Alternative Matrix

[GLC]

Atlantis,

I just ran your 90 spin matrix thru 2 other bet progressions beside the obvious flatbet which results in +9 units won.

I also ran it thru a progression 1-2-4-8-16-32.  With this progression, we move 1 step to the right on each loss and 1 step to the left on each win.  Also I never bet more than would leave me at +1.

Largest bet was 8-8
Largest drawdown was -14
Final result was +29

I also ran it thru your progression 1-2-3-4-5-6 etc...  Move 1 step to the right on each loss and stay at the same bet on wins until even or +1, then start over.  Never bet more than will get us to +1.

Largest bet was 7-7
Largest drawdown was -23
Final result was +26

Of course, when you have a winning sequence it will win with almost any progression, so wasn't too surprised.

Other than a flatbet, I prefer your progression best because my 1-2-4-8-16-32 etc... had I lost a couple more bets in a row my drawdown would have skyrocketed.  Whereas your would have been more moderate.

Hermes' leveller is also probably a good bet method.  I'll check it tomorrow. 

G

[atlantis]

Hi GLC,

Here's how I think we can improve ==>>

I'm using my same 90 real numbers as in your tests -  but here I will limit options to bet.
I do this by only recording VERTICAL triggers which COMMENCE WITH A DOUBLET. They are:

1  1  1
1  1  1
1  2  3

2  2  2
2  2  2
2  1  3

3  3  3
3  3  3
3  1  2

Note: each VERTICAL triplet trigger starts with a doublet 1-1, 2-2 or 3-3.

Begin by recording a valid trigger e.g.: the first one in the below game is a valid one in the list =  1-1-1

When a corresponding/matching DOUBLET appears back AGAINST the SAME DOZ recorded in the trigger happening as normal.
If it is a WIN that triplet becomes a new trigger and the old one is discarded e.g.:
If 1-1-3 happens it is a WIN; 1-1-1 is erased and 1-1-3 becomes the NEW TRIPLET TRIGGER for that set of doublet 1's....
It is the same procedure for the 2's and 3's also.

212--
313--
212--trigger 1-1-1
331--
312--
211--trigger 3-3-2
333--WON on 1-1-3 (cancel 1-1-1) = +1
211--
331--
232--WON on 1-1-2 (cancel 1-1-3) = +2
323--
332--
112--WON on 3-3-1 (cancel 3-3-2) = +3
223--trigger 2-2-3
332--
211--
112--
231--WON on 1-1-3 (cancel 1-1-2) = +4
322--
131--
321--
312--WON on 1-1-2 (cancel 1-1-3) = +5
213--WON on 3-3-2 (cancel 3-3-1) = +6
331--WON on 1-1-3 (cancel 1-1-2) = +7
131--
313--WON on 3-3-1 (cancel 3-3-2) = +8 ; LOST on 1-1-3  = +6
213--
312--WON on 1-1-1 (cancel 1-1-3) = +7
322--WON on 1-1-2 (cancel 1-1-1) = +8
313--WON on 3-3-3 (cancel 3-3-1) = +9 ; LOST on 2-2-3 = +7

+7 (+9 highest)  flatbetting only.

Clear and less confusing = less mistakes.

A.

[atlantis]

Hi George,

Slightly refined version
================
Am now using only these trigger triplets:
1    1   2    2    3    3
1    1   2    2    3    3
2    3   1    3    1    2

I can still WIN on 1-1-1, 2-2-2, and 3-3-3 but I do not record those as a trigger any more as can be costly when you get columns with lengthy streaks of repeating numbers; I now wait and record one of above triggers only.
For instance:

123
122
133
132
111
121
131
113 -- See all the 1's in col1... Stops continuous losing bets by avoiding the vertical 1-1-1 trigger!

EXAMPLE (same 90 numbers)
========
212--
313--
212--
331--
312--
211--trigger 3-3-2
333--trigger 1-1-3
211--
331--
232--WON on 1-1-2  = +1
323--
332--
112--WON on 3-3-1 = +2
223--trigger 2-2-3
332--
211--
112--
231--WON on 1-1-3 = +3
322--
131--
321--
312--WON on 1-1-2 = +4
213--WON on 3-3-2 = +5
331--WON on 1-1-3 = +6
131--
313--WON on 3-3-1 ; LOST on 1-1-3  = +5
213--
312--WON on 1-1-1 = +6 ; wait for new 1-1-X trigger
322--trigger 1-1-2
313--WON on 3-3-3 = +7 ; wait for new 3-3-X trigger; LOST on 2-2-3 = +5

+5 (high +7) in 90 spins. Flatbetting only.

A.

[GLC]

It's a good adjustment.  I don't know if it makes it safer or not.  It seems like with so many different ones hitting regularly it keeps our drawdown limited.  I recognize that if we had a rash of losses with few wins it could cause our drawdown to be worse.

I can't think of a reason why using 1-1; 2-2; 3-3 as triggers is any better than any of the other 2 dozen triggers other than it might make it easier to track.

It does gives us fewer bets we have to make which might make it easier to play live at a busy table. 

If it's a winning system, it also limits the amount we can win in a given number of spins which is a consideration for us old guys who are running out of time.

I'll continue to test the full chart of triggers and see how it performs over the long run.  It'll be interesting to see what a losing session looks like.  Since the matrix isn't a sequential line, it's quite difficult to determine what a losing session will be.

Thanks for your help,

G

[GLC]

The following is a post by BW on Matrix Vertical 30 topic.  I just wanted to see how this system would handle it.

Darn, just had this from some actuals. Guess it can happen

323
211
323
123
123  T,L
123  L
233
122
323
223  L
333  L
312
212  W

This was the hardest matrix so far.

39 spins
24 bets placed
17 wins
7 losses
-5  largest drawdown
9-9 largest bet placed
+13 units won using 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27
+3 units won flat betting

Cheers

[GLC]

That looks pretty strong for a flat bet.  Keep posting my friend.  I'm still testing the original way to see what a loss finally looks like.  I'm for sure leaning your way and may soon quit testing my way.

This is a quote by Twisteruk under the topic Matrix Vertical Method Only under full systems.  Just thought I would see how the Alternative Matrix would handle these numbers.  As you can see our  brother Twisteruk won +1 unit which isn't bad for 4 minutes.

Ok this is gonna take me 5 times longer to type out than it did to play !

Was on BV RNG

This took 4 minutes to win

1000 Auto spins (no reason for 1000, its default)

Quad happened. Trigger !

Two Trips formed

Stopped Auto Spin

Spin manually

First Trip became a Quad. Lost

Second Trip did not become a Quad. Win +1pt

It is in a 7 Matrix but I play until a Win

Here are the numbers,


3 1 3 1 3 2 3
1 2 2 2 2 1 3
3 3 3 1 3 1 2
3 3 3 2 3 1 3
3 2 2 3 2 3 2
2 1 3 3 2 1 3
2 3 2 1 2 3 1
3 1 2 2 1 2 1
2 2 1 1 2 3 1
3 3 2 1 1 2 1 Trigger
2 1 1 2 1 2 2
1 2 3 1 1 2 3 Two Trips Formed. Auto Spin Off
2 2 2 3 1 3   First Trip became a Quad.Second Trip Won

4 minutes Max  

Profit 1pt

Rinse and Repeat  

Okay, here are the results using Alternative Matrix and betting 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27 progression.

91 spins
67 bets
+42 wins
-25 losses
-29 largest drawdown
9-9 largest bet
-8 units flat betting
+26 units won with progression

Cheers

[GLC]

Using Twisteruk's 7X13 matrix above and Atlantis' progression 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 5-5; 6-6 etc....  Move 1 step to the right on each loss and stay at same bet on a wins until you are at even or +1 then reset to 1-1.  I play with 1 bankroll and 1 progression, not 1 for each 2 dozen triggers.

largest drawdown   -42
Highest bet             9-9

+14 units won

Using 1-1; 2-2; 4-4; 8-8; 16-16; 32-32 etc...  Move 1 step to the right on each loss and 1 step to the left on each win.

largest drawdown  -14
Highest bet              8-8

+17 units won   

[GLC]

I believe that the Alternative Matrix System using a simple Labouchere bet progression method for 2:1 payoff bets (Dozens or Columns) is an excellent system.  I will continue to test it and post results until it proves me wrong.  One losing session does not prove me wrong.  As long as I stay in a winning position, I am still right.

The bet selection method has been described above.  It can be played with either the method I use or for fewer bets, and maybe safer bets, you can use Atlantis' method.  Neither method is the correct method.  Neither method, although it's very early in the testing stage, has had a losing session.

It hasn't been determined absolutely that it can win with a flatbet, but I feel relatively certain that it will win with the Labouchere or cancelation method.

Labourchere Betting Method for Dozens/Columns:

Many of you will already be familiar with this method.  The most common use is on Even Chance bets, but it can also be used with dozens very effectively.

A simple example:

Begin by writing down a 1.  This is what we will win for each attack.  When we have cleared all the numbers in our bet line, this 1 is what we will be ahead by.  As with any labby, we will be betting the sum of the first and the last number in our bet line.  So, to begin with, we bet 1 unit on both dozens.  If we win, we have won our 1 unit.  Attack over.  Start a new attack (or bet line) with 1 unit.  If we lose our 1st bet, we will write the number of units we bet and lost 2 times on the right end of our bet line.  Anytime we win, we will cross off the two end numbers that we added together to make up our bet.  The next bet will be the 2 new end numbers on our bet line.

Example:

1        Our first bet is 1 unit on both dozens.  If we lose our new bet line is:
111    Now we add the 1st and last numbers and get 2 so we bet 2 units on both dozens.  If lose:
11122  Now we bet 3 units on both dozens.  If we win:
112     Now we bet 3 units again on both dozens.  If we lose:
11233  Now we bet 4 units on both dozens.  If we win:
123    Now we bet 4 units again on both dozens.  If we win:
2         Now we bet 2 units on both dozens.  If we win we will have cleared our line and we will be ahead by +1 unit which ends this attack.  Start a new attack with 1 unit.

It's very simple.

We only use 1 bankroll.  I suggest at least 300 units to be safe.
A win target of 25-50 units is reasonable.  You decide.

Remember ,with my bet selection method we will be betting almost every spin after the first 15 -20 spins, so with a little good fortune, we will reach our win target rather quickly.

One other point I want to make is that your matrix is not limited to any size.  It can be 3 wide, 4 wide, 5 wide or whatever you like.   3 or 4 wide are a little easier to deal with and keep track of where you are for your bets.  There is also no limit to the number of lines downward you can go.  Keep adding lines until you reach your win target.

LOL,

George

[atlantis]

Hi,

Good to see this thread developing and others joining in with their tests and findings.
Today I will present my final revision example for the "alternative matrix".
I will add back in the 1-1-1, 2-2-2, and 3-3-3 triple triggers but this time will play only using discrete, self-contained and unique trips and doubles. In other words I will add in JohnLegend's rule that subsequent new doubles and triples may not be formed using elements from an existing triple above it in the grid! Exactly so it will conform and be in line with the existing MATRIX VERTICAL and MATRIX30 methodology. This will produce less bets than my previous 2 examples - but I think it will be less dangerous and should give similar expected results to MATRIX30 (but in shorter timeframe)

A.

[atlantis]

Ok here is my final solution:

Vertical Triggers:
1-1-1
1-1-2
1-1-3

2-2-2
2-2-1
2-2-3

3-3-3
3-3-1
3-3-2

EXAMPLE (same 90 numbers)
========
212--
313--
212--TRIGGER 1-1-1
331--
312--
211--TRIGGER 3-3-2
333--WON+1 on 1-1-3
211--
331--
232--WON+1 on 1-1-2
323--LOST-2 on 3-3-2
332--
112--WON+1 on 3-3-1
223--TRIGGER 2-2-3 (all three doublet triggers now in play)
332--
211--
112--
231--WON+1 on 1-1-3
322--
131--
321--
312--WON+1 on 1-1-2
213--WON+1 on 3-3-2
331--WON+1 on 1-1-3
131--
313--
213--
312--WON+1 on 1-1-1 ; LOST-2 on 3-3-2
322--WON+1 on 1-1-2
313--WON+1 on 3-3-3

8 won on 1st bet
2 won on 2nd bet

+6 in 90 spins (I used flatbetting 1-1)

A.

[atlantis]

Another Example (real numbers)
========================
323
122
221--TRIGGER 2-2-2
322
313
321--TRIGGER 3-3-3
123
122--LOST-2 on 2-2-2
221--TRIGGER 1-1-2
213
322
131
231
333--LOST-2 on 3-3-3; WON+1 on 1-1-3
312
232--WON+1 on 3-3-2
322--LOST-2 on 2-2-2
332
133--WON+1 on 3-3-1
133--WON+1 on 3-3-3
332--WON+1 on 3-3-2
131
212--WON+1 on 3-3-1
213
113--WON+1 on 2-2-1
213--WON+1 on 1-1-1 ; WON+1 on 3-3-3
333
332
212--WON+1 on 3-3-2 ; WON+1 on 3-3-1

13 bets.
8 won on 1st bet
1 won on 2nd bet
1 won on 3rd bet

+5 in 87 spins. (I used flatbetting @ 1u-1u)

This is just like playing MATRIX30 - but with additional bets. For me I think this the safer, solid alternative matrix approach. If you apply one of the recommended progressions maybe it could only get better.

I will next try on BV nozero rng.

A.

[atlantis]

BV nozero rng numbers
=================
121
313
122
223
212--TRIGGER 2-2-1
111--LOST-2 on 2-2-1 (1st bet)
223
233
223--WON+1 on 2-2-2 (2nd bet) ; TRIGGER 3-3-3
331
233
112--WON+1 on 3-3-1 (1st bet)
133
332--TRIGGER 1-1-3
212--LOST-2 on 3-3-1 (1st bet)
233--WON+1 on 2-2-3 (1st bet)
213--WON+1 on 2-2-2 (1st bet)
111
312--WON+1 on 1-1-1 (1st bet)
322
222--WON+1 on 3-3-2 (2nd bet) ; LOST-2 on 2-2-2 (1st bet)
122--LOST-2 on 2-2-2 (2nd bet)
133
213--WON+1 on 1-1-2 (1st bet)
321--WON+1 on 3-3-1 (1st bet)
133
213
223--WON+1 on 3-3-3 (1st bet)
321--WON+1 on 2-2-3 (3rd bet)
223--WON+1 on 2-2-2 (1st bet)

+3 in 90 spins. (flatbetting @1u-1u)

8 won on 1st bet
2 won on 2nd bet
1 won on 3rd bet

A.

[atlantis]

I continue to use the same nine vertical triggers that start with same doublets as I used before:

1-1-1
1-1-2
1-1-3

2-2-2
2-2-1
2-2-3

3-3-3
3-3-1
3-3-2

This time I use what I call the "ultra cautious" version of the alternative matrix where I bet only after TWO consecutive identical vertical triggers occur  (with no other similar intervening trigger triples that contain the same starting doublet)
The first trigger can thus be (and often is) cancelled and replaced by a new first trigger that contains the same starting vertical doublet.
e.g.:

113
112
112--TRIGGER1 on 1-1-1 ; TRIGGER2 on 1-1-1
(The required 2 triggers have appeared - so bet against 1-1-1 next time unique 1-1 vertical double forms)

e.g.:

113
112
123--TRIGGER1 on 1-1-1; TRIGGER1 on 1-1-2
(the previous trigger 1-1-1 is cancelled and now I require a matching 1-1-2 second trigger for a qualified betting signal)

e.g.:

111
111
123--TRIGGER1 on 1-1-1; TRIGGER1 on 1-1-2; TRIGGER1 on 1-1-3
(the previous triggers 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 are cancelled and now I require a matching 1-1-3 second trigger for a qualified betting signal)

As a result there will be less bets indicated, but my few tests on MATRIX30 have shown good strike rate using a twin or dual trigger before starting an attack.

Example (real numbers)
=================
323
122
221--TRIGGER1 on 2-2-2
322
313
321--TRIGGER1 on 3-3-3
123
122
221--TRIGGER1 on 1-1-2
213
322
131
231
333--TRIGGER2 on 3-3-3; TRIGGER1 on 1-1-3
312
232--WON+1 on 3-3-2 - RESET TRIGGER ON 3-3
322--TRIGGER2 on 2-2-2
332
133--TRIGGER1 3-3-3
133--TRIGGER2 3-3-3
332--WON+1 on 3-3-2 RESET TRIGGER ON 3-3
131
212--TRIGGER1 on 3-3-1
213
113--WON+1 on 2-2-1 - RESET TRIGGER ON 2-2
213--TRIGGER1 on 1-1-1 ;  TRIGGER1 on 3-3-3
333
332
212--TRIGGER1 on 3-3-2 ; TRIGGER1 on 3-3-1

+3
All three bets won on 1st spin.

This seems to me to be a very solid alternative matrix30 solution - naturally you get more bets by not waiting for a second trigger, and that is also an equally good way to play too - but I can see merit and strength in this more cautious and guarded approach.


A.

[GLC]

Atlantis,

So what you are doing is waiting for 2 back to back triggers before betting.

Here's what I think is happening.  You are passing a lot of winning bets up by waiting for the second trigger.  I don't know if you are passing up a total of more units won than you would lose on the losses you are also passing up since most wins occur on the 1st bet after a single trigger.

I'm not being critical, but wouldn't it be even more cautious if we waited for 3 identical triggers before betting.  This would eliminate a lot of betting, but I don't know if the wins/losses ratio is improved.  It may just be spreading our bets out over such a long period that it feels like we are winning a higher percentage of our bets than if we started betting after the 1st trigger.

If you took all the bets placed with your cautious method and put them back to back and you took all the bets placed using the single trigger and put them back to back would there be a difference in the % wins over losses?  That's my question.

If there is, even a very small amount, then the cautious way is for sure preferred.  And, if your way wins consistently flat betting, then we're off like Flint. 

If not, then you can win the same amount in a much shorter time frame with the more aggressive approach.

Testing will tell.  Fortunately, the testing isn't really that difficult.   And comparing a flat bet to a progression is easy also.

Keep working with me.  I'll start looking for your bets as I do my method since yours will be easy to spot.

Unfortunately, I'm a little pressed for time right now, but still have time for some testing.

Regards,

George

[atlantis]

Hi George,
I do not think it at all necessary to wait for 3 triggers, there would be few bets and that is possibly being if anything a little over cautious.

However with two triggers... Yes still quite cautious - but sometimes better safe than sorry. I posted example to show how to play and to demo the difference between 1 and 2 triggers.

Ideally though I would play with the ONE trigger for my preferred 3 families of triples (only need 3 banks and not nine) and as you saw I won flatbetting - that's OK if you only want to win a few units in a session. I just wanted to show you don't have to use a prog to win; nevertheless I DO think can be improved with your ideas for a progression to produce more profit.

If the one trigger way I posted can be complimented with "the single step rising progression" or that labouchere progression for dozens you delineated then we don't limit ourselves to a 4-step and with the strike rate being as it is, theoretically, we should be on to a winner here?

Thanks,
A.