+ Register

[Mathemagician]

Apologies if I've sent this to the wrong section but after reading various members comments referring to small targets, Bet Voyager, rigged RNG and switching strategies I hope it's of interest. I've recorded all 17 sessions so you can check them out.

When my program RouletteKeyGold was introduced to this Forum a few weeks ago. I suggested one should aim for a small target then stop.

Not everyone agreed. They said things like "its easy enough to say 'stop when you're winning' if it was that easy everyone would do it", "do I use my program or just sell or just sell it?"

I don't blame people for being sceptical so I decided to put my money where my mouse is [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley] and double my starting capital.

In theory starting with $100 by session 21 one would have over $200. As follows

Session1      100
Session2      104
Session3      108
Session4      112
Session5      116
Session6      120
Session7      124
Session8      128
Session9      133
Session10   138
Session11   143
Session12   148
Session13   153
Session14   159
Session15   165
Session16   171
Session17   177
Session18   184
Session19   191
Session20   198
Session21   205

It may sound a bit far fetched could one double ones stake in 21 days just by aiming for 4% a day.?
I decided to test it and so I set myself a target of doubling a $100 bank within 21 days with a minimum of risk,  I failed it didn't take 21,  days but just 17!

I have recorded every session even my errors and these can be seen at  http://roulettekeygold.com/latest.html

I wouldn't be happy selling a program I didn't believe in. It's all very well people putting up videos on YouTube but a couple of videos doesn't prove anything does it?  I've published 17 consecutive videos, and I'm not just publicising it now I've reached my target some of my customers new what I was doing at the start. (I'm aware of the phrase "Don't do you good deeds when there's no-one watching you"). As far as I'm aware I'm the only person ever to publish 17 consecutive winning sessions (correct me if I'm wrong)

What I won't do is make any promises other than 'the longer you play the more likely you are to lose", if people want promises other sellers will tell you what you want to hear.

With an 8% target it would take 11 sessions to double up and after 21 days $447

I see nothing wrong with just 4% as by day 122 you could win over $10,000 ! and even if you only (!) gain half that have you really failed?

Other members have suggested switching techniques within a session and being satisfied with small regular wins. I agree and I've endeavoured to do this by switching techniques when the time is right. Most of the techniques aren't new, most are over 100 years old, what is new is my program which is basically a counter/calculator but it does identify when the time is right to switch.

To re-inforce this idea of Small Targets
in some professions they are called SMART (Small, Measurable, Realistic, Timed) targets.

My S.M.A.R.T target reads as follows
Small = 4%
Measurable   - Simple Maths
Achievable    -  A couple of wins could achieve the target in most cases
Realistic        -  The stakes must be set in order to achieve the target
Timed            - less than 60 spins (up to 1 hour at a live casino)

In the early sessions I play The Beginners System using $1 stakes on Doz1, Red & Odd. However, its not always possible to hit the target early on so I included other systems as suggested by RouletteKeyGold.
Thes systems include Neighbours, The Hidden Dozen, Finals, Prudential and Ex-Croupiers. You could use virtually any system I saw a list of 400 given away recently, some of them would work.

Obviously, it would take a mind like a computer to keep track of triggers for all these systems. But fortunately I have progammed RKG to keep track of six or so.

It has been suggested I sell the systems separately. In fact only two of the systems are mine and  I've used 7 in this test and I wouldn't like to sell just one as every system goes awry sometimes. Even the beginners system as I show.

I've chosen to run this test at Bet Voyager no zero casino.
This is  because I had some money in there as I'd just been checking I could withdraw it (after rumours on this Forum)
Instead of a zero Bet Voyager charge 10% every time you win a sitting. (I hope to pay them thousands!)

Another thing about this casino is that there are no free spins so I have to bet every spin, but I think that adds authenticity to the test.

It's also RNG which many of us are suspicious about. A few odd things happen but in Roulette the only thing to expect is the unexpected!

I admit I've made a few mistakes but it goes to show I'm human. Without the errors I could have won more!
If every session was perfect you'd have every right to be suspicious.

I've still got some more sums to do on the stakes, perhaps I could have increased the stakes towards the end of the trial. So instead of betting 50c I may have bet $1.

To reach my 4% target the lowest number of spins was 2, the highest about 60. This at a live casino would amount to between  two minutes and one hour, but at a live casino I may have had difficulty placing 12 bets in time.

The stakes are decided by the size of the Bank and/or the minimum bet. But I have refrained from increasing stakes after a loss. My maximum loss was about £40.00 which was well covered by my starting bank of £95.00

On single numbers where I usually bet on 12 numbers its 50c per $100 so $6 a bet stopping after 3-5 bets.
On even chances and table dozens either $1 or 10c depending on the strength of signal (if any)

[Sputnik]

Some opinions:

Math Professor
Posted 03/20/06 

Someone quoted John Patrick as saying I don't win much but I don't lose much either.
Now he was critical of this statement but there is a reason for it.

We who have lived with gambling all our lives understand the relationship between what we win and what we lose.

The Equation is simple enough .
Magnitude of profit is usually a function of magnitude of wagering.

One of the most common failures in gambling is progressive betting.
Several small wins are satisfying but  when the next small win does not happen and it turns into a progression which often recovers the day but sometimes results in ruination.

Giving up on a progression is hard because losing can mean the erosion of several days work.

The gambling flaw is inherent in this.
Christopher Pawlicki highlighted this fact.
The equation for winning small returns often calls for a progression .
The progression  ultimately however snatches away the prevous wins.

For example 20 + 20 +20 +20 +20 has been achieved with 50 + 100 + 80 + 120 + 100  The final destructive act is a 100  that does not recover .
Even without a progression 100 absorbs the 5  sets of 20 + wins.

I call this the 20/100 flaw.

20 is therefore 20% of 100.
A good result by any standards.

In order to control the erosion of previous wins the ratio of win to wager
needs to be as close to parity as possible.

Say 80 + 80 +80 +80 + 80  with 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100

If the 100 goes then we still have nearly 4 days work intact.
We can walk away and get them again another day.
Not many gamblers can achieve 80%.

This is the flaw.

There must be plenty of gamblers here who understand this but any replies should be better than 3 and out .
The math does not work.

JOHN PATRICK
Posted 03/20/06

excellent point but go back to your opening paragraph and it is not clear ............You said      "he was critical of this statement ................"

I THINK you meant he was CRITIZIED  for this statement ...............

and you're right..................there were a couple of people who laughed at it as meaning I was content with small wins..........adn that ALL I wanted to do was lose a little each day.........

I am glad you picked up on what I really meant by saying that (naturally) I would like to win more, but I am more interested in holding losses down.........

and THAT point that you made about people who do NOT gamble every day , not realizing this is the total and complete point I try to embellish in their minds every day............

Someone else (I think it was Rick K., a few days ago), also touched on that fact .................how really hard it is to win..........and that you HAVE to somehow, someway, condition yourself to win small to ensure you don't lose big ..........to be able to stay alive in this journey called gambling..........

You showed the SERIES you use ..........

What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)

Math Professor
Posted 03/20/06

" What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)"

Well that is my question to everyone ! 
What I am doing here is highlighting the problem we have with the percentage we go for.

The greater the difference between the amount we wager and the amount we accept ,as a win ,the more of a problem we have.
Lets say (as you have stated) that 5% is a professional aspiration. So we wager 100 for 5 .

That might seem reasonable but look at the result say over 5 days.
+ 5 +5 +5 +5 +5 = 25 . that's great we are winning 5 each day and we haven't lost. Now on day six we wager 100 and bust out !

We are now - 75 !   

We were going up and down with our 100.
But then we hit a bad spell and it eroded to 0.

The problem here is that we often have to go down to nearly zero
to make the continuous flow of 5's.



if our 5 day win was +60 +30 +20 + 120 +40  and this can be achieved with 100 and the 100 busts after 5 days we have .
won +170.  (270 - 100) .

I often work on 100 or 70 from 200. That is I am prepared to lose 200 for these great returns and if I can manufacture 70 od chips every day with a wager of 200 chips then I am going to survive if the cumulative value exceeds 100 after bust out.

What I would like to know from yourself is what your wager is in relation
to what you accept for that session and how do you overcome this flaw.

This is where Pawlicki is making the case that the crash will come and steal away your cumulative gains. Its the problem that haunts all gamblers.
Gamblers ruin.