Profit Trickler

[mogul397]

Mogul,
The layouts for odd/even and high/low are somewhat different for the American wheel as compared to the Euro wheel (red/black are the same -- they alternate with one another), so your results might be somewhat different from what our UK friends are getting.

Just keep that in mind as you do your testing.

Good Dr.

Yes, I have noticed differences in EC's but never had a thought of why.

[bleep24]

Hi Mogul,
Just to clarify in your matrix    reply 160  is that 2 zeroes I see in there?

Coffee does not stop me getting to sleep.  In fact nothing does.  I could go to sleep on a washing line.

Following a trend does not appeal to me:  R/B  Dozens whatever.  Never looked at that way of playing.  Yes I have sometimes re-set my progression stakes but it can mean longer to get back in front so I am not a great fan.

I will re-work your matrix when I know about those zeroes.   I can say that you are not playing my way.  Think it must be Atlantis`s way.

Brian

[atlantis]

Here's the same data, presumably done right.

Tell me.

Odd/even


EOEOE
EEEEO   S
0OEOE    Bet 1L 2L 3W total is 0 same
EOOOO    Bet  3L 4W   total is +1 same
OEOOE   Bet 1L 2L 3W    total is +1 same
EEEEE   Bet 1L 2W   total is +2  same
OOO0O   Bet 1L 2L 3L  total is -4   same
EEOEE    Bet 4L 5L 6W total is -7  same
EOOOO   Bet 5W   total is -2   same
EOOEO   Bet 4W   total is +2  opp
EOOEE   Bet 1W   total is +3  same
OEEEO   Bet 1L 2L 3L  total is -3   same
EEEEO   Bet 4L 5L 6L  total is -18 same
EEEEO   Bet 7W`   total is -11 opp
EEEEE   Bet 6L 7L 8L  total is -32

Hi Mogul,

I haven't yet tried the ODD/EVEN at all.
Thought you'd like to see your results without the zeroes recorded like I do... although they both occurred during betting

EOEOE
EEEEO                                              same
OEOEE    Bet 1L(0); 2w            +1*    same
OOOOO    Bet  1L 2w               +2*    same
EOOEE    Bet 1L 2w                 +3*    same
EEEEO    Bet 1L 2w                 +4*   same
OOOEE   Bet 1L 2L 3L(0)          -2     same
OEEEO    Bet 4w                      +2     same
OOOEO   Bet 3w                      +5*      same  ===== STOPPED HERE
OEOEO   Bet 1w                      +6*       opp
OEEOE   Bet 1L 2L 3w             +6*     same
EEOEE   Bet 1L 2w                  +7*     same
EEOEE   Bet 1w                       +8*     opp
EEOEE   Bet 1L 2L 3L              +2      opp   
EEE        Bet 4L 5L 6w              -1 

next bet = 5u


See how it makes a difference?!
However, I would have stopped at the +5 earlier 

A,   

[bleep24]

Zeroes are not relevant if you are not betting on that particular spin.  However, if you are betting then it is a loss and progression should move up to take account of it.  Where a zero occurs in the matrix you can just wait for next spin and substitute that result so that you can keep on looking for a qualifier.   Really it does not matter because we are at 50/50 so you could just take a guess.  That is as good as any and will work out anyway later.


Bleep

[atlantis]

Zeroes are not relevant if you are not betting on that particular spin.  However, if you are betting then it is a loss and progression should move up to take account of it.  Where a zero occurs in the matrix you can just wait for next spin and substitute that result so that you can keep on looking for a qualifier.   Really it does not matter because we are at 50/50 so you could just take a guess.  That is as good as any and will work out anyway later.


Bleep

Yes. Brian is right. That's what I did with mogul's results. (Even though I would have got half-stake returns on the 2 that happened)

btw, mogul. I see I made a small mistake in my previous post on Line 4 it should be w1 and not L1; w2 but it does not affect the overall result at all.

A.

[mogul397]

Atlantis,

I see what you are saying.  But are you saying you have no zeros?

Either way, shifting every spin over one or two will change the results.
"Woulda, coulda, shoulda".

I'm starting to think that bleep had the best idea suggesting the
NLE route, where we actually bet against 3 in a row or something.

And it wasn't the frequency of zeros that killed it. It was the continued
losing.

[nottophammer]

Okay flatbet when 2 same, bet for change, 27 bets +3 it's what the law always says, flatbet

[RouletteGhost]

Wonder how Fibonacci would fair on this

[mogul397]

Possibly well, RG.

Nice work notto.

[RouletteGhost]

Last time I used Fibonacci was on baccarat

[DoctorSudoku]

Okay flatbet when 2 same, bet for change, 27 bets +3 it's what the law always says, flatbet

The law says flat bet -- what law is that?

I thought people were using the +1/-1 d'Alembert progression for this method.

[mogul397]

The person. "thelaw".

You can either "lay down the law".....
or "lay down "thelaw"."

[mogul397]

Okay flatbet when 2 same, bet for change, 27 bets +3 it's what the law always says, flatbet

This thing has two places where there is a long string. Counted as
losses. They are not valid triggers for 4-5-6 in a row.....

[bleep24]

Hi Notto,

Yes there are 2 long strings.   Perhaps bet after 2 the same for a change.  If not win bet after 3 same for a change.  If lost no more betting on that column until a new qualifier appears.

I remember reading in another thread with a different system but using a matrix: the advice was as above.

Most of the problem is using an EC.   It`s a 50/50 bet so long strings are inevitable.

I prefer a six wide matrix and using 2 different EC`s alternating.     We could of course just look for 1 bet per row and that would partly overcome the problem.  Or only bet when it is 2 same (for same again or different)
Bleep

[nottophammer]

The law says flat bet -- what law is that?

Forum member called The Law