*PATTERN BREAKER*

[ludo8400]

What's the site name?

@ André

:.casino777.be

Ludo8400

[DoctorSudoku]

If the 1st bet hovers around 45-50%, then it's a losing bet at best breakeven. Instead you should bet only on the 2nd bet.

Depending on PB or it's variant the win is evenly distributed between the 1st/2nd bet or 2nd/3rd bet in the tests that I conducted. That's why I recommend 0/1/1 or 1/1 - there's no statistics justification for a 100% hike in the 2nd bet.

I had tested the 1 1 as one of several alternate possible progressions (including the 1 2 and the 0 1 2) when I was thinking of moving away from the 1 2 2 progression that I had employed since September, 2015, September, 2015.

When I compared the effects of the 1 1 and the 0 1 2 on my bank roll versus that of the 1 2, there was a clear-cut winner:

the 1 2 progression consistently led to greater increases in my bank roll  -- the only relative (but tolerable) downside was that I had to risk 1 extra unit on the second bet (as compared to the 1 1 progression).

So I have good reason to use the 1 2 progression. As long as the empirical effects of using this progression on my bank roll remain positive, I will keep using it.

[DoctorSudoku]

Hi doctor

Let me explain this, first of all I have found a pattern that consists of 6 elements ( in fact these 6 elements are the outcome from 6 different betting systems that are being verified for every 6 spins Per rotation )

I have verified the entire pattern against a relative huge number of spins and identified the losing combination of elements that have lost most of the time (to give an idea consider BBB Or RRR etc )

These combinations have been filtered out as I am not going to risk even one dollar when I encounter them.

Lastly I have made an assessment on the prodfitabilty of the whole pattern and discovered that I am still ahead even if I would have only played the first element of the pattern then stopped and waited for the appearance of the next pattern

Here are some figures from testing

Number of spins :1500
Hit at the first element :782
Miss at the first element: 546

That netweighs a profit of 237 units within these 1500 spins


Got it ?

Yes, I understand it.

Test it a bit more and see how it continues to fare.

[Ricky]

Ricky,

This is truly a gem of a post !

I am definitely going to paper test this one -- thanks for sharing this wonderful idea with us.

Hi Doctor,
how are you going with this 2 step progression idea? Actually I like to call it a 3 step 0-1-2. For me it has made no difference to my strike rate so far. I have had one loss but I have had many wins with it. So there is no negative side effect so far. But it is proving to me to have positive effects mainly to my piece of mind that I am seeing the result to the last step. As mentioned in the rules I laid down you will see some games that could have won for you on the first step but they have usually been also winning on the 2nd step. I have played 13 games this way with a 12-1 win rate. Only 1 went to the third step and lost. It was and AGAINST bet so I would have lost anyway just playing the AGAINST. All 12 wins came on the 1st Step of the 1-2 and 5 were bet FOR the pattern based on the 1st non bet step of the 3 step progression 0-1-2. So In this small sample it is showing me that if the first non bet step was matching the start of the 8th Pattern then the next step was also matching the 8th Pattern most times. By betting with it I am winning these bets.

Time will tell when I have done several hundred sessions whether this phenomenon holds up or was just luck. But if it does hold up with a good strike rate as the 1-2-4 then would this not be an ultimate safe method with only 3 units at risk.
I started with 5 euro for 10 games. I am now betting 10 euro for the next 10 games and have 5 more to go. If successful at getting there without a loss I will increase to 20 euro base bet. With only 3 units at risk I am feeling comfortable doing this for the bankroll I currently have.

I will post an updated spreadsheet showing my results once I complete my first 100 games. I have 60 to go.
Cheers,
Ricky

[bikemotorman]

OBSERVE AT LEAST 5 HANDS BEFORE STARTING

PLAY TREND GO WITH THE FLOW

CHOPPY PLAY OPP LAST

PAIRS TWO’S PLAY OPP ONE BEFORE LAST

ON A RUN PLAY PREVIOUS RESULT

[DoctorSudoku]

Hi Doctor,

how are you going with this 2 step progression idea? Actually I like to call it a 3 step 0-1-2. For me it has made no difference to my strike rate so far. I have had one loss but I have had many wins with it. So there is no negative side effect so far. But it is proving to me to have positive effects mainly to my piece of mind that I am seeing the result to the last step. As mentioned in the rules I laid down you will see some games that could have won for you on the first step but they have usually been also winning on the 2nd step. I have played 13 games this way with a 12-1 win rate. Only 1 went to the third step and lost. It was and AGAINST bet so I would have lost anyway just playing the AGAINST. All 12 wins came on the 1st Step of the 1-2 and 5 were bet FOR the pattern based on the 1st non bet step of the 3 step progression 0-1-2.

So In this small sample it is showing me that if the first non bet step was matching the start of the 8th Pattern then the next step was also matching the 8th Pattern most times. By betting with it I am winning these bets.

Time will tell when I have done several hundred sessions whether this phenomenon holds up or was just luck. But if it does hold up with a good strike rate as the 1-2-4 then would this not be an ultimate safe method with only 3 units at risk.

I started with 5 euro for 10 games. I am now betting 10 euro for the next 10 games and have 5 more to go. If successful at getting there without a loss I will increase to 20 euro base bet. With only 3 units at risk I am feeling comfortable doing this for the bankroll I currently have.

I will post an updated spreadsheet showing my results once I complete my first 100 games. I have 60 to go.

Cheers,
Ricky

Hi Ricky,
I am still doing well with the 1 2 progression.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I found the  1 2 progression to result in more profits compared to the 1 1 and the 0 1 2.

From what I have seen so far, more than 80% of my wins come from the first two spins -- that is higher than the number of wins that I would get from betting on the second and third spins (if I did bet on them).

So, for me, the 1 2 is my go-to progression for the time being.

If the results start going negative, then of course I will go back to the drawing board and make adjustments (I am always open to tinkering, if results make it imperative for me to do so).   

[psimoes]

Pattern Breaker says to wait until seven different small patterns have hit after which you then bet against the eighth small pattern to appear, which means one of the small patterns will repeat if you win, right?

When tracking, you usually scratch off new patterns as they appear, and ignore, or skip, the patterns that have already hit.
But the thing is, the moment any pattern repeats will mean the big pattern gets already broken.

Quick example:

RRR - 1st pattern
RRB - 2nd
BRR - 3rd
BRB - 4th
BBR - 5th
BRR - a repeat of the 3rd pattern
BBB - "6th"
RBR - "7th" - Here you´d think you´re ready to bet against the remaining pattern, which ought to be RBB, but in reality you´ve already reached a broken big pattern composed of seven unique small patterns and a repeat.
If RBB hits against you, you have still faced a broken pattern composed of seven small patterns and a repeat. The Logic is still there, but you lost.

For Pattern Breaker to apparently succeed, you´d have to track for an event where seven small patterns hit in a row, without any repeats, but then for how many hundreds of spins you´d have to wait for that to happen?

Better use shorter patterns:

RR
RB
BB
BR

Find three unique short patterns instead, and bet against a fourth.

You coud even bet right away against a bigger pattern forming...

[Roulettebeater]

#AttackPattern

[psimoes]

From link:://:.spielbank-wiesbaden.de/index.php?id=107&view=day&table=Tisch%202&day=2018-03-15

HL
LH
LL  - Bet against HH
LL - WIN - WIN

[Roulettebeater]

I have finally found the HG after hard efforts .... what's now?
how should i keep it secret? how can i hide it from casino? how much money should i invest ?


what should i do with the profits?  should  i practice on steve's MSP ?

.... a lot of questions without answers

[Ricky]

Pattern Breaker says to wait until seven different small patterns have hit after which you then bet against the eighth small pattern to appear, which means one of the small patterns will repeat if you win, right?

When tracking, you usually scratch off new patterns as they appear, and ignore, or skip, the patterns that have already hit.
But the thing is, the moment any pattern repeats will mean the big pattern gets already broken.

Quick example:

RRR - 1st pattern
RRB - 2nd
BRR - 3rd
BRB - 4th
BBR - 5th
BRR - a repeat of the 3rd pattern
BBB - "6th"
RBR - "7th" - Here you´d think you´re ready to bet against the remaining pattern, which ought to be RBB, but in reality you´ve already reached a broken big pattern composed of seven unique small patterns and a repeat.
If RBB hits against you, you have still faced a broken pattern composed of seven small patterns and a repeat. The Logic is still there, but you lost.

For Pattern Breaker to apparently succeed, you´d have to track for an event where seven small patterns hit in a row, without any repeats, but then for how many hundreds of spins you´d have to wait for that to happen?

Better use shorter patterns:

RR
RB
BB
BR

Find three unique short patterns instead, and bet against a fourth.

You coud even bet right away against a bigger pattern forming...

Hi psimoes,
this theory sounds logical and is just another way to skin this same cat. It allows you to bet a 2 step on the breaking of the pattern. Sometime you'll win, sometimes you'll lose. The trick is to identify how rare this happens. If it is rare you are in a winning position but with only four possibilities of being right or wrong I think long term this may not be enough to overcome random. With only 2 step and ALWAYS betting against the pattern you allow random to get lucky.
I am testing the idea that even with a sequence of 3 you can still bet 2 step but vary you choice of betting FOR or AGAINST the pattern of the last two based on the result of the first in the sequence. If the result is a start of the 8th pattern forming then you continue betting FOR the 8th pattern to complete. If the first result does not match the start of the 8th pattern then you continue betting against the remaining 2 steps forming the rest of the 8th pattern. This will keep random guessing which way you are going to bet. It may cause more of a rare event than just ALWAYS betting against the last pattern forming.

I am testing this out with good results so far comparable to the 1-2-4 step win/loss ratios. But more testing is required.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Apolloo]

Interesting Ricky,
So the first step would be our trigger to bet FOR or AGAINST.
ill do some tests.. Get back to you after 20 games.

25 25 21 
27 5 9
1 34 36
25 35 1
24 33 8
23 3 14
17 26 12
16 16 30
28 31 26
4 4 17       P8 = HLH
(15) 9 2    (BET AGAINST)  win 1st bet- step 2

[psimoes]

Hi psimoes,
this theory sounds logical and is just another way to skin this same cat. It allows you to bet a 2 step on the breaking of the pattern. Sometime you'll win, sometimes you'll lose. The trick is to identify how rare this happens. If it is rare you are in a winning position but with only four possibilities of being right or wrong I think long term this may not be enough to overcome random. With only 2 step and ALWAYS betting against the pattern you allow random to get lucky.
I am testing the idea that even with a sequence of 3 you can still bet 2 step but vary you choice of betting FOR or AGAINST the pattern of the last two based on the result of the first in the sequence. If the result is a start of the 8th pattern forming then you continue betting FOR the 8th pattern to complete. If the first result does not match the start of the 8th pattern then you continue betting against the remaining 2 steps forming the rest of the 8th pattern. This will keep random guessing which way you are going to bet. It may cause more of a rare event than just ALWAYS betting against the last pattern forming.

I am testing this out with good results so far comparable to the 1-2-4 step win/loss ratios. But more testing is required.

Cheers,
Ricky

I´m not saying it´s infalibe; nothing in roulette is. It just follows the Pattern Breaker logic. Regarding For / Against, it´s as good as Just For or as Just Against; variance won´t sleep on duty.
If you still search for a Logical way to bet, you might consider something like the following:

In a "normal" situation when the outcome can be:

BB
BR
RR - You´d bet against the remaining RB
BB - WIN - In this case the 1st was a repeat.

Now, in some other situation when the outcome could be:

RB
RR
RB - Here there is another repeat, so why not betting FOR, this time, and you´d in fact be betting AGAINST the overall pattern to form.
The remaining small pattern should either be BB or BR.
B will then be a sure bet, and if you win, the game has ended. If you lose, the next bet is ambiguous, so you´d better wait for another opportunity.














BB
RB
RB - A repeat. Betting For the big pattern to sort of complete in the next two spins, you´ll actually be betting AGAINST, as the pattern will still be broken. Which small pattern would it be?

[jsintl]

guys,

have you tested this method flatbetting?

i have found a strong pattern but a bit more complex than this and it's showed good result flatbetting.

Can you clarify the strong pattern that you mentioned?

Thanks

[Roulettebeater]

i have found a strong pattern but a bit more complex than this and it's showed good result flatbetting.

check my new thread, there i wrote some useful information and test's results