EXPERIMENTAL IDEAS FOR PRO PLAY

[XXVV]

Greetings All.

It will take a few days to get this in order but the intention with this thread is to set up a robust workshop where we can experiment with ideas for success in professional play.

It would be great to have a truly interactive space where good ideas can be forwarded, discussed, created, tested, and results posted.

This can be a place where 'the cards can be on the table' and hopefully we can assist one another to become more effective players of Roulette and adopt a more professional approach to play so as to achieve more consistent success. Results speak for themselves.

Hopefully can open the thread for business on Monday.

[XXVV]

This is an experiment. With any experiment there is risk. However if we keep our focus on the intention here, how can we go wrong?

Intention is to improve our play to professional levels. From any activity we know this can be a bridge too far for some. But what a joy it is to see the best professionals, say in sport, at work/ play and see/ share what they can achieve with such fine judgement.

Take the recent Man U/ Man C Premier League match and the level of intensity and focus over 95 minutes. The anticipation, the speed, the consistent application, the teamwork, the communication, the risk taking and yet the sublime co-ordination that can result in a goal such as provided the winner. Imagine the practice and training that went into producing a sublime result such as that.

Why not aim for such quality in aspects of our focus and use that as a benchmark, an inspiration.

The intention here is to create a workshop - imagine a Formula One workshop - immaculate order and organisation.
Within that workshop key parts are ready for assembly by well trained Technicians.

Testing will have to be done and much training by/ for the Driver to enable that Ferrari to achieve consistent high achievement yet with safety and endurance.

So this is ambitious.

I would like to invite many contributors/ readers to provide key ideas, key parts that we can structure together to build a framework that we can openly test and eventually drive the parts to the highest levels of performance by tuning/ tweaking/ adjusting and practice.

This is an extension of an earlier and brother thread which has been exploring and meandering along to find better ways for the past 9 months. The opportunity here is to be open and explore and rate various fresh approaches, as well as the best of what we know now.

Intention here is to be consistent and push forward. We dont want negatives and cant do's and they will be edited out anyway. Cynics are not welcome at this place.

The team approach is the collective force of us. So the more you put in the more will come out that can help us collectively become better and more effective players. Good results mean benefits for us and those we love and care for, and dont we all want to increase our collective prosperity at will, by use of a passport that is international and timeless.

Is that not the intention of professional play and the more effort we put in that can engage and produce, we will be rewarded. Life does that.

Lastly I want to make it clear that the false and hyprocritical moral high ground that past scammers have used and caused such distress has no place in this work. This thread is a direct and clear attempt to build a web of knowledge and method that can benefit all who put in the finest effort.

Notice I have used the term professional 'levels'. It is step by step and leap by leap. I like it when there is no limit to a goal, it is never ending...

So lets get underway and we are open to ideas and suggestions.

[XXVV]

To kick off some discussion lets nominate the subject of runs and chops in sequences of play.

Definition of a run, say two or more of the same outcome in a sequence. Ideal when three or more in a sequence as a parlay can be played.

Chop is a sequence of one or two identical outcomes regularly or irregularly interspersed between opposite outcomes.

What is the best way to handle such extremes.....

[chrisbis]

Just to be clear here Charlie.................

are we generically calling it a run or a streak?

Lots of fellows know it as a streak.

U may delete me (well not me personally, as i quite like me, but this text, if it inappropriate!!)

[XXVV]

Good point. You are correct, lets call it a streak for consistency here and then no misunderstandings.

Question is how to identify and handle choppy play spin by spin, live. ( Very different to the luxury of hindsight in testing).

Now you may want to get really specific, eg EC outcomes, Doz/Col outcomes and say RO/BE + BO/RE outcomes - all have got different characteristics.

[flukey luke]

One of the best ways that I have found to untangle results is to try and create some kind of order.
When dealing with even chances, I like to put the results into pairs and create some framework to work around. There are still no guarantees but I find it can really help at times.
I posted up some info on a thread a while ago which will explain in more detail what I am talking about. It was comprised over several posts, so please excuse me if it looks a bit disjointed.
After reading it over a few times, you should get the gist of it.






First of all, I would like to show you 4 different groups of results.

1) WW.
2) WL.
3) LL.
4) LW.
If you take any pair of results, it has to land in one of the above 4 groups. There is no other alternative. So any one of the above 4 groups has a 1/4 chance of appearing = 25%.
Now think about this, on a roulette layout, there are three dozens and we all know from experience that one of these dozens can go missing for a long time now and again. In fact sometimes up to 20 spins. A dozen represents a 33.33% chance. Now considering my 4 groups above have a 25% chance of appearing, is it therefore not logical to assume that one of these 25% chances could go missing for an equally long absence or even greater absence than one of the dozens. I can conclude by using probability alone that this is more than likely to happen on occasion and one of these 25% chances could go missing for 20+ appearances.








Here are a range of numbers between 1-4 that I just downloaded from random.org.



3   2   4   4   1   3   1   1
2   1   2   4   2   1   3   3
1   4   3   4   4   4   3   4
3   3   4   4   4   1   3   3
4   1   1   4   4   2   4   4
4   1   4   3   2   2   4   4

I will now convert them into the following.

1. WW.
2. WL.
3. LL.
4. LW.









LL, WL, LW, LW, WW, LL, WW, WW.
WL, WW, WL, LW, WL, WW, LL, LL.
WW, LW, LL, LW, LW, LW, LL, LW.
LL, LL, LW, LW, LW, WW, LL, LL.
LW, WW, WW, LW, LW, WL, LW, LW.
LW, WW, LW, LL, WL, WL, LW, LW.

So looking at these, I want to see if I can find some long absences for any one of the 4 different groups.
LL=3.
WL=2.
LW=4. (1 MISSING)
LW=4. (1 MISSING)
WW=1. (3 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
WW=1. (2 MISSING)
WW=1. (2 MISSING)
WL=2. (4 MISSING)
WW=1. (4 MISSING)
WL=2. (4 MISSING)
LW=4. (3 MISSING)
WL=2. (3 MISSING)
WW=1. (3 MISSING)
LL=3. (4 MISSING)
LL=3. (4 MISSING)
WW=1. (4 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
WW=1. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
WW=1. (2 MISSING)
WW=1. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
LW=4. (2 MISSING)
WL=2. (3 MISSING)
LW=4. (3 MISSING)
LW=4. (3 MISSING)
LW=4. (3 MISSING)
WW=1. (3 MISSING)
LW=4. (3 MISSING)
LL=3. (2 MISSING)
WL=2. (1 MISSING)
WL=2. (1 MISSING)
LW=4. (1 MISSING)
LW=4. (1 MISSING)







If you go down to number 18 in the groups I posted in the previous post, you will come to a LW. Now the furthest back group from here is a 2 which consists of WL. That 2 group dissapears without a sniff for a further 20 appearances. What does this mean and how can it help us? If the 2 is absent (WL) this means you can only get one of the following, WW, LL, LW. So looking at that, you are more than likely to catch a L at the beginning of the next pair and catch a W at the end of the next pair. So let's check and see what happens on these next 20 pairs without an appearance of the 2.
The L comes up at the beginning 16 times out of 20. WOW.   It is also worth noting that out of them 16, 11 of those were in a continuous streak. This kind of information can save you a LOT of losses.
At the end of them pairs, the W comes up 13 times out of 20. Two decent win streaks, one a 4 and one a 5. So some nice wins to be had there.







I will try and go into more detail here regarding the triggers that I have talked about.
Let's have another look at the following.

1) WW.
2) WL.
3) LL.
4) LW.

Anyone of these pairs has roughly a 25% chance of appearing at any given time. Like I also previously mentioned, this means that one of them can go missing for a long time. In one example I shown earlier, the WL (2) went missing for 20 times. This meant that we only saw either the WW (1) LL (3) or LW (4). As I pointed out, as long as the 2 continued to be absent, we were more likely to see a L on the first result and a W on the second result of each pair. This indeed happened.
So let's look at all 4 triggers and see what happens when one is not showing up.
If the WW (1) is missing, this means we are either going to see the WL (2) LL (3) or LW (4). So it is more than likely the first result in the pair will be a L and it is also more than likely that the second result in the pair will be a L. In my opinion, it would make sense not to make any bets when the WW (1) is absent. From experience, I can tell you that I have seen some pretty nasty losing streaks. This goes for any system. You could be sitting with the one of the best systems ever designed and there is nothing to say that you can't hit the mother of all losing streaks. Hey, these things happen, after all, we are dealing with a dynamic random game. The best you can do is try and get the timing right.

If the WL (2) is missing, this means we are either going to see the WW (1) LL (3) or LW (4). So it is more likely the first result in the pair will be a L and it is also more than likely that the second result in the pair will be a W. Here is where you can try and take advantage of the W in the second result of the pair. If it is trending or coming about average, go with it and keep going till it breaks.
Remember, we are only playing between 4-6 streets. We do not really even need to break even here sometimes. Over a period, if the 2 continues to missing, you could have a few more losses than wins and still be breaking even or showing a profit. Now I am not telling you to break any rules or go against the triggers. But it will sometimes happen that we get the right trigger for a bet, but we lose a few. Once again, it happens, but it does not have to be a disaster for us. In the example I showed you in a earlier post where the WL (2) went missing, the second result in the pair threw up 13 out of 20 W's. This is a good example of how it can work. On the flip side, we were expecting L's in the first result of the pair and we certainly were not dissapointed with 16 out of 20 losses. That could have seriously dented anybody's bankroll.

If the LL (3) is missing, this means we are either going to see the WW (1) WL (2) or LW (4). So it is more likely the first result in the pair will be a W and it is also more likely that the second result in the pair will be a W. This can be your birthday and christmas all at once. There are times here that I have hit a win streak of over 10+ and once again because we are betting just between 4 and 6 streets, the wins can soon build up. If you have the patience to just wait for the LL (3) group to go missing, you can be richly rewarded. It is actually not a bad idea to start out playing the method like this. It can build up some profit for you and is a good introduction. If I had to play one trigger and my life depended on it, this would be the one. Once again, use common sense. It may be that the first result in the pair throws out 10 winners on the trot and the second result in the pair throws out 10 losers on the trot, now because you are playing between 4 and 6 streets, there is still a good chance that you will be showing a profit, however, my advice is if something is not showing, don't play it, so it might be a good idea to stop on that second result of the pair after the first few of those 10 losses.

If the LW (4) is missing, this means we are either going to see the WW (1) WL (2) or LL (3). So it is more likely the first result in the pair will be a W and it is also more than likely that the second result in the pair will be a L. So really, here is the reverse situation of the 2 going absent. Look for the streaks of the W and jump on board for the first result of the pair and avoid the streaks of L in the second result of the pair.

There are times when these 4 groups change over without any long periods of absence, it always pays to be vigilant. There are no guarantees. The best you can do is go with what is happening. If you see them changing over a lot, wait for them to settle down a bit. If you can be patient and are a disciplined player, I highly suggest to just wait for the LL (3) to be missing. If you want to be a bit more aggressive, then take advantage of the good streaks on the absent WL (2) and LW (4) as well. Avoid the absent WW (1) if you can.

[XXVV]

Dear FlukeyLuke
Thanks that excellent information. This is just what I am hoping to achieve here if we can assemble ( from various parts of the galaxy of information on this forum) methodologies, breakthrough knowledge, ideas to help us collectively push forward.
Great stuff.

[flukey luke]

Thank you XXVV, this thread has the potential to be of great help to all who participate in it.
It is definately true that you learn a lot more about your own game by openly sharing ideas and discussing them.

One thing I would like to add to my post above.

Obviously the W represents a winning bet and the L represents a losing bet.

A long L streak does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. You can bet the opposite of your bet. Call it an anti-bet if you like. We have no way of knowing in advance if the wheel is going to play ball regarding our chosen bet selection. So rather than fighting against it, the anti-bet can also be a winner for us. It is a great feeling to come home from the casino knowing that your method absolutely tanked and yet you still came home a winner.

[flukey luke]

Here is a quick example.

This is the table.

RR = 1.
RB = 2.
BB = 3.
BR = 4.

B
R (4)

B
B (3)

B
B (3)

R
R (1)  So the missing pair is the (2) This is the R followed by B. Now if the 2 continues to be absent, it is more than likely that the first result in the next pair will be B and the second result in the pair will be R. I also like to look at this point and see what's trending. The first result of the last pair was R, so I am not really sure I want to be playing the B on the first result of the next pair.
The second result of the last pair was R  and as that would be my intended bet, I am going to wait to have a bet on the second result of the next pair.

B no bet here.
B (3) I was on the R here and that is now a loss of -1.  Now looking at the pairs, the last 4 results have registered (3) (3) (1) (3) This is the strongest trend at the moment. If this continues, I am likely to see either BB or RR as the next pair. As I don't know which one it will be in advance, it makes sense to wait and see what the first result is of the next pair first.
R so now I will bet the R on the next spin hoping for the (3) and (1) trend to continue.
R (1) so that was a winner and takes me back to level.
I am a strong advocate of the saying 'the trend is your friend'. When deciding what bets to place, I always like to look at what is currently performing the best. In the above example, you could argue that playing the R on the last result of the pair was risky because of the B on the last result of the previous pair. My answer to that would be that the strongest trend was showing up in the pairs (3) (3) (1) (3) and this indicated a bet on the R after the R came up in the first result of the pair. There was also the added factor that the (2) was missing and therefore R was preferred  for the last result in the pair. If yo are able to monitor all the E/C bets, you will see some amazing trends using this style of play. The trends will be either supporting your bet or throwing up a horrible losing run. This is where the anti-bet can be employed.
I will give a more detailed example tomorrow when I have more time.

[XXVV]

Thanks for that FlukeyLuke
Yes I like the reversal betting on a loss. It has something of that 'zero' quality about it.

Here is a little string of sample data taken from Wiesbaden 7th February 2011 and Table3  446 spins

This compares streaks frequency and duration for Red EC, Black EC, and RO/BE ( and includes zero appearance, ie 21 numbers). Note however zero itself is not used as trigger.

Definition used here, say three reds in a row, this is a streak of duration 2 as the first appearance is the trigger. Such applies to all three categories.

RED EC

Duration 1   21 appearances
              2   17
              3   3
              4   2
              5   5
              6   1                  *value 103

BLACK EC

Duration  1   23
               2   16
               3    6
               4    3
               5    -
               6    1                 * value 91

obviously pretty choppy

ROBE streaks

Duration   1    20
                2    8
                3    8
                4    4
                5    5
                6    4
                7    2                       *139     still a choppy result

Of the 446 spins

R  225
B  206
0   15

There were 121 instances of individual Red or Black then change. This includes instances where zero came between two reds say. Choppy.

With a statistically sound sample base it is possible to derive a Quotient Factor for degree of Chop or Streak.

Working on this, although maybe a bit academic.

It was interesting that throughout the 446 spin sample that same choppiness
in Red Black behaviour was apparent and consistent.

However I guess in practical terms we just need a benchmark to know the degree of variance possible. On the spot and in the heat of the play we need to quickly assess and stake accordingly, and if necessary adjust or step aside for a while and go virtual.


             

[XXVV]

Clearly F/L is right when he suggests going to reversals. When blocked by chop, reverse what you are doing  (which was losing) and then you can win. Look at that +400 spin sample of consistent chop in one aspect of EC and largely so (90% ) for the RO/BE work. The 2 x7 runs occurred from 350 spins onward. Playing the consistency of behaviour in Red or Black EC would have brought big win.

Please feel free to suggest the next topics, or I will.

[flukey luke]

Here is another example.

Table.

RR = 1.
RB = 2.
BB = 3.
BR = 4.

R
B (2)

R
R (1)

B
B (3)  So the missing one here is the (4). This means if the (4) continues to be absent for a while, it is more likely that the first result of each pair will be RED and the second result of each pair will be BLACK. Now looking at the trends, I will refrain from betting RED on the first result of the next pair because I see the previous pair produced a BLACK first up.

R So I missed out on that particular one but I will certainly be betting RED on the first decision of the next pair. For the second result of this pair, I am anticipating a BLACK and that will be the bet.
B (2) A winner.

For the first decision of the next pair, I am anticipating RED to appear and I will bet on that.
R A winner. On the second result of the pair, I am anticipating BLACK and that will be the bet.
B (2) A winner. So things are working out quite nicely at the moment. The (4) is missing and that means I am expecting to see a RED on the first result of each pair and a BLACK on the second result of each pair. This is the equivalent of a (2) and as you can see, the (2) has appeared the last twice. The next pair was also a (2) and took me to a profit of 5 units.

What this shows is that even when results are chopping, as long as you have some kind of framework to work around, you can make profits on the E/C bets.

[attach=#]

[XXVV]

Over the next few days we are going to look at and test several examples of streaks ( same -runs), and  also the corrective entropic forces of chops    ( change). Refer to the C/S thread. Will be using some Wiesbaden data to demonstrate what the pro players use on EC bets.

[XXVV]

Recall the Louis Holloway streak data on EC bets at one table :

Every 2/3 hours a run of 8
Once per day run of 10
Once per week run of 14
Once per month run of 17

Recently in the live casino environment I encountered a streak of BLACK that went 22 but was interrupted by one zero two thirds through.

You know that parlay suitable streaks occur every 7th outcome on average on any one EC outcome and you can play to catch a streak from the outset by playing both options on the EC bet and simply compound massing the winning outcomes and replacing the losing outcome. Taking a profit regularly on this may be a simple and effective technique. Test it. Play on the privacy of a rapid roulette screen to avoid the usual dumb comments from others.

Will have some specific examples and results soon.

[XXVV]

You might like to look at the good ideas being discussed by Carsch et al under the Full Systems/ 4 Sectors of the Wheel thread.

By flat staking a nine /ten number bet on a target that is genuinely running warm to hot, there is a good return ratio, low risk and high degree of success in streak phases. The BWAB approach can turn the bet on and off and the returns as demonstrated can be remarkably good without the risk exposure of progression play.

There are some valuable principles discussed in that thread as well.

The method can be extended from wheel sections ( there are various ways of sectioning the wheel and these can be overlapped and can include zero), to other sets such as table streets, sixlines, EC characteristics, doz/col combinations and even finales of numbers in groups of four- that is the key.

Some of this knowledge overlaps with other writers, and I have used variations of this work to target and hit one number alone sometimes by overlapping several groups of four.

However I think the smartest approach is to choose a spread that relatively consistently  produces positive results on flat staking and not over complicate play. An example of this is to target the ten numbers around and including zero, and when that section ( as one of four) is running warm to hot, attack it in bursts of 6 spins as outlined and developed on the thread, or in a way that you can tune with a system of triggers and stops to go virtual at times for max efficiency.