The Eggleston Betting System

[Colbster]

I have put together a means of betting that overcomes the house advantage (even on American Roulette, but I don't see why you would give up the extra profits) in a very understandable way.    It can be explained in a way that will please the math guys, can be played flat or with a progression, and will work with many different methods of playing dozens.    It has some elements that will appeal to believers in the gambler's fallacy, but it is based squarely in the notion that wheels have no memory, and that spins are, therefore, completely random. 

I will not be explaining the actual bet selection method I use because it is nothing but noise that distracts from the elegance of making bets that have a positive expectancy.    I have discussed this betting mechanism with several contributors whom you would all recognize, with almost universal interest (the only dissenter can be explained away by mentioning a language barrier - it also lead to my decision to ignore the actual bet selection I use because this individual couldn't get past the simplistic method I have been using). 

Right here, I need to take a second to give full credit to two individuals - Richard, of Signum fame, and ommanipadmihum who made a brilliant leap in applying Signum to the dozens.    Both of their postings eventually directed me to where I am happy to find myself in my evolution as a winning roulette player. 

For any new readers who might not be familiar with the Signum system, it is a very clever way of interpreting short-term trends to help predict the next spin result on an EC bet.    Ommanipadmihum realized that the system could work on the dozens by turning the dozens bets into an EC bet, expecting movement among dozens from the last spin to the next as being either to the left or to the right.    Numerous postings documented the great results that came from applying EC methods but gaining 2-1 rewards.    The trip up came when the dozens didn't move to the left or to the right, but repeated.    Some suggested the best way was to start putting a unit on the repeating dozen after a series of repeats. 

Following is my improvement on the staking method that was discussed, as well as a brief mathematical explanation of how this betting method beats the house advantage over the long term:

Note:  I will not expound on what methodology you should use to determine expected L-R values.    You can use a follow-the-last, opposite-of-last, Signum, Lww, or whatever other system you choose to determine if your expectation is for the dozen to move left or right.    For the sake of this example, I have determined that the last spin fell in the 2nd dozen and I expect the next spin will move to the left into the 1st dozen. 

Since I expect the next bet to be in the 1st dozen, I place one unit there.    I place another unit on the 2nd dozen as the last dozen to have spun.    In the past, we have assumed that the house advantage would rule in such a bet because 13/37 would be (-2) and 24/37 would be (+1), resulting in -2 units per every 37 spins on average.    If we were to leave the bets on these two dozens, that is exactly what would occur.    This is where my betting method diverges from the rest.    This system minimizes losses, locks in profits, and allows the winning to run on all at the same time. 

If the spin gives us a result in the 1st dozen, we would count this as a win (W) and take our money off of the table.    If the spin gives us a result in the 3rd dozen, we would count this as a loss (L) and our money would be taken off the table anyway.    However, as long as the 2nd dozen might continue to repeat (R), we will duplicate our bet exactly.    This is the entirety of the Eggleston Betting system.    Stop with a win, stop with a loss, keep winning with repeats.    Then wait for whatever your next trigger is and begin again. 

Why does this work?  If we get a win from the 1st dozen, we are (+1), meaning (+12) out of 37 spins on average.    With a spin of 0 or the 3rd dozen, we are (-2), meaning (-26) out of 37 spins on average.    Excluding the 2nd dozen results, we are currently (-14) in 37 spins.    That means we would need the results from the 2nd dozen to average (+1.  1667) per spin to overcome the house advantage (-14 offset over 12 spins out of 37 where we expect 2nd dozen). 

What can we expect from typical returns from the 2nd dozen?  Since we won (+1) unit already with a repeat in the 2nd dozen, our next totally random spin has 1/12/12/12 out of 37 spins likelihood of hitting each position on the table again.    Ignoring the 0 here (just for the sake of easing the calculations), rather than the +1/+1/-2 results we would expect from covering 2 dozens, our new expectations are +2/+2/-1, or a grand total of +3.    Divided by the three possible outcomes, the average spin at this level is +1, exactly matching our usual expectations of the +1/+1/-2 2-dozen bet payouts.   

However, of these spins, roughly one third will result in yet another spin of the 2nd dozen, taking the same considerations as above to a new expected +3/+3/0, or +2 average.    Already, at this point, we are into positive expectancy territory.    Of the 12/37 spins that take us to the 2nd layer of payout expectations, approximately 4 spins (1/3 of 12) will go to a 3rd layer of payouts.    Another 1+ (4/3) will go to the 4th layer of payouts, +4/+4/+1, or +3 average.    Extrapolated out to these higher layers, the 12 spins in the 2nd dozen will pay approximately (8x+1, 3x+2, and 1x+3, or a total of 17).    Remember that we only needed to overcome -14 from the other 25 spins, giving us an expectation of +3 every 37 spins, more than +.  08 units on every spin on average.    Don't lose sight that over long periods, repeats can extend into higher level of payouts on those incredibly fun streaks that we have all seen where we hit 6, 7, 8, or more in the same dozen. 

The benefit to this system only comes when we follow the rules which require we stop betting after a win or a loss until a new trigger begins a new bet begins. 

Some advantages of this system:

It can be played with a flat bet or with a progression
It stays out of the way of prolonged series of results in one direction or the other
Even when our anticipated direction of movement is wrong, we may still end up being winners
It features advantages of both EC and 2-1 bets
It overcomes the house advantage


I am anxious to hear your reactions to this system.    What I have received so far has been very supportive, but if you see somewhere that it can be improved, by all means let me know.    I am also keen to hear how people may apply this to different systems they already play, just with the improved odds of profiting.

Also, I have attached a 40-spin series that ends with a net of +3 units, just slightly off my expected winnings of +3. xxx in 37 spins.   It was hurt in the middle by the brutal 2-3-2 chops but recovered.   Had I been playing my system, the net would have been +10, although I do use a negative progression.   Playing same as last is obviously a wildly simplistic betting method, but this should demonstrate the methodology and thoughts behind the system.

[Fripper]

Hi Colbster and thanks for sharing!

I will have to look this up myself.
I think that there will be interest in your post.

Cheers

[6th-sense]

well done...nicely explained and really simple   

[F_LAT_INO]

Maybe attachment will tell you something.

[chrisbis]

Maybe attachment will tell you something.

L/R= left and Right or Loss/(and something beginning with R) ?

[F_LAT_INO]

R=right
L=left

Same story but different approach.

[Colbster]

Using just the basic system of follow-the-last as I described above, I was +17 units on that series of spins that you attached.  You showed some repeating dozens as having moved, which is not consistent with the betting system I have proposed.

That said, I am always keen to hear your thoughts on matters, as you have been around this forum for quite some time.  What specific point were you trying to make, as I think I may have missed it.

[warrior]

how do you know when to go L OR RIGHT ?

[Blood Angel]

Warrior
Colbster has not said HOW he selects where to  bet, he suggests follow the last in his example but you may try different thoughts.  He says that this should work whatever as long as you follow the method.

[warrior]

Warrior
Colbster has not said HOW he selects where to  bet, he suggests follow the last in his example but you may try different thoughts.  He says that this should work whatever as long as you follow the method.

ok thanks.

[F_LAT_INO]

Using just the basic system of follow-the-last as I described above, I was +17 units on that series of spins that you attached.  You showed some repeating dozens as having moved, which is not consistent with the betting system I have proposed.

That said, I am always keen to hear your thoughts on matters, as you have been around this forum for quite some time.  What specific point were you trying to make, as I think I may have missed it.

You didn't miss anything,as gave you this sample of numbers to test your way,while it could be played in many diff.ways,and believe me neither works on the long
run,that is these variations I have tested.Maybe your might work,one never knows unless throughouly tested.

[Colbster]

I'm glad I didn't miss anything specific.  I was worried that something was right out front that I couldn't grasp.  Anyway, the +17 I got from flat-betting that basic method I posted seemed weak to me because of the number of spins.  I re-tested the same spins with my personal method using the progression: Total +132  Highest point +135  Lowest point -19 (on spin 21).

I usually play the columns at the same time, as this is an easy system to track.  I will test the columns from your posted spins and post results shortly.

Thanks for the data.

[Big EZ]

Colbster,

Thanks for sharing the method. Can you enlighten us on the progression that you use for this? I am sure everyone is interested after you said you reach +132 on those spins.

[Colbster]

I use a martingale progression only up to 64.  I temper the danger of the martingale my having two separate columns, 1 for L and 1 for R, with their own progressions.  With a nasty series of chops on a typical martingale, you reach 64 and fail after 7 spins.  With my way of using two columns, 7 spins only takes you to 16 in one column and 8 in the same 7 spins.  It allows you to carry on for 14 spins of straight chops before failure (8,192 on the usual martingale), with the possibility remaining of still making a profit depending on appearance of repeats during that streak.  I prefer using the progression because it allows the value of repeats to increase drastically.  This is where most of my profits come from.

[Colbster]

The columns were considerably tougher.  When using the flat betting method I detailed, the total of columns was -21, meaning a net of -4 for the whole session.  My personal method was down -26, although that was right in the middle of a progression at level 16 and could have easily recoved.  Nevertheless, the running total using my method was +109.  I would have stopped the session much earlier based on my own playing rules, but this was nice to see.  +105 in 390 spins works out to +.269 units per spin.