Someone just posted a reading randomness flat bet chart on gamblingforums with huge drawdowns.

[gizmotron2]

You calculations make it sound like there are no losing sessions playing flat.
Sorry I do not believe it.

Someone just posted a reading randomness flat bet chart on gamblingforums with huge drawdowns.

Yes they did. Did you also read this: "I know for a fact that if you are willing to have a full out war with the casino, that you can win every session if you have a small enough win goal."  Did you also see that they stuck it out and won that session?

I'm taking people from no experience and getting them to 4.66 wins at 3 net losses for each 7 net loss sessions. That's 14 net wins to 7 net losses, all in under thirty days of training. So they don't get to be millionaires unless they play $100 tables for straight up bets.

The mathematical expectation that we have all had drilled into us for centuries has been 2.33 sessions won at 3 net wins versus one session lost a 7 net losses.  It takes time to get real good at this. At first you only see a few characteristics, including sizes like this thread points out. I have thousands of sessions experience. Most of that is with money in real live B&M casinos. I saw my first perfect occurring pattern back in 1993 when I would play at least three or four long sessions per week. It will take years for this to become an accepted skill. This idea of winning all sessions is a long ways off for most people. But getting to 100% return out of 5.66 sessions in just 30 to 60 days is remarkable enough.

I'm still looking for any really serious people trying this that are stuck at 2.33 or worse. That is the mathematical break even point. Perhaps some people are embarrassed to come forward. One thing I'm glad about though. There are just a few questions on technique. This thread is really the best stuff that there is. Micro patterns are the basic foundation of good play. If flat betting is hard enough and also rewarding enough then progressions just complicate things to a certain degree. But people will look well past flat betting when they get real good at scoping out opportunities. Human nature will expose the attempt at greed. Greed and loss of self control is the primary factor that will corrupt this method. I'm expecting that and complaints. So we will see.

If I were to guess, there are less than 20 people trying this. Of that only three or four have disclosed their successes. There are people that are being silent. Nothing will be believed until the casino take action against it.

[Kairomancer]

It seems your apprentice is losing. Just look at his new charts.

The graph you referred had switched to a downward moving trend when he quit.

The claim to always quit while you are ahead a few units and implement a stop loss strategy is a hallmark of all losing approaches.
If method has a positive expectation the longer you play the more win you should see over time.

[gizmotron2]

It seems your apprentice is losing. Just look at his new charts.

The graph you referred had switched to a downward moving trend when he quit.

The claim to always quit while you are ahead a few units and implement a stop loss strategy is a hallmark of all losing approaches.
If method has a positive expectation the longer you play the more win you should see over time.

I've lost many sessions where I was looking at one thing while something else would have been better that was right in front of me in the charts. I didn't look that close at his last round. So I'll just say it again. I don't feed losing streaks after two losses in a row. I move to virtual bets and wait for a huge change. It takes about a month to learn from lost sessions.  I hope he loses more.

My first student had me to comment on things each day. That was stuff like look at section R/B from spins 20 to 30. You missed the singles on the weak side there. These people trying this out are doing it almost completely on their own. This is just day four or five for him. 

What I don't see and I find this very interesting. With all the past systems discussed over the years many people talked among themselves about what works and what does not work. There is none of that going on over there. I was hoping that people would start threads like this one here that has the characteristics of micro patterns. Singles on the weak side is a huge pattern. rBBr repeating or pulsating like rBBr BrrB rBBr is a different type of characteristic. This is the first example of a discussion about different types of characteristics other than ones introduced in the Reading Randomness thread since July 20th when I started all this.

I'm taking a hands off approach to the teaching over there. It's a skill to see patterns that you have never seen before while you are playing. There is no way to teach that skill. That is why the guy that wants answers to why there are 19 vs 18, or 20 vs 18 in the inside sets gets me wanting to throw him out of the class. I'm not going to hold anyone's hands and walk them through all this.

So this is a must to learn.

1.) self control over laziness or greed
2.) self control over laziness or greed

3.) learn to see new unseen characteristics and different duration of patterns.

In other words learn a larger vocabulary of Reading Randomness. This increased skill along with plenty of playing experience is the secret edge to using this method. There is no short cut. It is a skill that comes from hard work.

My first student took 30 days with live comments from me two hours each day while he practiced. In the following 30 days he proved his mastery of the skill.

Everyone trying this out now are basically on their own with only a few characteristics to go on. Nobody over there knows that I'm telling the behind the scenes secrets over here. Yet the first people to go at this were all from over here. Maybe I should do a video where I look at tons of characteristics and not just another playing video. I'll think about that.

[Kairomancer]

Well, it is not rocket science to recognize the general patterns (singles on the weak side, absence of singles, chop-chop, double chop, long streak of repeats often interchanging, dominant sides.
The key is to enter early. Let's say after 5 or 6 repeats.
The problems arise when to enter to attack the pattern. You cannot delay it much, because it can vanish any spin.
Often there are multiple guessing opportunities happen all at once which are almost equal in size, so you have to chose one.
You decide to enter the pattern and attack it and you just got unlucky, because it busted.
Then you can decide to virtual bet the other opportunities. Your virtual guess might work, so you enter the other pattern, it busts again and so on and so forth.
You suggest that you can overcome the losing streaks just by making virtual bets.
Unfortunately that is just not the case.

There is no way to know for sure. It is all just random. The pattern either continues or it will not. If you are unlucky you eventually lose all the profits you made earlier.
That is the case with your students longer sessions.
You cannot just wait and snipe the perfect opportunity, because it can fail as soon as you make your bet.
You can hit a few lucky spins in a pattern and delude yourself that this is working and it is.
The reality arises when it doesn't and you continue to lose all your profits and more the longer you play the random guessing game...

[gizmotron2]

Well you have the excuses to lose down pat.

I see something here though:

Code Select Expand


X | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  65  --  24 ( $ 890 ) Primes
   |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  66  --  30 ( $ 800 ) Primes
  -| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  67  --  17 ( $ 800 ) Specials
   |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  68  --  14 ( $ 710 ) Primes
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  69  --  22 ( $ 615 ) Not Specials
   | X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  70  --  31 ( $ 525 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  71  --  33 ( $ 435 ) Even
  -| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  72  --  10 ( $ 435 ) High
   |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  73  --  19 ( $ 345 ) Low
X | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  74  --  15 ( $ 430 ) Not Primes
   |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  75  --  12 ( $ 335 ) Not Primes
  -|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  76  --  34 ( $ 335 ) Zeros
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  77  --  21 ( $ 420 ) Six's

On the far left are his string of losses with virtual losses and going back to real losses. He rode a death spiral.

So I'll try to say it again. You can avoid a swarm of losses. I know they exist. I know that betting through the chaotic state is nearly the same as betting through a swarm of losses. Only bet through a swarm or slow grind upward of winners. It's not about the trends. It;s about the winning conditions.

[gizmotron2]

Let's look at what really happened. He caught the strong side in the reds and won not just 3 net wins but he reached 100% and won 7 net wins.

Code Select Expand

W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP
nb|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  01  --  27
nb|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  02  --  05
nb|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  03  --  09
nb|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  04  --  36
nb| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  05  --  15
nb| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  06  --  02
nb|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07  --  16
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  08  --  23 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  09  --  27 ( $ 180 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  10  --  07 ( $ 270 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  11  --  34 ( $ 360 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  12  --  19 ( $ 450 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  13  --  28 ( $ 360 ) Red
X-|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  14  --  19 ( $ 360 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  15  --  09 ( $ 450 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  16  --  25 ( $ 540 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  17  --  32 ( $ 630 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  18  --  24 ( $ 540 ) Red

[Joe]

When outcomes are random, the trend isn't your friend. It's not your enemy either, it's just random!

I've tried the trend following game in the past, but have gotten more consistent results by having a variety of systems on the go at the same time. It's not an exact science but it does adhere to the maxim 'don't put all your eggs in one basket', and it seems to minimize the dispersions.

If gizmo or any of his students are having success, I suggest it's due to this principle, not to any inherent tendency of patterns to continue, because they don't.

[gizmotron2]

When outcomes are random, the trend isn't your friend. It's not your enemy either, it's just random!

I've tried the trend following game in the past, but have gotten more consistent results by having a variety of systems on the go at the same time. It's not an exact science but it does adhere to the maxim 'don't put all your eggs in one basket', and it seems to minimize the dispersions.

If gizmo or any of his students are having success, I suggest it's due to this principle, not to any inherent tendency of patterns to continue, because they don't.

That was fascinating. The axiom not to put all your eggs in one basket in order to minimize dispersion would suggest that scattering your eggs in different baskets would maximize your dispersion. Obfuscation is only a delaying tactic that makes you think that you are losing less.

So Joe here thinks that people trying out Reading Randomness are not actually winning. That's great and truly appreciated. We need a full fledged army of skeptics in order to protect the opportunity. I've always enjoyed the efforts of the mathBoyz to fulfill that task for me, and now us.

I've spent a lot of time helping others understand that obfuscation does not make a mechanical based system work. Joe here says that he tried trends and that it does not work. I wonder if he ever tried associating results with trends like the "Effectiveness States" that are at the core of the skill of Reading Randomness?

You ask a person if they know what singles on the weak side means and how do you use it. You get sophistry for the answer. At that point discussion becomes obfuscated. It breaks down to bunny trails of dispersion. It withers on the vine and the trail comes to an ending in the middle of nowhere. Poof, this blows away in the wind, as dust. Silence...

[denzie]

If gizmo or any of his students are having success

No , they have not. He's a scammer who's good with words but cant win this game.

Of course he can prove me wrong by beating the game provided here. No words but Actions 

[gizmotron2]

No , they have not. He's a scammer who's good with words but cant win this game.

Of course he can prove me wrong by beating the game provided here. No words but Actions 

I love it when someone tells me I have to prove something the way that they insist. I'm sending you an army of people that will all prove it to you.

[Joe]

The axiom not to put all your eggs in one basket in order to minimize dispersion would suggest that scattering your eggs in different baskets would maximize your dispersion.

No, the opposite is the case. The principle has been known for millenia and it's just common sense when you think about it. There are mathematical proofs which show that it does reduce dispersion and variance, especially when the bets or investments are negatively correlated. It tends to reduce overall profit because it smooths out the bumps, but that's good enough when you can't get a real edge.

I didn't say I don't believe anyone is winning using your strategy, only that if they are it's not because trends work. Trends in random numbers can only be identified after the event.