DIVIDE & CONQUER

[broadsword_uk]

I just know that XXVV loves to crunch those stats! ;-)

Take a look at these from this morning live play - around 75 spins.

WWWWWLWLLLWWWWLWLLLLWWWWWLLWLWWWLW

I recorded these into The staking machine.  Strike rate 61. 7%.  Edge over random: -7. 36%. 

hxxp: screencast. com/t/Fftq89KQW4bL (3 step martingale)

hxxp: screencast. com/t/ereGWX0e (Level stakes)

Over the years I have come to believe that if something doesn't pay at level stakes then staking plans compound the issue into a negative edge and eventually we are in the hole.   Not one of the 20 different staking plans I ran these results through gave a profit on this set of results. 

I am happy to crunch any set of results for you if you think it has an edge.  We all wanna beat this game!

respect
Ian

[Johnlegend]

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

Hi Scooby you are absolutely right. Well Double losses are far more likely to occur on the same dozen than across three different dozens. It would be EXTREMELY rare for this to occur. So rare it would be of little significance and impact on your BANKROLL.

Ive now played 1,200 games in total. And won 1,118 of them. Double losses stand at 7. treble losses NONE. Longest winning streak remains *26* Common winning streaks are between 10--15.

[XXVV]

Yup my results are similar to JL as published.

My column results are actually slightly better than to my dozens results.

Sure, if you progress far enough, ie on the sixth play in worst case scenario you can move on. I had a few that went to fourth, fifth and one at sixth stage.

I do not need to add much more than to add that my best quota of results have come from waiting for a LLW or worse to appear then, as stated, climb on after a first win after the cluster has played out to a conclusion virtually. This can be an aggressive 3 bet, parlay or climbing 1-2-3, or 2-3-5. The strike rate for this seems to say to me, hit me!

In 1000 spins, ie 10 sessions, I had 25 signals to play this, and as a select primary bet, only one tiny slip on the first step which was recovered next spin, so really 25 series of three bets that won an aggressive  attack with use of the 1-3-9 series.

Often these 3 bets were first spin wins, but not always unfortunately so cannot recommend simple flat betting on this exclusively, although it would show profit.

Another excellent result came from taking profit after just 5 wins, and for some reason this worked especially well with the columns and achieved 100% success at +5 points per session. Dozens had one slip on the fourth session with an early appearance of double loss and this hit on the fourth attempt so I wrote off the loss rather than chase ( maybe a mistake).

The debate as to whether to go 3 sets of 2 or 2 sets of 3 is probably academic for me as I would rather cut and run after three steps ( again maybe my error).

I did notice in further testing ( of course) losses, ie double losses, can appear at ANY stage, but generally later it seems, so to get in and out is still the best advice, despite the occasional real world setback.

Thanks for this work Scooby Doo.

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV,

I did a little testing with my tweak from an earlier post and found that by shifting to a different dozen after two losses (11-33) seems to help. I had the following

11-33<---Lose
99-27 27 Win

And:

11-33<--Lose
99-27 27<--Lose
81 81<--Win

This being said, a different progression is definately in order. This is the next phase that needs to be worked on by all.

Scooby Doo

[XXVV]

Here is a study done today on Wiesbaden live.

On the basis of this I have modified a working rule and extended the progression 1-3-9-27

It is a bit academic because I dont think I would play this live as I believe there are better bets but It does illustrate the important principle that there are a number of games that hit on the 3rd attempt, and also ( a slightly less number) that hit on the 4th attempt. There are also others.

I take the somewhat jaundiced view that once you start on a progression you cant stop unless you dance or swing. I think you know what I mean.

Also (and this is the last of my scepticism) that there are rogue waves out there and one day one will get you if you choose to take the risk of paddling in the ocean of progressions.

Now of course its not black and white and you can take a loss, a partial loss, or stop the progression then gradually step it down and there are some wonderful books on the subject of digging out of holes ( Martin Blakey ), or shift sideways and so on. Its all based on your universe and what you see and experience.

Its just I would rather do it another way live - by parlay or flat bets subject to key triggers.

Yes I have encountered a game that took the 7th attempt to win, and I have had a loss game ( went to four) on the very first game.

However, as we are playing the technique only occasionally, and not in a parallel universe ( a version of hell) peopled only by casinos and casino staff and customers who play continuously 24 hours a day- Yes it can be imagined ( Its Vegas) - there is a good chance we will miss the worst of these events.

I should also add that my tests on this method show results that seem to be positively skewed - there are a lot of plus signs and not many minuses.

That is the reason I am modifying and adding to the stop progression to go to a fourth game. I will just try to dodge the 80 unit bullet by getting in and out as quickly as possible.

By extending the progression I was able to demonstrate on the dozens results a +25 point result rather than a -16 point result as there were two such testing events in the 100 spins.

Have a look at this :

Playing flat, ie +1 for any win and -2 for any loss and playing out all the attempts

Dozens            Columns

-21                       -3

By playing each game but stopping at a loss and then re-starting at an eventual win

-14                        0

Play for two games only after the trigger of a loss  (LLW) or worse

+14                       +6

Note the difference in performance here playing if necessary a 1-3-9 progression ( although this will be very rare)

*when playing these out and playing this way you just grind on for two games, for example

LLW

W   +1
LW  +1  by going 1-3 step

or LLW  +1 by going 1-3-9

What is significant here though is that this trigger seems to have the effect of offering a short sheltered cushion of opportunity.

Here is another trigger....

Wait for 2 losing games ( one of them must be LLW or worse) played through and then start immediately after ( no wait - it would be most unusual to have a tough sequence to follow). For example....

LW
LLLW

W
W
LW

or it might be

LW
W
W      both  are winners.

However lets add some spice...

2-3-5 progression ( ie +10 point result)

Play every step out with its own 1-3-9 progression if necessary but dont  go any further.

In these 100 spins..

Dozens

had 3 x this opportunity

Column

had 1 x that opportunity


Lastly a simple approach - just play the first three games in any session!

View it as a winning streak. Play it 2-3-5. Progress every game where necessary on 1-3-9

Dozens

Game 1  hit on 1
Game 2  hit on 3
Game 3  hit on 1     +10 points

Columns

Game 1  hit on 2
Game 2  hit on 1
Game 3  hit on 2      +10 points.


15 spins-20 spins     +20 points  nice.

Of tests so far on 20 sessions I have only had one that gave trouble within 3 spins and that was dozens. The columns have all gone smoothly actually for the first five games in every session.

If you dont want to parlay those trigger opportunities you could just flat bet them, and gradually, incrementally build your unit totals up and gradually compound your unit value.

So it is all incremental short cycle, small edge opportunities taken.

On spin 100 the column game encountered the only 5 step progression.

So lets shift those goal posts again.....!

[XXVV]

I just know that XXVV loves to crunch those stats! ;-)

Take a look at these from this morning live play - around 75 spins.

WWWWWLWLLLWWWWLWLLLLWWWWWLLWLWWWLW

I recorded these into The staking machine.  Strike rate 61. 7%.  Edge over random: -7. 36%.  

hxxp: screencast. com/t/Fftq89KQW4bL (3 step martingale)

Hello B/UK

Sorry I missed your post earlier. Must have been too busy crunching the stats. I don't think anyone else has commented so I will state the obvious. Please correct me if I misunderstand however. You may need to re-format your outcomes.

The whole point of what JL has stressed and what I have seen is that we do not win by playing any game continuously. It is a finely judged exercise in entry and exit. As Chris joked with me - yes it is a dance whether Matrix play or D+C or Pattern4 or P/B. Its all in the timing.

In my latest post on this thread I have demonstrated the effect of playing like a bulldozer through 100 spins, playing flat, and of course it is a loss.

Yet if you modify the approach into triggers and stops, then you turn a -14 loss into a +14 point result.

I hope you understand the difference. Its fundamental.

The reason I am applying a lot of time into testing this material is that I play roulette live very seriously but I need to know the methods I use inside out because as JL has so well expressed they ( the methods) all have their unique terms and characteristics. This method of Scooby Doo is one of the best I have seen as a tool to take advantage of the true nature of roulette which surrenders in short cycles only a small edge.

We are working to become professionals.
Hope this helps XXVV.

hxxp: screencast. com/t/ereGWX0e (Level stakes)

Over the years I have come to believe that if something doesn't pay at level stakes then staking plans compound the issue into a negative edge and eventually we are in the hole.   Not one of the 20 different staking plans I ran these results through gave a profit on this set of results.  

I am happy to crunch any set of results for you if you think it has an edge.  We all wanna beat this game!

respect
Ian

Thanks for your post  Ian. I trust this may throw some light onto an area that is evidently misunderstood. Roulette is a game that offers only short cycles of small edge winning opportunities. It is a very challenging game on many levels but there is now so much documented evidence of this winning principle at work and key to handling live play success is timing the entry and exit points not only in the timing of the use of the method but also in the management of the money flow. XXVV

[XXVV]

Excuse my editing here I did not set out my reply correctly on the first attempt- XXVV

Hello B/UK.  Sorry I missed your post your post earlier. I dont think anyone else has commented so I will state the obvious. Please correct me however if I have misunderstood you. You may need to re-format your outcomes.

The whole point of what JL has emphasised and what I have seen is that we do NOT win by playing continuously. It is a finely judged exercise in entry and exit.  It is a Dance. Whether Matrix play or D+C or Pattern4 or P/B- its all in the timing.

In my latest post on this thread I have demonstrated the effect of playing like a bulldozer through 100 spins, playing flat or just ploughing on with a limited progression, and of course its a loss!

Yet if you modify the approach into triggers and stops, then you transform a -14 loss into a +14 point real win!

I hope you understand the difference. it is fundamental to this level of play.

The reason I am applying a lot of time into this testing is that I play roulette live very seriously and I need to know the characteristics of these methods inside out.

This method by Scooby Doo is one of the best I have seen as a professional tool to take advantage of the true nature of roulette which surrenders only in short cycles and a small edge .

Thanks for your post Ian as I trust this explanation may throw some further light on an area that is most misunderstood. Roulette is a game that is challenging on so many levels but there is now so much evidence of winning methods that understand the true nature of roulette and key to handling live play success is the timing of entry and exit points.

This is not only for the use of the method at peak efficiency when signaled by a trigger but also in timing of money management and when to leave at peak profit in the flow of money on the table and in your pocket- but thats another story.
Hope this assists XXVV.

[ScoobyDoo]

Well said XXVV,

I do have a request. Since you have tweaked this method to a sharp edge, I would appreciate it if you would put all the rules of the method in list form, including all nuances and betting method so that anyone looking at this thread can find everything all in one place. It would be most helpful. Just label it "Rules of DIVIDE & CONQUER".

Scooby Doo

[XXVV]

Mmmm Ok.
I will do this but will have to sleep on it first!
Then will get the stone tablets selected from the quarry and prepare the ten rules.
Easier said than done. Then I want to do it elsewhere with the six other methods. Oh no!
Be careful what you wish for!
Bullet points - thats the answer.

[broadsword_uk]

Many thanks for the reply XXVV.  i was beginning to think I was blackballed ha ha!

I understand what you are saying about the cycles.  I played the Ion Saliou James Bond approach for a while but tweaked to enter after 2xLs to get more entries during live play.

I saw Scoobys approach to see if it was more reliable than the James Bond one, but they seem similar results.  It could be that we have to wait for triggers which is sort of where I was at anyway.

I've also tried entering after a W and riding the winning streaks, stop at an L and re-enter at a W.  All of these have had limited success but nothing i would stake my house on with level stakes.

I'm so glad that we have a committed group on this site and I am grateful for all the crunching that you've done so far to try to help minimise the risk and keep things under control when we hit those losers.

Kind regards
Ian

[XXVV]

Yes you will find the more trial and error discovered 'tweaks' you apply ( within reason), the better will be your results. Now roulette can be a game of very long cycles within cycles as well as the short Ecart dominated deviations ( which we can use to our advantage), so when testing you do have to take a statistically sound sample; in other words, lots.

I am placing a lot of emphasis on this D+C method as a very good example of accentuating the Ecart. If you dont understand this please research.

To give you an example of how well its going, here are the results of 120 games recently tested. Please note I have many more and am applying live testing today as well.

Commence play on D+C on both dozens and columns simultaneously. Easy to manage and as it happens D+C.

Take the first three results and stop.

I have had two streaks already in excess of 40 by applying a simple 1-3-9. Expectation is based on loss of -26 if this fails.

But so far my testing is showing +66 points and has hit a new all time high.

The +66 has emerged from 120 games where so far only two losses of that progression where worst one went to the 5th bet before winning.

Approximately 2000 spins.

Now this is the crudest of tweaks but it does show that this method, like others that John Legend has developed, is capable of long streaks.

Now playing a game within a game psychology which is where we really start benefitting, consider a parlay which minimises risk but accentuates the win scale. You think about it. Leaves James Bond in the dust.

[XXVV]

Today I live played and data tested 300 games of D+C, equal number of Dozen and Column.

Remarkable long streaks when using the 1-3-9 only staking  and this is based on playing only the first 3 games in a session then starting a new session elsewhere.

Longest streak, believe it or not was 137 games combining dozens and columns, and 82 0n dozens only.

On the simplest staking method by combining these two and using the 1-3-9 step ( risk 26), the overall result has been a series of all time highs ( thats always encouraging) and it currently stands at +162 points.

Interestingly the net return is much less on just 1-3, and certainly less on 1-3-9-27.

Now this may be an anomaly and may re-distribute in time, but note at the very least the outcomes are all positive, have never been in negative territory, and are certainly open to parlay streak bets.

I notice on Pattern 4 thread a similar positive outcome was observed but I have yet to focus on that again. It certainly looks like we are on a winner and the tweaks will just improve and enhance the strike ratios, and hopefully dampen risk exposure.

Will get a set of practical instructions drafted but first I want to be extremely thorough in this testing so no one is let down later, especially me.

When playing this live earlier ( and under time pressure) I nevertheless noticed that when in the' flow' of a sound streak on dozen bets it may also be possible to overlay EC bets like H or L and also read other Ecart deviation streaks on R/B.  You could almost feel the creative matrix producing the outcomes, and tune into it.

And then of course there is our old favourite the Dozen and Column matrix.

More on this later, much later.

There were long streaks of single bet wins of course as the ratio of expected outcomes for these is a shade under 2 out of 3.

In practical terms though I have found it best to focus on the method in hand and not mix methods or dilute bets. Why dilute what is already so strong?

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi XXVV,

WOW! I love your observations! Much more thorough than I could have done. Keep up the great work my friend. I will be looking forward to seeing all of the rules and tweaks in a sequential list. I think after that, we need to start a new thread about this method and invite some of the members that have not taken part in this discussion up to now.

I think once more people have tried this method following the complete rules, we will have a lot more testers and opinions.

Tell me, if you are playing this for real money, what size of units are you using right now and what size do you plan to use in the future? Just curious......

Scooby Doo

[XXVV]

Divide + Conquer
Method : First 3 games in a session both Dozens and Columns
Staking : 1-3-9
Risk : 26 units

Test Sample #1

300 games

O/A result +165 points ( new all time high)

295 wins
5 losses

2 hits on 4th attempt
3 hits on 5th attempt

Hits in 1 attempt  : 194
Hits in 2 attempt  :  70
Hits in 3 attempt  :  31

Longest streak 137 games

Note :

Opportunity to parlay bet on the streaks associated with this method

Opportunity also to positive progress say +1 on every win, and -1 on any challenged bet.

Please refer advice from VLS.

Example :

Cluster games ( combining Dozens and Columns) into a sequence of six games , ie 3 from Dozens and 3 from Columns,

   Dozens           Columns *note this would be next target ( for columns) to enable sequence

 W   W   W          LLW   LLW   W

 +1  +2   +3         +4      +3    +2               result  +15 points compared to usual +6

note that LLW means that staking on that last winning bet would be 4 x 9 x 2

by playing out the 300 games in groups of 6 on the basic one up and one down

+398 units ( compared to basic +165)

alternatively the sequence could be in groups of say six for say dozens only.

another way might be in a burst of groups of 3 bets, e.g. 2-3-5  but this is to be multiplied to the 1-3-9 staking should the bets go up to a third attempt, and risk of loss max is 130 units.

At this stage testing live is in AUD in single units.

[XXVV]

Just a short note at this time as I have added a further 200 games to the above test. I want to spread a few other sources and round that up to 1000 games and that will be enough.

It is clear that this method , as can several others we are about to study in detail, will provide opportunities for lengthy streaks. We can profit from these.

As my friends in Hamburg put it, and to paraphrase, we cant predict when the streak will start or stop but we can progress on the streak positively and reduce our exposure when in a losing sequence. This positive progression and parlay bets are two of the most recognised best bets to be made in roulette and I will refer more to the comments by VLS and others soon and incorporate their wisdom in this mix.

Essence of our work is short cycle and small edge, and to read the game sufficiently well so as to set triggers that can reasonably consistently detect and  provide successful opportunities which we can optimise.

Obtaining a long series of results, even though made up of short sequences, can fall into some of the mathematical traps in this strange world of matrix. We can be preparing just another continuous session.

on the bright side so far I have found very long winning streaks and of course short clusters of correction activity. It just has to be so.

Nevertheless, despite the  length of testing we are still and have, remained in positive territory throughout the entire test.

Lengthy testing is very different to individual short session play.

What I have been trying to demonstrate is that by random selection of any point of the test selected as a starting point, the following monitored events can occur. And it is like a quantum universe in that there are probabilities, mathematical chances of various events unfolding in an order of priority or likelihood.

It seems that there are better (more) chances of successful outcomes ( that can gradually accumulate with good human selection/ management skill) rather than losing outcomes ( that could lead to catastrophic loss) given that key triggers are identified and acted upon.

This is a cautious overview, but we are dealing with a tricky subject.

When we break the whole into small quantum packets then we can find the Ecart deviations we seek. This is the key.

Full report after the weekend.