DIVIDE & CONQUER

[XXVV]

Broadsword/UK
Excellent answer thank you. Will respond in due course as I have a mathematical genius friend who may be able to assist here. I am calling him now!

[broadsword_uk]

Broadsword/UK
Excellent answer thank you. Will respond in due course as I have a mathematical genius friend who may be able to assist here. I am calling him now!

well it's off topic but see if he can focus on the main support (turning) points the C part of the zig zag, of 23.6%, 38.2%, 50%, 61.8%, 78.6%, 100%. If he can identify support levels I can then send you target percentages for D.

I also see potential for using moving averages but haven't a clue how to apply my forex knowledge to roulette. If you need any info pm me or skype me on broadsword_uk and i can share my screen to show you what I mean in forex terms.

Ian

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi Guys,

Just to inform you. I just played five separate 5-win sessions and won 130 pounds ($212.00) at Dublinbet. @ 5-5,15-15, 45-45 pound bets

That was 26 wins

21 wins on the 1st spin
4 wins on the 2nd spin
1 win on 3rd spin

Very easy, no stress and fast. (20 to 30 minutes)

Play for 5 wins and then stop for a few minutes, then start again.

Scooby Doo

[vundarosa]

Hi Guys,

Just to inform you. I just played five separate 5-win sessions and won 130 pounds ($212.00) at Dublinbet. @ 5-5,15-15, 45-45 pound bets

That was 26 wins

21 wins on the 1st spin
4 wins on the 2nd spin
1 win on 3rd spin

Very easy, no stress and fast. (20 to 30 minutes)

Play for 5 wins and then stop for a few minutes, then start again.

Scooby Doo

---------------------
on the wins!
why do you have 3 staking levels...i thought it should be only 2

vundarosa

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi,

As XXVV has pointed out the three level betting is better than the two level or the four level, so consequently, that is what I chose to use.

Scooby Doo

[Hermes]

Try Fibonacci 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34. I always reset to one after one win not 2 as recommended.
Or other possibility would be after win go to half. e.g.. win on 21 go to 5 units.
Hermes

[XXVV]

Thanks Hermes for the progression suggestion.

What I like about it is that there would (probably) be some peace of mind ( not a piece of the mind) that this series could handle anything.

At the moment I am really researching all sorts of series and combinations really trying to find a better way if possible to try to meet ALL situations. It may be a quest after a mirage I am not sure. However there are agreed criteria and amongst those is the need for relative simplicity, effectiveness, and yes, peace of mind.

The peace that I am referring to is to play with no anxiety over (imaginary) loss.

I also imagine that the series you promote could dig out of most situations reasonably quickly.

But, as I understand your instructions( and I hope I understand correctly), then here is a problem set in 266 games of column outcomes recently studied,

About 1000 spins gross.

Playing D+C on the usual macro win approach 1-3-9 the result was a modest net +23 points as there had been 9 encounters that beat the progression.

No weighting or stop/ start or other tricks were applied here- it was just continuous play - but note it was continuous play constructed of lots of little 6 game sessions.

At one stage it was + 94 points however and occasionally meandered toward equilibrium.

Playing 1-3-9-27 the results, as ScoobyDoo had noted from earlier studies, was not so hot being -58 points as the cost of the progression was quite high when failing and that happened 4 times.

Playing 1-3-9 -27-81 (total 242 RB) the result was a smart +266 points but on four occasions the 242 was put at risk.

On my studies I have encountered events where it did require a 7th attempt to win, so care must always be taken with these progressions.

Now after all that drama, applying the Fibonacci Series was a dawdle in the park if I have applied it as the author intends.

The results peaked at +26 points at about the stage 600 spins, later than where the earlier progression results had peaked.

After that there was a secondary peak at +22 and then a slow net fall as the play was quite corrective. So overall worst was -4 ( at the start); best was +26; and the final score was +5 and starting to climb again.

Breaking the results into say 7 sessions at approx max 145 spins, it seems reasonable to me that a net +5/ +7 points or more would be achieved in an uptrend with sensible exit strategy, often in quite a short time frame.

This might not be a bad way to play if you are risk averse as the maximum ever staked was 5 units ( ie 2x5), four times, with a reset to 1 after success, as opposed to the 9 units ( ie 2x9) outlayed nine times on the simple progression method.

Streaks of +7 points or more were frequently available.

I will run this through some dozens samples and see if the outcomes were similar.

Thanks for the suggestion Hermes.

[XXVV]

I should have further emphasised on the previous post, that the tests were done without any overlay primary/ secondary bet treatment, or any determination as to stop start play, or phase of win play or 'loss' play.

By applying such a sensible approach ( and it need not be that difficult) more streaks of win or loss can be put together in a phase and thus considerably improve results.

I am just keen at this early stage to see what works, even without tuning.

[vundarosa]

Hi,

As XXVV has pointed out the three level betting is better than the two level or the four level, so consequently, that is what I chose to use.

Scooby Doo

--------------------
Scooby

I don't get it

you have

132       321    123
1xx

now you bet against 3 and if lose against 2. That's two steps bet. I don't see where you'd use your third step bet.

vundarosa

[albertojonas]

--------------------
Scooby

I don't get it

you have

132       321    123
1xx

now you bet against 3 and if lose against 2. That's two steps bet. I don't see where you'd use your third step bet.

vundarosa

on next trigger
(my advice- after a L)
ie.
321
32here

cheers

[warrior]

SCOOBY ARE 4 L IN A ROW RARE.

[StackBundles]

from my experiance ive had 4 in a row loss once
and most of the time if your going to get 4 in a row losses its going to be because of the zero!

id like the rules and method to be explained again because from what ive read its kind of different from what was in the first post

[XXVV]

I have explained that by betting zero independently that you need never worry about a zero loss. It is a bonus win! That is not hard and really could also be applied to all the other matrix bet families. But it requires a quantum shift in most people's perceptions.

You can easily work out the expectation for various loss equations.

These are based on a loss of ... and a 1-3-9-27-81 ratio

2 :    1in 8

3 :    1 in 26  ( yet I have had streaks over 100 by recording results of short sessions added)

4 :    1 in 80  ( had 4 such losses in my sample of 266 games)

5 :    1 in 242

6 :    1 in 732   ( I have had one game needing to go to 7th win , within a study of 1000 )

My own sample of 1000 games is still limited. In that sample the 1-3-9 ratio outshone its rivals, however I would not warrant that this was set in stone as the best play. In that series it happened to shine ( relatively anyway).

You are aware of the disagreements in the debate over continuous play versus short session play ( and adding the data).

Whether it does or doesn't make a difference is irrelevant if you are plain just dumb unlucky that day. Whether its your bio cycles, the weather, your star sign aspects that day, your attitude, the dealer, your bank manager, your mother in law, its all irrelevant.

Better to avoid the potential traps altogether by a different style of play.

Have a look at what Hermes has suggested in his Fibonacci Series.

Also, on the 'micro' scale just think what 4 losses in a row can offer.

And on the macro scale, maybe its wise to play to win, and at other times, it may be wiser to play to 'lose' (reverse). Depends on the position of the Ecart. You have to be able to 'switch'.

Hope that may assist.

With some matrix testing, if you are working within only a limited view of the way things can be played, then it seems you will subjected to the awful and repeating cycle of raised hopes and dashed hopes.

You read it all the time.

The true nature of roulette needs to be further explored and investigated.

As I have said many times now, and I am merely reporting what I have been advised, and my own experience supports this,  a frequent player of roulette needs to step outside of the  limited view of win and loss, and instead more consistently accrue small but significant earnings that come in short cycles that can offer a small edge in the player's favour. As well as this there are times when an unfavourable cycle needs to be cut, and I know there are professional players who successfully work within a +3/-3 (points) ratio. They might be 1000 EUR chips, they might be $25. It is the principle that counts here.

This is not good news for the gamblers.

[albertojonas]

I have explained that by betting zero independently that you need never worry about a zero loss. It is a bonus win! That is not hard and really could also be applied to all the other matrix bet families. But it requires a quantum shift in most people's perceptions.

You can easily work out the expectation for various loss equations.

These are based on a loss of ... and a 1-3-9-27-81 ratio

2 :    1in 8

3 :    1 in 26  ( yet I have had streaks over 100 by recording results of short sessions added)

4 :    1 in 80  ( had 4 such losses in my sample of 266 games)

5 :    1 in 242

6 :    1 in 732   ( I have had one game needing to go to 7th win , within a study of 1000 )

My own sample of 1000 games is still limited. In that sample the 1-3-9 ratio outshone its rivals, however I would not warrant that this was set in stone as the best play. In that series it happened to shine ( relatively anyway).

You are aware of the disagreements in the debate over continuous play versus short session play ( and adding the data).

Whether it does or doesn't make a difference is irrelevant if you are plain just dumb unlucky that day. Whether its your bio cycles, the weather, your star sign aspects that day, your attitude, the dealer, your bank manager, your mother in law, its all irrelevant.

Better to avoid the potential traps altogether by a different style of play.

Have a look at what Hermes has suggested in his Fibonacci Series.

Also, on the 'micro' scale just think what 4 losses in a row can offer.

And on the macro scale, maybe its wise to play to win, and at other times, it may be wiser to play to 'lose' (reverse). Depends on the position of the Ecart. You have to be able to 'switch'.

Hope that may assist.

With some matrix testing, if you are working within only a limited view of the way things can be played, then it seems you will subjected to the awful and repeating cycle of raised hopes and dashed hopes.

You read it all the time.

The true nature of roulette needs to be further explored and investigated.

As I have said many times now, and I am merely reporting what I have been advised, and my own experience supports this,  a frequent player of roulette needs to step outside of the  limited view of win and loss, and instead more consistently accrue small but significant earnings that come in short cycles that can offer a small edge in the player's favour. As well as this there are times when an unfavourable cycle needs to be cut, and I know there are professional players who successfully work within a +3/-3 (points) ratio. They might be 1000 EUR chips, they might be $25. It is the principle that counts here.

This is not good news for the gamblers.

i am an advocate of this kind of superior inteligence over what is happening

i am a scientist too. i observe, then act. or is observe already an action?

Thx again XXVV

[XXVV]

A further test, following the recent post by Hermes, was applied to some dozens results over 282 games and the Fibonacci Series was applied to staking where again the worst encountered were losses on the fourth attempt.

There was a fairly fast rise to +25 points and then a big retrace as the corrective forces kicked in  but then another win surge toward the end. Best +25 points. Worst -3 at 600 spins. Final result was +21 points.

This is a very conservative plan and really too slow to recover on win streaks, although it does appear to get there eventually.

So now will continue to look at other betting progressions on offer, and try to find a decent compromise that meets our criteria of safety, quick recovery on short win streaks, and a method that can handle any event.

I have the feeling the best way we will 'uncover' will be flat staking that operates within a very small range that has a strict and tight stop-loss.

An idea soon to be actioned will be to compare 500 outcomes comparing the best of the modified progressions with a flat bet operating between +3 and -3.