*PATTERN BREAKER*

[andrebac]

To Andre Chass:
I checked your patterns in my database with these results:
out of 30 attacks I got this:
+ n.14
-+ n.8
--+ n.4
---+ n. 3
---- n.1 (busted)
to your experience, you think that they match your performances?
I must say that I don't track ties, so maybe this could effect my results a bit...

[Ricky]

Ricky,
maybe I have not been clear enough.
The forst decision state me to bet FOR or AGAINST the 8th set, whichever lose that virtual bet.
IE. 8th set is BPB
-next set start with B, in this case, if I bet FOR, I win that bet, but if I bet AGAINST I lost my first bet, so I bet the two remaining AGAINST (-B-P)
if instead, always 8th set is BPB
- next set start with P, here if I bet AGAINST, I win that bet but if I bet FOR, I lose my first virtual bet and continue betting with FOR 8th set (so -P-B)
In brief, you take the decision to bet FOR or AGAINST the 8th set looking at the first loss, that you skipped as it's a virtual bet and continue betting it for the next one or two decisions.
A

Hi Andre,
you are absolutely right. This is more logical than the way I am playing it. So if your intention was to bet FOR the pattern and it did not match, you would keep betting FOR the pattern. So the only way you can lose is for the complete opposite the 8th pattern to result. So if your virtual bet is a loss assuming you were betting FOR then you continue betting FOR.

The same logic is applied for the AGAINST case. If you were betting AGAINST and the result was  AGAINST the 8th Pattern on your virtual bet then you would have won using the AGAINST the 8th Pattern. So now you continue betting next 2 bets AGAINST the 8th Pattern. The only way you can lose is for the next two results to match the 8th pattern even though the first result did not match. I will start using this logic as it makes more consistent sense. But either way I think over long term 100 sessions we should get same win/loss ratio.

PS. the other alternative is to go back to the 3 step with a safer progression including a positive progression option. I have summarized an idea using the Reverse Labouchere method. Hoping it holds water because it meets my idea of using positive as well as negative progressions to take advantage of winning streaks and minimize losses in losing streaks.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Ricky]

To Andre Chass:
I checked your patterns in my database with these results:
out of 30 attacks I got this:
+ n.14
-+ n.8
--+ n.4
---+ n. 3
---- n.1 (busted)
to your experience, you think that they match your performances?
I must say that I don't track ties, so maybe this could effect my results a bit...

To Andre Chass:
I checked your patterns in my database with these results:
out of 30 attacks I got this:
+ n.14
-+ n.8
--+ n.4
---+ n. 3
---- n.1 (busted)
to your experience, you think that they match your performances?
I must say that I don't track ties, so maybe this could effect my results a bit...

Firstly what does the above result mean +n.14 etc
Secondly, my experience is Tie actually impacts results so you should reset tracking when you see it. Also when you are betting and tie comes up I am not sure how to continue. I think Andre treats it as a loss and stops betting

Cheers,
Ricky

[bikemotorman]

Hey, guys, I did try the small pattern of PP BB PB BP and lost but I played with the pattern not against it, but it is much faster.

PP
BB
PB
BP

Are the above correct guys or is their more?


Stuart

[bikemotorman]

I did some more testing with the small pattern and I like it did anybody else try to test a bit on real live baccarat results, not fake RNG.

If I win on the first try I retract and play again.

PP
BB
PB
BP


Stuart

[DoctorSudoku]

I did some more testing with the small pattern and I like it did anybody else try to test a bit on real live baccarat results, not fake RNG.

If I win on the first try I retract and play again.

PP
BB
PB
BP


Stuart

Stuart,
You can come up with any way of playing it.

The simplest way is to wait for three consecutive pairs -- and then bet against the last pair.

So if you get
BB
BP
PP

Bet against PB. You get the picture.

[DoctorSudoku]

Hi Doctor,
if you liked that idea please let me know what you think of this proposition.

What do we know about PATTERN BREAKER and the winning distribution.
1. We know it wins MOST of the time. And for Andre it seems ALL of the time so far. Maybe HG territory.
2. We know it wins most of the time in step 1 and 2 but sometimes gets pushed to 3rd step and ultimately loses occasionally.

Now, this to me is not 50/50 distribution of wins/losses. This is more like 40/40/10/10 where these represent % of times won in first step vs second step vs third step vs loss.

So, how about this for a betting progression that maximizes the profit on the steps which are winning and minimizes the loss on the steps that are losing or losing altogether

I have not done the sums yet and its probably a crappy idea but thought I would throuw it out there for discussion of its merits.

1. Well what if we setup 3 Reverse Labouchere sequences
Step 1 Bet                    Step 2 Bet                       Step 3 bet
1 + 1 + 1 + 1                1 + 1 + 1 + 1                     1 + 1 + 1 + 1

2. Now we bet Step one when we get the trigger
Say BBP is the last pattern we are betting AGAINST
we bet 1 + 1 = 2 on "P"

3. If it loses we cross off the 1st and last numbers in the sequence
Resulting Sequence for Step 1 after a loss is 1 + 1
   
If it wins great. We are up 2 units. We add 2 to the end of the sequence for Step 1
Resulting Sequence for Step 2 is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 and we stop the session with a win

4. If we need to bet the 2nd Step we do not use Marty but we use the Labouchere sequence for Step 2
We bet 1 + 1 = 2 units on "P"
If that wins Great. We have won 2 units but lost 2 on the first step so we are break even. But we do the same. We add the 2 to the end of the second step sequence
Resulting Sequence for Step 2 is 1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 2

If we lose we cross off the 1st and last numbers in the sequence and go to the third step
Resulting Sequence for Step 2 after a loss is 1 + 1

5. If we need to bet the 3rd Step we do not use Marty again but we use the Labouchere sequence for Step 3
We bet 1 + 1 = 2 units on "B"
If that wins Great. We have won 2 units but lost 4 on the first and second steps so we are -2 units. But we do the same. We add the 2 to the end of the third step sequence
Resulting Sequence for Step 3 is 1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 2

If we lose we cross off the 1st and last numbers in the sequence and stop with a -6 loss
Resulting Sequence for Step 3 after a loss is 1 + 1

So assuming a win on the 1st step the three sequences are:
Step 1 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2
Step 2 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
Step 3 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

If we win on the 2nd Step the three sequences are:
Step 1 : 1 + 1
Step 2 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2
Step 3 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

If we win on the 3rd Step the three sequences are:
Step 1 : 1 + 1
Step 2 : 1 + 1
Step 3 : 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2

If we lose all three bets the three sequences are:
Step 1 : 1 + 1
Step 2 : 1 + 1
Step 3 : 1 + 1

Now on the next trigger we repeat the process betting the respective sequence as per a Reverse Labouchere bet.

No the theory behind this is that we are seeing long winning streaks. And they seem to usually come in the 1st and 2nd steps. So if this is the case then the first two sequences are going to form long growing sequences which will dictate how much we bet at each point in the sequence. If we start getting a long losing streak then we are going to be crossing off these sequences quite rapidly and we will start betting less not more during these periods.

But if we start getting long winning streaks we are going to start betting more during these periods. Now the only thing I can think of is that we get an even balance or chop between 1st and 2nd steps and therefore one sequence of bets will counter the other and we will never grow our profit.

So I would be interest to hear from anyone if this idea holds water given what we know about the success of PATTERNBREAKER and if we can tweak this idea to optimize the positive progression.

Cheers,
Ricky

Ricky,
I am not very keen on Labouchere.  Sorry -- things can easily spin out of control.

Same with the Fibonacci. I nowadays don't use it at all.

D'Alembert and its opposite, Contra D'Alembert, are little bit more palatable -- at least from my perspective.

But even then some stop loss is required, otherwise a losing streak can get you into a deep hole.

[andrebac]

Firstly what does the above result mean +n.14 etc
Secondly, my experience is Tie actually impacts results so you should reset tracking when you see it. Also when you are betting and tie comes up I am not sure how to continue. I think Andre treats it as a loss and stops betting

Cheers,
Ricky

+ means winning the first attempt
-+ means winning the second attempt, etc

[andrebac]

Hi Andre,
you are absolutely right. This is more logical than the way I am playing it. So if your intention was to bet FOR the pattern and it did not match, you would keep betting FOR the pattern. So the only way you can lose is for the complete opposite the 8th pattern to result. So if your virtual bet is a loss assuming you were betting FOR then you continue betting FOR.

The same logic is applied for the AGAINST case. If you were betting AGAINST and the result was  AGAINST the 8th Pattern on your virtual bet then you would have won using the AGAINST the 8th Pattern. So now you continue betting next 2 bets AGAINST the 8th Pattern. The only way you can lose is for the next two results to match the 8th pattern even though the first result did not match. I will start using this logic as it makes more consistent sense. But either way I think over long term 100 sessions we should get same win/loss ratio.

PS. the other alternative is to go back to the 3 step with a safer progression including a positive progression option. I have summarized an idea using the Reverse Labouchere method. Hoping it holds water because it meets my idea of using positive as well as negative progressions to take advantage of winning streaks and minimize losses in losing streaks.

Cheers,
Ricky

quote]

I think too that on the long term it doesn't change too much, anyway, with my way, we start with a virtual loss, and this decides betting FOR or AGAINST the 8th pattern.
when the first loss is on FOR, we bet the next two steps FOR.
when the first loss is on AGAINST, we bet the next two steps AGAINST.
The logic is to start with a virtual loss, so to deploy a two steps progression

[Proofreaders2000]

PS: I made a withdraw of 7k without problem. I requested the withdraw last Sunday and the money was in my bank account on Monday.

[mohitomish]

@Sentinel, May I know what happened to this system of yours, that you were winning for 11 years?

link:s://:.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-to-win-at-roulette.42235/

[Madi]

Seems to me his every system serve him for 11 yr

[sentinel3]

@Sentinel, May I know what happened to this system of yours, that you were winning for 11 years?

link:s://:.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-to-win-at-roulette.42235/

Yes what happened was PATTERN BREAKER. I only stay with the strongest systems. And pattern breaker proved to be the strongest of them all. Theres a reason I wait for 8 patterns of three. And not 4 patterns of 2 Etc. And time will teach those who lack PATIENCE that.

I tried them ALL in creating the 8x3 concept. And the 8X3 concept proved to be perfection in the LONG RUN.

FOR TWO REASONS.

One winning streaks of 30 plus in a row were possible. Two LOSING STREAKS of two in a row were seodom. The 4X2 Is all very well until you run into a nightmare string of losses. Where you lose 3 or 4 games in a row. And get that pisses off churning in your gut.

And confidence shattered.

8X3 sets a code random doesnt like norwant to deal with. Many of you for lack of patience are trying to reinvent the wheel.

They all sparkle for a while. Then when random shows its teeth. You will know why thw 8X3 within a 100 game set. Is ajd always will be THE ONE for me.

It NEVER lets me down.

[psimoes]

Look, that a rational sequence rarely happens, is a fact and documented elsewhere. And random sequences are anything but rational. OK.
Now for the sake of simplicity, where say PPP PPB PBP etc are our sets of three, numbered from 1 to 8, in a collection of 24 bac decisions rarely you will see 5 4 6 2 3 1 8 7, or 6 4 3 8 2 5 7 1, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc.

[psimoes]

I'm on the phone, so part two following up in a few.