DIVIDE & CONQUER

[ROB22]

Played some sessions today on slingshot.

7 sessions so far stop at + 5

+ 35   

Highiest was 3rd step once. I cover zero on 3rd step

I'm doing 2 x 3 step

Level 2 is used as recovery after VIRTUAL LOSS before each bet to give me that extra 4th step for 5 wins to recover. Reset to level 1 and played as normal without a virtual loss

Level 1 =  10p - 10p   30p - 30p  90p - 90p + 10p on zero

On a 3 step loss

Level 2 =  50p - 50p  £1.50 - £1.50   Â£5 - £5  + 50p on zero

Could you give an example  of how you play the three step progression

Thanks

[ZigZag]

Could you give an example  of how you play the three step progression

Thanks

Ho Ron my staking is much more agressive than JL's but i'm only using 10p chips. I'm thinking of using less agressive staking as JL recommends

1-1  3-3  9-9 + 0

Recovery after a loss

5-5  15 - 15  50 - 50 + 5 on zero

I use the highier stakes for 5 wins only and miss out the 1st step as i wait for a virtual loss

recovery example

122   232  312
         23  <------------Here is virtual loss so i start the 3 step

122   232  312
         232  3 <-------I bet here 2+3 doz

Please note this is quite agressive staking i'm doing compared to Johns. I have not had to use level 2 yet and the zero chip on the 3rd step saved me from that once.
I dont play continuous. 5 wins and i'm out

[joiner29]

after a loss on first or second line would you move up progression or go back to begining  also if progression went all the way that would be a loss of 153 units that would take a lot of recovering, still a great system

[Johnlegend]

After a loss on first or second line would you move up progression or go back to begining  also if progression went all the way that would be a loss of 153 units that would take a lot of recovering, still a great system

Zig must have a high strikerate to justify that risk. Heres how I read it. Double losses don't happen often especially on short sessions. And after a loss five consecutive wins are probable and common. Freakish streaks occur like the 22 in a row I enjoyed last week. The average is 10-14 streaks. There is no way that observing these win loss patterns and ducking in and out of sessions you can go negative.

This isn't anywhere as invincible as MV5 on dozens or columns. And its not meant to be. The turnover is so instant that you can play supreme hit and run games. Or go for longer sessions. Coming in after a loss is optimum profit making potential.


To illustrate the power of hit and run with a method like this, over the 840 games ive tested and played for real. Several 40plus win streaks would have been achieved. While playing continuosly only two winning streaks longer than 25 have been recorded. Its a winning method. If played for single or double game sessions a winning streak over 50 could be strung together quite easily. And with a recovery very realistic over short term play. EVERYONE SHOULD BE ON THIS. But there you go, as I keep saying its all on here now. MV5 PB and D & C, are all winners.

[XXVV]

Hello Scooby

I  think I was conquered before I divided and as 'they' say you need to walk before you can learn to run.

So I launched into Wiesbaden 24 March 2009

This was a useful challenge and as for once the first test did not go absurdly well, so I actually view this as a good omen. However could you please check my figures here so that I can advocate with genuine knowledge.

Here are the sequence of dozens ( please note the two zeroes).

3.2.2.3.3.3.1.3.1.2.3.2.0.2.0.1.2.2.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.2.3

I played this out following JL recommended staking on three levels.

L1  2.6    total 16
L2  4.12  total 32
L3 10.30 total 80

I played 7 games in the session in order to close with a profit, and I stayed on level 2 staking an extra game after the zero experience in order to recover a little faster.

In my personal play I ALWAYS cover zero and actually would ensure that it is a happy event when zero shows, but a carefully set out staking schedule is necessary to cover the costs as the progression steps. I view it as a tax but the way I stake it this is actually a tax refund through creative accounting.

However in these figures I have kept zero uncovered for simplicity.

1.3.2     2.2.3     3.3.3
1.3.1*   2.2.1*
1.2*3    2.2.2*
1.3*2
1.2*1
1.2.3*

Results

+2
+2
-12  ( ie -16 -8+12)
+4
+2
+2
+2

0/a +2 points


Play sequence was..

LW
W
LLLW  ( includes the two zero appearances as losses)
LW
W
W
LW

Is this correct please, or any suggestions how this could be modified/improved.

This is a method I like and will utilise. Congratulations on its development.
No doubt someone soon will ask about the application to columns simultaneously and someone will probably reply that the distribution of column results is less evenly distributed than dozen data.

[XXVV]

Couldn't resist it. I played 3 more sessions, all from 7 to 10 games. Two of these new sessions were played using column data reflecting the same numbers played for dozens.

Using the recommended staking sequence two sessions ended at +2, with one at +8 and one at +18.

So overall 150 spins and + 30 points and RB at say 50.

No problem. Lovely method.

Three of the four sessions did encounter step 2 action but no real drama.

Now will run a series of 100 spins continuous sessions just out of interest, although I know the hit and run at, as recommended, 5 games is probably best ( when available - not on my 3 sessions as challenge occured on 4th games).

Cheers X

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV,

Well, I reviewed your post and it looks ok to me. One note: If the Zero comes in the non-betting position (1st position) after you already have started your  columns, just skip that and wait for the next new group of three.

I'm happy to hear that you are testing this approach. Johnlegend used it with real money during his vacation and had nothing but good things to say about it.

If you get a Zero and it causes a loss, you're only down 8 units. With higher bet levels you can recoop that quickly and get back to your original lower level.

I want to know how you do with this method  using real money.

Scooby Doo

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV<

Ok, here are the dozens you wanted me to look at:

131--------232--------322
132--------201--------333
121--------222
123

In the 1st column you won on the 2nd,1st,2nd

In the 2nd column you won on the 2nd, 1st (go against the three in the 1st group, not Zero)

In the 3rd column you won on the 1st

There was one Zero that came as a 1st number so you would have skipped it and gone to the next number....so for that small session your profit would have been +6

Scooby Doo

[XXVV]

Thanks Scooby Doo

Here is some thinking aloud. Please do not consider this negative - it is just considering options when faced with challenges...

I will test with the real money from next week ( and keep the initial unit value small) but in the meantime have amused myself with some live internet feed (mmm), only 40 spins or so and soon encountered a challenging sequence from Latvia on the sixth game and the dozens sequence went

LL
LL
LL this last one caused by a zero
W

Mmmm ok if zero cover is taken and so it hits on 6th attempt but the progression would be growing. Shows how important zero cover is. On the sequence I monitored zero spun up three times in 27 spins.

The column action went smoothly enough with seven easy winning games, and we dodged all the bullets.

A hit and run on say three games of each might be all thats needed as a suitable session, then rotate to another method or just, accumulate, step by step.

On longer sessions I wonder if its possible to develop a flat stake bet by going to another level and forming a secondary bet, leaving the usual bets as virtual bets. You would have to develop a suitable trigger.

Something like Iceman1313 is applying in his method although he is working within a cyclic range of extremes (in moving up and down within those parameters). I wonder if lateral stepping ( another dimension) like this though in this case would only be delaying the inevitable correction. Are we exposed to the corrective balancing force so quickly here?  I think so and that is why I think we have to be prepared to take a small profit then break. If unlucky enough to encounter a loss really quickly well time will out and by patiently re-building in short steps then the damage can be repaired, as long as its not too big a loss.

Thats what I mean by flat staking and/ or taking small wins and then retiring. Easier to repair that damage.

The progressions do make me nervous in this style of play because in practical terms in my view it is holding back the unit value. If it were possible to apply a flat stake, even if obviously spaced at greater distance ( the trade off) then the unit value could be high, as long as the bet was demonstrated to be reliable.

To encounter the 6 or 7 step bet so early in testing does concern me. So I had better get a decent volume of my own test samples completed.  I dont doubt the convincing data that JL has assembled.

Key is to determine what is the best staking sequence here, and the risk exposure of the progression, and the extent of overlap to haul back the net loss ( ie say 2 or 3 spins set at a higher value) if you do go to progression whether two or three step.

Lastly the idea of letting the streaks run after a (virtual) loss may be a method in itself. Wait for the double loss as a trigger then after a virtual win, proceed step by step but dont play a two level recovery when the streak ends. This may be an opportunity for a short parlay.

In theory the idea of aggressive staking on the winning streaks is fine and scaling down the staking on losing runs is ideal. Is there a way this could be engineered. Even a simple 1-2-3 parlay on a winning streak would be effective. Then close the session.

[broadsword_uk]

some more test results for anyone to make sense of - real wheel (supercasino roulette express air driven):

test 1.  WWWWWWWWLWWWWW
test 2.  WWLWWWLWLWLWLW

I stress that these are actual individual spin results (as opposed to winning coups).  If they were martingales you could see that all coups of 3 have won.  However, I really don't like martingales particularly where the odds here are 4/6 (decimal 1. 5) to win and things can get out of hand if it all goes horribly wrong.  I don't have the stomach for it.

I have a computer programme called the staking machine which I bought a couple of years back - mainly designed for horse racing.  It includes a staking plan called the Retirement Staking Plan and although its complicated to manually calculate, it apparently gives a  small profit on a 50% strike rate paid at even money.  If you can get even a minor edge over the house during your period of play,  then staking plans like this are pretty steady (but not spectacular).  This means that you can bet bigger stakes because you don't have to worry so much about the risk/reward ratio and  progressions going horribly wrong.  As a rule of thumb, based on past experience of the Retirement Staking Plan, I bet 5 units on bet 1 and 7 units on bet 2.  (10 and 14 as we are using 2 columns each time).  If the bet wins on the first spin you win 5 units.  If it wins on the second spin then you lose -3.  If both spins lose, you lose 10+14=24.  I need to give this staking idea more testing in this environment but might appeal to those of you that like steady small growth even though sometimes it seems 1 step forward and 2 backward.  I would be interested to hear how people go on with it if you give it a go if you are worried about martingales.

Ian

[XXVV]

Scooby Doo. Thanks for clearing up the zero positioning. I have wrongly applied it on my working so will re-do.

I am sure this method is excellent and the usage is best in short bursts.

I believe John has definitively stated the way to approach this and Pattern 4 and probably Pattern Breaker, in his latest post on Pattern 4 on page 14.

This is an excellent summary and summarises the hit and run, guerilla attck philosophy that can make us consistent winners when we re-think and re-approach our live play. This may be all we need although we still need to be able to handle adverse situations and never get into too deep a hole.

Nevertheless, some interesting questions will always arise and I am keen to see if a flat staking approach could ever be applied to these techniques, which might then avoid the aforesaid 'hole'. However it may require a longer session time and a virtual and then secondary bet application every 20 spins or so. Will see. Thanks for all your wonderful work Scooby and JLegend.

[XXVV]

Thanks for that zero position clarification. It is most important.

I applied it to the data from last night and the re-alignment  in the matrix defused the potentially seven step play. In fact I applied it also to a situation from some RNG data that I had at hand and it again cut through what would have been two losses in a row to just a oncer with then a 22 run of wins after.

Clearly a lot more testing is going to be done but I feel a lot happier with that clarification as you outlined SD. Onward and upward.

[XXVV]

Testing on both dozs and cols play is showing ongoing good and consistent results now with that zero tuning. One important suggestion I would make for the staking however is to run the progression in threes as the number of times the hit is made on the third attempt makes this sound and reduces the risk of a two losing bets in succession which would have occurred had the progression been in steps of two, and also avoids a ( minor) setback loss, a small hole that has to be repaired, or worse, a double.

Using this method, ie 2 stages of three step progression, I will be able to give results on 100 spin samples for both dozs and cols. We will see the return oscillate within a range on expected ratio outcomes and can compare average length of runs which of course already appear to co-relate to the data produced by JL.

Then we can identify the ideal duration for maximum effectiveness on hit and run play, and we can also examine the possibility of extending out a bet within a bet strategy that works with the cyclic swing of expectation ratios, and may lead to the possibility of a flat bet that can be triggered ( say) by a correction, and takes advantage of the apparent regular flow behind a correction - or just how regular are these sequences?  We shall see.

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV.

I'm definately NOT in favor of a 3-step bet progression because to me, it gets out of hand that way. I do have a couple of thoughts though.

I have not tested this idea but it makes sense to me. Lets say you lost the first two bets. You will wait for a different starting dozen....

If you had this:

132
132<---Two losses

Then wait for this 2?? or this 3??

The reason I am thinking this way is because I don't think random will make you lose two bets on three different columns in a row.

If by chance random has your number and you lose two bets a second time, wait again for a different dozen group.

Lets say you lost in column #2...so wait for next different column. Lets say it was column #1 and you lost two times again. Now wait for the last different dozen..... column #3...get the idea?

Like I said I haven't tested it yet but it seems logical to me.

Scooby Doo

[XXVV]

Thanks Scooby Doo. I take your point and of course agree. I hate progressions!

Nevertheless I have some good news.

Still a small mountain of tests to do but I am willing to put in the effort, because like P/B this method has real exciting merit and the key is getting to know its unique characteristics as JohnL has already wisely stated.

I have run now a lot of 100 spin tests based on live one session data.

Without exception, by running to a third step say as 1,3,9, ie a risk of 26 points, I have had an excellent flow of results until you reach about the 90th spin and of course the corrective forces are kicking in. ( Of course they could kick in earlier but statistically time will tell when we have a suitable significant statistical sample).

The way I see it is as a battle between Ecart ( Deviation -which we seek) and Balance ( Equilibrium- which in this case we dont want ). We want to maximise random deviation ( even that has its limits though).

I am monitoring Dozen results and Column results. They are performing equally well, especially if we pause after say 12 wins, and take a profit of +12 points usually by spin 45 or so.

Or you could play safer and take profit at say +5 points.

By going to the three steps I am avoiding the hiccup caused by an earlier need to change gear and on the 2,6 + 4,12  I was often ending with -12 points very early on.

So that is one way of looking at it - a smooth profit of a series of +12 point wins or say +5 point wins.

I am sure your suggestion is an excellent idea also and please test. However in what I am proposing I am simply prepared to write off -26 in the event the 1,3,9 does not work and so far the inevitable failures have come late in the cycle usually well after we would have taken our profit and gone home with the bacon ( or Lanson).

But I have better news.

Have noticed that after a LLW situation or worse a LLL, and then allowing for one successful winning bet to follow as a trigger, we can achieve three clear successive winning bets to follow. These can be parlayed, say1,2,3 and a +6 point profit can result on this bet within a bet possibly played at higher unit value.

Usually in a cycle of 100 spins at least 2 sets of these 1,2,3 bets are signalled. If there was a disaster and the corrective stuff happened early ( and we were playing that only virtually or at small value units) then we could step in and when my tests have had a loss at say tghe 90th spin, we then have 3 sets of 1,2,3 parlay to play with. Even better.

Further, if you are really anti- progressions, I have noticed with this technique and applying the 3 step progression as a sort of virtual play, we can have streaks of winning bets ( such as that which I described above of course - but also more common) so that a run of +5 in a cluster or more can be obtained as long as you quit before the inevitable corrections take place and of course in this they are -2 for every +1 gain.  I have seen some at +10 points flat.

The trick though may be to pause once the bet is lost and then go virtual until the (virtual) bet is won, and then climb back on.

For example

W
W
W
LLW  after this virtual win re-start
W
W
W
LW
W
W
W    +5 and take profit - flat

There may be other ideas for primary higher value flat bets but I will deal with them in the 'workshop', subject to a lot of testing, and not clog your own thread.

This is a great method - thanks for your development on this.