Trioplay

[GLC]

After testing my tweaks some more, I think that we can do away with Advance Play 1 and 2.  By only increasing our bets after winning 2 instead of 1, we have automatically created a safety factor.

I think bet the same bet when lose and only raise 1 unit after 2 wins.  Remember, they don't have to be back to back.

A reasonable win target and stop loss is all we need.  For now anyway.

We'll see what the future brings our way.

Tweaking is good in roulette, but not so good in other contexts, if you know what I mean.

George

[Carsch]

Yeah, i think i got the idea with Trioplay. Your suggestion above sounds interesting. I'll have to look into that. 

[GLC]

Yeah, I think I got the idea with Trioplay. Your suggestion above sounds interesting. I'll have to look into that. 

Carsch,

Have you had time to do anything with my suggested progression?

I've tested it a few times in between testing other systems and I still haven't had a losing session.

I have set a win target of +50 and a stop-loss of 200.

It can be a grind sometimes, but not often.  Usually it wins fairly quickly.

[Carsch]

No George. But now that you reminded me, i'll keep it on my desktop so to remind myself. Been busy again working with other ideas. For a while i thought i came up with a holygrail, i even drove down to the casino (4hrs drive one way), and did actually make some money; then i found out the next day after doing more tests that it isn't what i thought it was. LOL! Oh well.

[GLC]

No George. But now that you reminded me, i'll keep it on my desktop so to remind myself. Been busy again working with other ideas. For a while I thought I came up with a holygrail, I even drove down to the casino (4hrs drive one way), and did actually make some money; then I found out the next day after doing more tests that it isn't what I thought it was. LoL! Oh well.

At least you didn't find out at the Casino.

It's amazing how often it looks like something is working and can't lose and then all of a sudden, disaster.

I guess the idea is to find something that works well most of the time and keeps the disasters few and far between.

LOL,

George

[Carsch]

George, how would you play this series of W/L with your given suggestion? I must be doing something wrong to get only +12 in profit. Take your time. Not rush here. Thanks.

1   L
2   W
3   W
4   L
5   W
6   L
7   W
8   W
9   W
10   W
11   W
12   W
13   L
14   W
15   W
16   W
17   W
18   L
19   L
20   L
21   L
22   L
23   L
24   W
25   W
26   W
27   W
28   W
29   L
30   W
31   L
32   W
33   W
34   L
35   L
36   W
37   L
38   W
39   L
40   L
41   L
42   L
43   W
44   W
45   W
46   W
47   W
48   W
49   L
50   W
51   L
52   W
53   W
54   L
55   L
56   L
57   W
58   W
59   W
60   L
61   L
62   L
63   W
64   W
65   L
66   L
67   W
68   L
69   L
70   L
71   L
72   L
73   W
74   L
75   L
76   W
77   W
78   L
79   W
80   W
81   W
82   W
83   W
84   L
85   W
86   W
87   L
88   L
89   W
90   W
91   L
92   L
93   W
94   L
95   L
96   W
97   L
98   W
99   L
100   L
101   W
102   W
103   W
104   L
105   L
106   W
107   w
108   L
109   W
110   L
111   W
112   L
113   L
114   W
115   L
116   L
117   W
118   W
119   L
120   L
121   W
122   W
123   L
124   W
125   W

[GLC]

George, how would you play this series of W/L with your given suggestion? I must be doing something wrong to get only +12 in profit. Take your time. Not rush here. Thanks.

1   L   -1    -1
2   W   +1    0
3   W   +1    +1  reset
4   L   -1    -1
5   W   +1     0
6   L   -1    -1 
7   W   +1     0  won 2X's without reset, increase to 2 units except we only need 1 to reach +1 with a win.
8   W   +1    +1  reset anytime third row is +
9   W   +1    +1
10   W   +1    +1
11   W   +1    +1
12   W   +1    +1
13   L   -1    -1
14   W   +1     0
15   W   +1    +1
16   W   +1    +1
17   W   +1    +1
18   L   -1    -1
19   L   -1    -2
20   L   -1    -3
21   L   -1    -4
22   L   -1    -5
23   L   -1    -6
24   W   +1    -5
25   W   +1    -4
26   W   +2    -2
27   W   +2     0
28   W   +1    +1  See note below
29   L   -1    -1
30   W   +1     0
31   L   -1    -1
32   W   +1     0
33   W   +1    +1  see note below
34   L   -1    -1
35   L   -1    -2
36   W   +1    -1
37   L   -1    -2
38   W   +1    -1
39   L   -2    -3  Won twice without reaching plus
40   L   -2    -5
41   L   -2    -7
42   L   -2    -9
43   W   +2    -7
44   W   +2    -5
45   W   +3    -2
46   W   +3    +1  reset
47   W   +1    +1
48   W   +1    +1
49   L   -1    -1
50   W   +1     0
51   L   -2    -2
52   W   +2     0
53   W   +1    +1
54   L   -1    -1
55   L   -1    -2
56   L   -1    -3
57   W   +1    -2
58   W   +1    -1
59   W   +2    +1
60   L   -1    -1
61   L   -1    -2
62   L   -1    -3
63   W   +1    -2
64   W   +1    -1
65   L   -2    -3
66   L   -2    -5
67   W   +2    -3
68   L   -2    -5
69   L   -2    -7
70   L   -2    -9
71   L   -2    -11
72   L   -2    -13
73   W   +2    -11
74   L   -3    -14
75   L   -3    -17
76   W   +3    -14
77   W   +3    -11
78   L   -4    -15
79   W   +4    -11
80   W   +4    -7
81   W   +5    -2
82   W   +3    +1
83   W   +1    +1
84   L   -1    -1
85   W   +1     0
86   W   +1    +1
87   L   -1    -1
88   L   -1    -2
89   W   +1    -1
90   W   +1     0  see note below
91   L   -2    -2
92   L   -2    -4
93   W   +2    -2
94   L   -2    -4
95   L   -2    -6
96   W   +2    -4
97   L   -3    -7
98   W   +3    -4
99   L   -3    -7
100   L   -3    -10
101   W   +3    -7
102   W   +4    -3
103   W   +4    +1
104   L   -1    -1
105   L   -1    -2
106   W   +1    -1
107   w   +1     0
108   L   -2    -2
109   W   +2     0
110   L   -2    -2
111   W   +2     0
112   L   -3    -3
113   L   -3    -6
114   W   +3    -3
115   L   -3    -6
116   L   -3    -9
117   W   +3    -6
118   W   +4    -2
119   L   -4    -6
120   L   -4    -10
121   W   +4    -6
122   W   +5    -1
123   L   -5    -6
124   W   +5    -1
125   W   +2    +1


Won 21 units.  Like I said, it's safe but steady.
Largest bet was 5.
Largest drawdown was -17
Lowest point in bank was only -2 units at the very beginning.

Note 1:  When we are betting more than we need in order to reach +1, we reduce our bet down to only what it takes to reach +1. 

This can be ignored if you want.  You will win more and I don't think it will make that much difference in bet size.

If I had ignored it I would have won 9 more units and it wouldn't have cost me anything.  It only helps if you're getting ready to go into a steep losing sequence, it's better to start off at a small bet than a larger one.

'Course you never know when those losing streaks are going to begin.

Note 2:  I usually reset when I reach +1.  You could reset when you reach zero or +1 for even more safety.

From my testings, this is pretty average of a session.

I have had a losing session where I lost 100 units on an attack.  Fortunately, I was up 55 units before losing the 100 so I really only lost 45 units.

How does it look from your perspective?

George

[Carsch]

Thanks George. I'll look at it and see what i was doing wrong. My mind needs a rest for now. Lots of testing for the past couple of hours.  But i'll let you know



I greatly appreciate your help. 

[GLC]

Thanks George. I'll look at it and see what I was doing wrong. My mind needs a rest for now. Lots of testing for the past couple of hours.  But i'll let you know



I greatly appreciate your help. 

Carsch,

Remember the progression is a positive progression.

We never increase after a loss.

Up 1 after 2 wins at a level.

It's hard for me to remember sometimes because I'm so used to negative progressions.

G

[Carsch]

Ok, i just looked at it, and i now understand exactly what you're doing. And that's pretty good actually.........that is, comparing to other results i have for those same W/L outcomes used here.

So, George, you say that we can get away with Advance play 1 & 2 by just playing it this way, and that it's safer. What about the results - are they about the same if you were playing Advance play 1&2?

Carsch

[GLC]

So, George, you say that we can get away with Advance play 1 & 2 by just playing it this way, and that it's safer. What about the results - are they about the same if you were playing Advance play 1&2?

Carsch

Okay.  I confess that stating that this was safer than Adv Play 1 & 2 was a little presumptuous on my part.  I haven't really tested the two ways of playing side by side with the same spins.

I suppose we should test a couple really bad sessions to see which method comes out on top.

should probably test a couple of good sessions the same way.  Also a couple of so so sessions.  That way we can see if one way out-wins the other.

I will do some testing.

Just to make it easy, I will use previous sessions.  They will be of different bet selection methods, but as long as I test each session with both ways of betting, the results will be valid.  Agree?

This may take a while, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Help me out.  Why don't you do 1 session of each good, medium and bad and so will I.  That will give us 2 ea sessions of both methods for good, bad and medium.

This should give us a pretty good idea which one is best.

George

[GLC]

My initial testing of both systems on the same spins indicates the following:

If there are a lot of hits close togethe,r meaning that you'll win no matter what system you're playing,  Trio Play tends to win at a little higher rate, but average bet size is a little higher also.

If it is an average system, Trio Play again generates more units per spin with even larger average bet size.

On really difficult sessions, Trio Play usually loses at a much faster pace with much larger bet sizes.

2W Up1 keeps the bet sizes much smaller and by the time Trio Play has reached my 100 stop loss, 2W Up1 is still at less than -50.  This is very pronounced if you have prolonged streaks of loses followed by 1 or 2 wins.

Things change a little when you have lots of 2,3 and 4 loss streaks followed by 1 or 2 or 3 wins.  Trio Play can actually get you to a small + whereas 2W Up1 takes more wins to dig out of a deep hole.

Inital conclusion is that Trio Play is generally a more aggressive system than 2W Up1 but 2W Up1 is steadier, keeps the bets smaller,  smaller wins with fewer losing sessions with an occassional loss that would have been a win with Trio Play because of the choppiness which doesn't allow 2W Up1 to recover.

As with a systems, given the exact win/loss mix almost any system can perform worse of better than another one even if the other one generally outperforms.

Let me know how you see it.

Thanks,

George

[Carsch]

As with a systems, given the exact win/loss mix almost any system can perform worse of better than another one even if the other one generally outperforms.

True! Anyway, i have been testing your W2 up1 against a few other systems and it's actually doing pretty good. Let's put it this way: i like it, and i'll keep using it on my tests.

I'll have to review the TrioPlay so to compare it with your W2 up1. But i remember, i did a test with it before against a few other methods; it can win faster. But like you said, it can also lose at a much larger pace with much larger bets.

[Let Me Win]

*Bump*

It would be great if someone could RX this as per the rules from Bayes first post.

This is one of the better EC money management plans and as far as I'm aware has never been tested in RX

[Taotie]

Bump?

2010 FFS! The best thing about it is the date stamp.