copied and paste, from Albalaha's
===================================
Every progression or money management talks of increasing or decreasing bets like martingale, labouchere, D'alembert, Parlay etc. If we are betting on an Even Chances bet like "Red" of roulette, and get Wins(here shown as W) and Losses(shown as an L) in the given manner, is there any methodology, we can still win within a sane table and bankroll limit? Have a look:
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
Note: There are 140 Losses and only 77 Wins in total.
first 100 spins have only 23 wins and 77 losses, that is a virtual limit
there are only 67 wins in first 200 spins that is the WORSE THAN worst recorded event ever in
any EC bet as per roulette30.com forum i.e. 69/200.
there is a single losing stretch of 23 losses that would need 16 millions chips to get over
with martingale.
with labouchere or fibonacci we will go down in millions in this case
Any taker?
Well...some one have already posted similar results with the similar question some time ago.
My "best" response is to stop after 3-4 LIAR. I don't think many will survive this kind of result.
Better to consider the BS. Whatever it is,it's not working. LoL
But really looking forward if someone came up with MM that could handle this.
1-2-4
1-3-6
2-4-8
2-6-12
3-6-12
3-9-18
4-8-16
4-12-24
5-10-20
5-15-30
7-14-28
7-21-42
9-18-36
9-27-54
12-24-48
12-36-72
15-30-60
15-45-90
Don't bet every spin.
Bet only after a Black hit and you can beat this run.
Cheers
Nick
After 4 loses wait for virtual win.
Quote from Bayes:
The progression is based on starting from a base of 1 unit and multiplying by around 10% - 12% to get the value of the next stake. Here is a version I just coded which is very similar to the Holloway progression using a percentage of 11.5% which gives approximately the same values and the same number of steps.
The error in the Holloway progression comes from rounding. You can see the same thing here: The middle column is the calculation unrounded and in the right column the numbers have been round DOWN to the nearest whole number. Notice that from step 27 (18u) to step 28 (21u) there is an increase of 3 units, but from step 28 to step 29 (23u) there is an increase of only 2 units!
Depending on how the rounding is done there will usually be some error like this, but it won't make a lot of difference. You could always change the values in the Holloway progression slightly to make the steps between values consistent.
1 1.115 1
2 1.243 1
3 1.386 1
4 1.546 1
5 1.723 1
6 1.922 1
7 2.143 2
8 2.389 2
9 2.664 2
10 2.970 2
11 3.311 3
12 3.692 3
13 4.117 4
14 4.590 4
15 5.118 5
16 5.707 5
17 6.363 6
18 7.095 7
19 7.911 7
20 8.821 8
21 9.835 9
22 10.966 10
23 12.227 12
24 13.633 13
25 15.201 15
26 16.949 16
27 18.898 18
28 21.072 21 << 3 from 18 to 21
29 23.495 23 << 2 from 21 to 23
30 26.197 26
31 29.209 29
32 32.568 32
33 36.314 36
34 40.490 40
35 45.146 45
36 50.338 50
37 56.127 56
38 62.581 62
39 69.778 69
40 77.803 77
41 86.750 86
42 96.726 96
43 107.850 107
44 120.253 120
45 134.082 134
46 149.501 149
Sputnik
How does your 3 step progression recovery work? Do you just go up and down those values?
Here you can read Abou it with testing example ...
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7709.msg70028#msg70028
Cheers
Consider the following example valid for every even chance game (roulette,baccarat,craps,blackjack,coin tossing)
R=result B=bet T=total
R B T
1) L 1 -1
2) L 1 -2
3) L 1 -3
4) L 1 -4
5) L 1 -5
6) L 1 -6
7) L 1 -7
8 ) L 1 -8
9) L 1 -9
10) L 1 -10
11) L 1 -11
12) L 1 -12
13) L 1 -13
14) L 1 -14
15) L 1 -15
16) L 1 -16
17) L 1 -17
18) L 1 -18
19) L 1 -19
20) L 1 -20
21) L 1 -21
22) L 1 -22
23) L 1 -23
24) W 1 -22
25) L 1 -23
26) L 1 -24
27) W 1 -23
28) L 1 -24
29) L 1 -25
30) L 1 -26
31) L 1 -27
32) W 1 -26
33) L 1 -27
34) W 1 -26
35) L 1 -27
36) L 1 -28
37) L 1 -29
38) L 2 -31
39) W 2 -29
40) L 2 -31
41) L 2 -33
42) W 2 -31
43) L 2 -33
44) L 2 -35
45) L 2 -37
46) L 2 -39
47) L 2 -41
48) L 2 -43
49) W 2 -41
50) W 2 -39
51) L 2 -41
52) L 2 -43
53) L 2 -45
54) W 2 -43
55) L 2 -45
56) L 2 -47
57) W 2 -45
58) L 2 -47
59) W 2 -45
60) L 2 -47
61) W 2 -45
62) L 2 -47
63) L 2 -49
64) L 2 -51
65) L 2 -53
66) W 2 -51
67) L 2 -53
68) L 2 -55
69) W 2 -53
70) L 2 -55
71) L 2 -57
72) W 2 -55
73) L 2 -57
74) L 2 -59
75) L 4 -63
76) W 4 -59
77) L 4 -63
78) L 4 -67
79) W 4 -63
80) L 4 -67
81) L 4 -71
82) W 4 -67
83) L 4 -71
84) L 4 -75
85) L 4 -79
86) W 4 -75
87) L 4 -79
88) L 4 -83
89) L 4 -87
90) W 4 -83
91) L 4 -87
92) L 4 -91
93) W 4 -87
94) L 4 -91
95) L 4 -95
96) L 4 -99
97) W 4 -95
98) L 4 -99
99) W 4 -95
100)L 4 -99
101)W 4 -95
102)W 4 -91
103)L 4 -95
104)L 4 -99
105)W 4 -95
106)L 4 -99
107)W 4 -95
108)W 4 -91
109)L 4 -95
110)L 4 -99
111)W 4 -95
112)L 8 -103
113)L 8 -111
114)L 8 -119
115)L 8 -127
116)L 8 -135
117)W 8 -127
118)L 8 -135
119)L 8 -143
120)W 8 -135
121)W 8 -127
122)L 8 -135
123)W 8 -127
124)L 8 -135
125)L 8 -143
126)L 8 -151
127)L 8 -159
128)L 8 -167
129)W 8 -159
130)L 8 -167
131)W 8 -159
132)W 8 -151
133)W 8 -143
134)L 8 -151
135)W 8 -143
136)W 8 -135
137)L 8 -143
138)W 8 -135
139)L 8 -143
140)L 8 -151
141)W 8 -143
142)L 8 -151
143)W 8 -143
144)L 8 -151
145)W 8 -143
146)L 8 -151
147)W 8 -143
148)L 8 -151
149)W 16 -135
150)L 16 -151
151)L 16 -167
152)W 16 -151
153)L 16 -167
154)L 16 -183
155)L 16 -199
156)L 16 -215
157)L 16 -231
158)L 16 -247
159)L 16 -263
160)L 16 -279
161)L 16 -295
162)L 16 -311
163)W 16 -295
164)L 16 -311
165)W 16 -295
166)W 16 -279
167)W 16 -263
168)L 16 -279
169)W 16 -263
170)W 16 -247
171)W 16 -231
172)L 16 -247
173)W 16 -231
174)W 16 -215
175)L 16 -231
176)L 16 -247
177)W 16 -231
178)L 16 -247
179)W 16 -231
180)L 16 -247
181)W 16 -231
182)L 16 -247
183)L 16 -263
184)W 16 -247
185)L 16 -263
186)L 32 -295
187)L 32 -327
188)W 32 -295
189)L 32 -327
190)W 32 -295
191)W 32 -263
192)L 32 -295
193)W 32 -263
194)L 32 -295
195)W 32 -263
196)L 32 -295
197)L 32 -327
198)W 32 -295
199)W 32 -263
200)W 32 -231
201)L 32 -263
202)W 32 -231
203)L 32 -263
204)L 32 -295
205)W 32 -263
206)W 32 -231
207)L 32 -263
208)W 32 -231
209)W 32 -199
210)L 32 -231
211)W 32 -199
212)L 32 -231
213)W 32 -199
214)L 32 -231
215)W 32 -199
216)W 32 -167
217)W 32 -135 <----- NEEDS TO CONTINUE
Of course with very few more wins would have finished in positive, if you could post the next spins here I'm going to show you what I mean.
However, you got the point about how my progression handles such bad results, also important to mention is that it remained within reasonable table and bankroll limits.
The max drawdown was 327 units and the max bet 32, not so big if we consider that the results were almost unrealistically bad.
I'm going to post 2 more examples and once again please post a few more spins from the above session because I want to prove you that it would have won!
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3x +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5x +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7x +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10x +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12x +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16x +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21x +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23x +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29x +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31x +1 -10.5
32x +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35x +1 -10.5
36x +1 -9.5
37x +1 -8.5
38x +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42x +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45x +2 -12.5
46x +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52x +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55x +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58x +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62x +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65x +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68x +2 -30.5
69x +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71x +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75x +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77x +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80x +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90x +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92x +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95x +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97x +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101x +4 -76.5
102x +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104x +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114x +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117x +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119x +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122x +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128x +8 -154.5
129x +8 -146.5
130x +8 -138.5
131x +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134x +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138x +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140x +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143x +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145x +8 -162.5
146x +8 -154.5
147x +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149x +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150x +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154x +16 -146.5
155x +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158x +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163x +16 -194.5
164x +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168x +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171x +16 -226.5
172x +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174x +16 -210.5
175x +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180x +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184x +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187x +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192x +32 -354.5
193x +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196x +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
230 15 -1 +60.5
231 0 -0.5 +60
232 17 -1 +59
233 2 -1 +58
234 3 +1 +59
235 0 -0.5 +58.5
236 1 +1 +59.5
237 36 +1 +60.5
238 22 -1 +59.5
239 34 +1 +60.5
240 11 -1 +59.5
241 20 -1 +58.5
242 1 +1 +59.5
243 28 -1 +58.5
244 11 -1 +57.5
245 21 +1 +58.5
246 29 -1 +57.5
247 15 -1 +56.5
248 15 -1 +55.5
249 34 +1 +56.5
250 10 -1 +55.5
251 16 +1 +56.5
252 4 -1 +55.5
253 35 -1 +54.5
254 17 -1 +53.5
255 4 -1 +52.5
256 19 +1 +53.5
257 25 +1 +54.5
258 11 -1 +53.5
259 0 -0.5 +53
260 5 +2 +55 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
261 22 -2 +53
262 31 -2 +51
263 0 -1 +50
264 2 -2 +48
265 10 -2 +46
266 6 -2 +44
267 28 -2 +42
268 27 +2 +44
269 4 -2 +42
270 1 +2 +44
271 3 +2 +46
272 11 -2 +44
273 11 -2 +42
274 9 +2 +44
275 5 +2 +46
276 1 +2 +48
277 19 +2 +50
278 11 -2 +48
279 28 -2 +46
280 10 -2 +44
281 15 -2 +42
282 27 +2 +44
283 23 +2 +46
284 13 -2 +44
285 7 +2 +46
286 17 -2 +44
287 35 -2 +42
288 27 +2 +44
289 14 +2 +46
290 21 +2 +48
291 14 +2 +50
292 34 +2 +52
293 11 -2 +50
294 10 -2 +48
295 36 +2 +50
296 24 -2 +48
297 36 +4 +52 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
298 34 +4 +56
299 7 +4 +60
300 5 +4 +64
301 6 -1 +63 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
302 16 +1 +64
303 34 +1 +65
304 34 +1 +66
305 33 -1 +65
306 26 -1 +64
307 1 +1 +65
308 5 +1 +66
309 0 -0.5 +65.5
310 33 -1 +64.5
311 0 -0.5 +64
312 9 +1 +65
313 0 -0.5 +64.5
314 21 +1 +65.5
315 23 +1 +66.5
316 13 -1 +65.5
317 3 +1 +66.5
318 20 -1 +65.5
319 34 +1 +66.5
320 28 -1 +65.5
321 28 -1 +64.5
322 14 +1 +65.5
323 20 -1 +64.5
324 30 +1 +65.5
325 25 +1 +66.5
326 36 +1 +67.5
327 1 +1 +68.5
328 31 -1 +67.5
329 35 -1 +66.5
330 36 +1 +67.5
331 5 +1 +68.5
332 29 -1 +67.5
333 28 -1 +66.5
Summary}
6 cycles of 37 spins / 333 outcomes / +66.5 units total / highest balance +68.5 units/
lowest balance -530.5 units / highest bet 64 units
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
Summary}
234 outcomes / +29 units total / highest balance +29 units/
lowest balance -451 units / highest bet 64 units
copied and paste with author permission.
=====================================
Horrible Session #2:
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
93 Losses, 65 Wins
Only 16 wins in the first 60 spins.
===========================
Horror session #3:
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
This is only a concept, when we have such a strong progressions as Blue Angel, we can make improvements, let's assume that we play RNG, we begin to look forward to sessions waiting for inballance of 10 hits in first 20 spins (let's say 14-4 or 15-5 in the EC bets) then start betting on the side with low hits. We play only those sessions.
Then we are already at the start plus 10 positions in the first 37 spins, which are the first stage of the Blue Angel progression. The next improvement is used safebreaks, such as virtual win after 4 losers. The session ends when you first get out on the plus side. We enable the new sessions, and begin to look for a new trigger.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 01:06:50 AM
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3x +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5x +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7x +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10x +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12x +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16x +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21x +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23x +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29x +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31x +1 -10.5
32x +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35x +1 -10.5
36x +1 -9.5
37x +1 -8.5
38x +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42x +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45x +2 -12.5
46x +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52x +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55x +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58x +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62x +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65x +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68x +2 -30.5
69x +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71x +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75x +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77x +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80x +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90x +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92x +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95x +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97x +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101x +4 -76.5
102x +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104x +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114x +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117x +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119x +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122x +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128x +8 -154.5
129x +8 -146.5
130x +8 -138.5
131x +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134x +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138x +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140x +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143x +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145x +8 -162.5
146x +8 -154.5
147x +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149x +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150x +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154x +16 -146.5
155x +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158x +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163x +16 -194.5
164x +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168x +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171x +16 -226.5
172x +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174x +16 -210.5
175x +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180x +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184x +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187x +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192x +32 -354.5
193x +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196x +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
230 15 -1 +60.5
231 0 -0.5 +60
232 17 -1 +59
233 2 -1 +58
234 3 +1 +59
235 0 -0.5 +58.5
236 1 +1 +59.5
237 36 +1 +60.5
238 22 -1 +59.5
239 34 +1 +60.5
240 11 -1 +59.5
241 20 -1 +58.5
242 1 +1 +59.5
243 28 -1 +58.5
244 11 -1 +57.5
245 21 +1 +58.5
246 29 -1 +57.5
247 15 -1 +56.5
248 15 -1 +55.5
249 34 +1 +56.5
250 10 -1 +55.5
251 16 +1 +56.5
252 4 -1 +55.5
253 35 -1 +54.5
254 17 -1 +53.5
255 4 -1 +52.5
256 19 +1 +53.5
257 25 +1 +54.5
258 11 -1 +53.5
259 0 -0.5 +53
260 5 +2 +55 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
261 22 -2 +53
262 31 -2 +51
263 0 -1 +50
264 2 -2 +48
265 10 -2 +46
266 6 -2 +44
267 28 -2 +42
268 27 +2 +44
269 4 -2 +42
270 1 +2 +44
271 3 +2 +46
272 11 -2 +44
273 11 -2 +42
274 9 +2 +44
275 5 +2 +46
276 1 +2 +48
277 19 +2 +50
278 11 -2 +48
279 28 -2 +46
280 10 -2 +44
281 15 -2 +42
282 27 +2 +44
283 23 +2 +46
284 13 -2 +44
285 7 +2 +46
286 17 -2 +44
287 35 -2 +42
288 27 +2 +44
289 14 +2 +46
290 21 +2 +48
291 14 +2 +50
292 34 +2 +52
293 11 -2 +50
294 10 -2 +48
295 36 +2 +50
296 24 -2 +48
297 36 +4 +52 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
298 34 +4 +56
299 7 +4 +60
300 5 +4 +64
301 6 -1 +63 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
302 16 +1 +64
303 34 +1 +65
304 34 +1 +66
305 33 -1 +65
306 26 -1 +64
307 1 +1 +65
308 5 +1 +66
309 0 -0.5 +65.5
310 33 -1 +64.5
311 0 -0.5 +64
312 9 +1 +65
313 0 -0.5 +64.5
314 21 +1 +65.5
315 23 +1 +66.5
316 13 -1 +65.5
317 3 +1 +66.5
318 20 -1 +65.5
319 34 +1 +66.5
320 28 -1 +65.5
321 28 -1 +64.5
322 14 +1 +65.5
323 20 -1 +64.5
324 30 +1 +65.5
325 25 +1 +66.5
326 36 +1 +67.5
327 1 +1 +68.5
328 31 -1 +67.5
329 35 -1 +66.5
330 36 +1 +67.5
331 5 +1 +68.5
332 29 -1 +67.5
333 28 -1 +66.5
Summary}
6 cycles of 37 spins / 333 outcomes / +66.5 units total / highest balance +68.5 units/
lowest balance -530.5 units / highest bet 64 units
For the first cycle of 37 spins the SD is 2.23
For the first 2 cycles (74 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 3 cycles (111 spins) the SD is 4.36
For the first 4 cycles (148 spins) the SD is 4.69
For the first 5 cycles (185 spins) the SD is 5.10
For the first 6 cycles (222 spins) the SD is 5.29
The net profit of 61.5 is being achieved on the 229th spin and at that time the SD was 4.94
The maximum drawdown was on 202nd spin with -530.5 and 5.50 SD
The rules of my method
You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your scoresheet.
Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your scoresheet.
The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).
The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you double the betting amount for the next 37 spins.
The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.
By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change
the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.
I hope everything was clear but if you have questions I'll be at your disposal.
Horrible Session #2:
S=spin R=result B=bet T=total
S R B T
1) L 1 -1
2) L 1 -2
3) W 1 -1
4) L 1 -2
5) L 1 -3
6) L 1 -4
7) L 1 -5
8 ) W 1 -4
9) W 1 -3
10) L 1 -4
11) L 1 -5
12) L 1 -6
13) W 1 -5
14) L 1 -6
15) L 1 -7
16) L 1 -8
17) L 1 -9
18) W 1 -8
19) L 1 -9
20) L 1 -10
21) L 1 -11
22) L 1 -12
23) L 1 -13
24) L 1 -14
25) W 1 -13
26) L 1 -14
27) L 1 -15
28) L 1 -16
29) L 1 -17
30) W 1 -16
31) L 1 -17
32) L 1 -18
33) W 1 -17
34) L 1 -18
35) W 1 -17
36) L 1 -18
37) L 1 -19
38) L 2 -21
39) L 2 -23
40) W 2 -21
41) L 2 -23
42) L 2 -25
43) L 2 -27
44) W 2 -25
45) L 2 -27
46) W 2 -25
47) W 2 -23
48) L 2 -25
49) L 2 -27
50) L 2 -29
51) L 2 -31
52) L 2 -33
53) L 2 -35
54) W 2 -33
55) L 2 -35
56) L 2 -37
57) W 2 -35
58) L 2 -37
59) L 2 -39
60) W 2 -37
61) L 2 -39
62) W 2 -37
63) W 2 -35
64) L 2 -37
65) L 2 -39
66) L 2 -41
67) W 2 -39
68) W 2 -37
69) L 2 -39
70) L 2 -41
71) W 2 -39
72) L 2 -41
73) W 2 -39
74) W 2 -37
75) L 4 -41
76) W 4 -37
77) L 4 -41
78) L 4 -45
79) W 4 -41
80) W 4 -37
81) L 4 -41
82) L 4 -45
83) W 4 -41
84) L 4 -45
85) W 4 -41
86) L 4 -45
87) W 4 -41
88) W 4 -37
89) L 4 -41
90) W 4 -37
91) L 4 -41
92) L 4 -45
93) L 4 -49
94) W 4 -45
95) W 4 -41
96) L 4 -45
97) W 4 -41
98) L 4 -45
99) W 4 -41
100) L 4 -45
101) L 4 -49
102)W 4 -45
103)W 4 -41
104) L 4 -45
105) L 4 -49
106) L 4 -53
107)W 4 -49
108)W 4 -45
109)W 4 -41
110) L 4 -45
111) L 4 -49
112)W 8 -41
113) L 8 -49
114)W 8 -41
115)W 8 -33
116) L 8 -41
117) L 8 -49
118)W 8 -41
119)W 8 -33
120) L 8 -41
121) L 8 -49
122) L 8 -57
123)W 8 -49
124) L 8 -57
125)W 8 -49
126) L 8 -57
127) L 8 -65
128)W 8 -57
129) L 8 -65
130)W 8 -57
131) L 8 -65
132)W 8 -57
133)W 8 -49
134) L 8 -57
135)W 8 -49
136) L 8 -57
137)W 8 -49
138) L 8 -57
139)W 8 -49
140)W 8 -41
141) L 8 -49
142) L 8 -57
143)W 8 -49
144)W 8 -41
145) L 8 -49
146)W 8 -41
147) L 8 -49
148) L 8 -57
149)W 16 -41
150)W 16 -25
151) L 16 -41
152)W 16 -25
153)W 16 -9
154) L 16 -25
155)W 16 -9
156) L 16 -25
157)W 16 -9
158)W 16 +7
When results are good every progression does well, but what happens in the worst possible scenario?!
This is how I keep on winning even in such extreme cases.
Millions of possible combinations and yet a player could lose only by himself...
Hi Blue_Angel,
Quite interesting and thanks for sharing this.
Any good selection criteria - and including your own - then this could be an answer. :)
A.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 01:54:19 AM
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
Summary}
234 outcomes / +29 units total / highest balance +29 units/
lowest balance -451 units / highest bet 64 units
For the first cycle of 38 spins the SD is 3.16
For the first 2 cycles (76 spins) the SD is 3
For the first 3 cycles (114 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 4 cycles (152 spins) the SD is 3.60
For the first 5 cycles (190 spins) the SD is 4.12
For the first 6 cycles (228 spins) the SD is 4
The net profit of 29 units is being achieved on the 234th spin and at that time the SD was 3.74
The maximum drawdown was on 215th spin with -451 units and 4.56 SD
The darkest hour is just before the dawn...
Quote from: Atlantis on February 23, 2016, 06:29:25 PM
Hi Blue_Angel,
Quite interesting and thanks for sharing this.
Any good selection criteria - and including your own - then this could be an answer. :)
A.
As I've described before, you always keep on betting on the least appeared EC.
You should consider it as buying a stock as cheap as possible and selling it in the first opportunity for profit, the entry and exit points in such neverending cycle are crucial.
It's a constant work in progress, you keep your record up to date, thus you adjust to the ever changing fluctuations/deviations.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 06:56:45 PM
As I've described before, you always keep on betting on the least appeared EC.
You should consider it as buying a stock as cheap as possible and selling it in the first opportunity for profit, the entry and exit points in such neverending cycle are crucial.
It's a constant work in progress, you keep your record up to date, thus you adjust to the ever changing fluctuations/deviations.
Hey Blue,
How many spins have you tested this method with?
Thanks! :)
QuoteBTW thanks for catching the fishes with Sputnik march.
To whom are you talking to?
What sputnik march has to do with my method?
The penultimate or avant dernier or same as before last selection aims for streaks of series and changes but it wins from the second in a row, the firsts from both sides are the half of everything therefore misses half of the total streaks.
The same as last wins all streaks of series (including first), but misses the streaks of intermittences (changes), thus it misses half of the total streaks because series and intermittences are equally possible.
These two options differ only in the distribution of wins to losses ratio but not in their totals, theoretically you should expect same level of success after 6 to 9 cycles when events start to average out even in extreme situations.
Quote from: TheLaw on February 23, 2016, 07:59:07 PM
Hey Blue,
How many spins have you tested this method with?
Thanks! :)
It has been tested not only by me but from several users as far as I know, out of multi-million of outcomes, we've never encounter worse sessions than the examples posted in this topic.
If you or anyone else has found worse, post it here in order to analyze it.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 08:23:29 PM
It has been tested not only by me but from several users as far as I know, out of multi-million of outcomes, we've never encounter worse sessions than the examples posted in this topic.
If you or anyone else has found worse, post it here in order to analyze it.
Thanks!
Blue Angel....
Would the cycle of bets that you are using here for roulette (37) be different if this was american wheel, would it then be cycle of 38? And what if this is applied to baccarat, what's the cycle number then?
Quote from: Big EZ on February 23, 2016, 10:57:09 PM
Blue Angel....
Would the cycle of bets that you are using here for roulette (37) be different if this was american wheel, would it then be cycle of 38? And what if this is applied to baccarat, what's the cycle number then?
Yes.
About card games such as Baccarat, multiply 6 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 25% OR multiply 8 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 33%
234 to 278 are the playable cards for each shoe, if we consider 5 cards as the average for each result we arrive to:
234 + 278 = 512 / 2 = 256 / 5 = 51 hands per shoe approximately.
We could round it up to 50 hands/results as 1 cycle.
Dear BA,
May you please show us how to win the horror #3.?
Thanks in advance.
===========================
Horror session #3:
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on February 24, 2016, 07:34:51 AM
Dear BA,
May you please show us how to win the horror #3.?
Thanks in advance.
===========================
Horror session #3:
L
L
L
W
L
.
.
BTW,
Are these actual shoes/spin results or are you just generating sessions for testing money management?
If they are actual results from a game, can you provide the results instead of the W/L registry?
I'd love to see just what method lost 23 wagers in a row.
Thanks.
AD
Well done Blue angel, big sets like project 201.......
this test reminds me of our lost gambling guru albahala
Quote from: Tomla on February 24, 2016, 07:23:30 PM
Well done Blue angel, big sets like project 201.......
this test reminds me of our lost gambling guru albahala
Indeed, Albahala uses the same philosophy on his betting and is one of the very few pro gamblers in this forum.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 24, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
Yes.
About card games such as Baccarat, multiply 6 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 25% OR multiply 8 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 33%
234 to 278 are the playable cards for each shoe, if we consider 5 cards as the average for each result we arrive to:
234 + 278 = 512 / 2 = 256 / 5 = 51 hands per shoe approximately.
We could round it up to 50 hands/results as 1 cycle.
Thanks for that info.....
This may sound like a silly question, but is a cycle only considered a cycle on placed bets?
! have played bacc shoe by shoe and never lost, increasing 1 unit a shoe until ahead----bet selection hardly mattered and i haven't done it for awhile
Horror session #3
===========================
S=spin R=result B=bet T=total
S R B T
1. L 1 -1
2. L 1 -2
3. L 1 -3
4. W 1 -2
5. L 1 -3
6. L 1 -4
7. W 1 -3
8. L 1 -4
9. L 1 -5
10. L 1 -6
11. L 1 -7
12. L 1 -8
13. W 1 -7
14. L 1 -8
15. L 1 -9
16. L 1 -10
17. W 1 -9
18. L 1 -10
19. L 1 -11
20. W 1 -10
21. L 1 -11
22. W 1 -10
23. W 1 -9
24. L 1 -10
25. W 1 -9
26. L 1 -10
27. L 1 -11
28. W 1 -10
29. L 1 -11
30. W 1 -10
31. L 1 -11
32. W 1 -10
33. L 1 -11
34. W 1 -10
35. L 1 -11
36. L 1 -12
37. W 1 -11
38. L 2 -13 <---- BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39. L 2 -15
40. W 2 -13
41. W 2 -11
42. L 2 -13
43. W 2 -11
44. L 2 -13
45. L 2 -15
46. L 2 -17
47. L 2 -19
48. L 2 -21
49. W 2 -19
50. W 2 -17
51. W 2 -15
52. L 2 -17
53. L 2 -19
54. W 2 -17
55. L 2 -19
56. W 2 -17
57. W 2 -15
58. L 2 -17
59. L 2 -19
60. W 2 -17
61. L 2 -19
62. W 2 -17
63. L 2 -19
64. W 2 -17
65. L 2 -19
66. W 2 -17
67. L 2 -19
68. W 2 -17
69. L 2 -19
70. W 2 -17
71. L 2 -19
72. W 2 -17
73. L 2 -19
74. W 2 -17
75. L 4 -21 <---- BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76. W 4 -17
77. L 4 -21
78. W 4 -17
79. L 4 -21
80. L 4 -25
81. W 4 -21
82. L 4 -25
83. W 4 -21
84. L 4 -25
85. W 4 -21
86. L 4 -25
87. W 4 -21
88. L 4 -25
89. W 4 -21
90. L 4 -25
91. L 4 -29
92. W 4 -25
93. L 4 -29
94. W 4 -25
95. L 4 -29
96. W 4 -25
97. W 4 -21
98. L 4 -25
99. W 4 -21
100. L 4 -25
101. W 4 -21
102. L 4 -25
103. W 4 -21
104. L 4 -25
105. W 4 -21
106. L 4 -25
107. W 4 -21
108. L 4 -25
109. L 4 -29
110. W 4 -25
111. L 4 -29
112. W 8 -21 <---- BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113. L 8 -29
114. W 8 -21
115. L 8 -29
116. W 8 -21
117. W 8 -13
118. L 8 -21
119. L 8 -29
120. W 8 -21
121. L 8 -29
122. W 8 -21
123. L 8 -29
124. W 8 -21
125. L 8 -29
126. W 8 -21
127. W 8 -13
128. L 8 -21
129. W 8 -13
130. L 8 -21
131. W 8 -13
132. L 8 -21
133. W 8 -13
134. L 8 -21
135. L 8 -29
136. W 8 -21
137. L 8 -29
138. W 8 -21
139. W 8 -13
140. L 8 -21
141. W 8 -13
142. L 8 -21
143. L 8 -29
144. L 8 -37
145. L 8 -45
146. L 8 -53
147. W 8 -45
148. L 8 -53
149. W 16 -37 <---- BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150. W 16 -21
151. W 16 -5
152. L 16 -21
153. W 16 -5
154. L 16 -21
155. W 16 -5
156. L 16 -21
157. W 16 -5
158. L 16 -21
159. W 16 -5
160. L 16 -21
161. W 16 -5
162. L 16 -21
163. L 16 -37
164. L 16 -53
165. L 16 -69
166. L 16 -85
167. L 16 -101
168. W 16 -85
169. L 16 -101
170. W 16 -85
171. W 16 -69
172. L 16 -85
173. W 16 -69
174. W 16 -53
175. L 16 -69
176. W 16 -53
177. L 16 -69
178. L 16 -85
179. L 16 -101
180. L 16 -117
181. W 16 -101
182. W 16 -85
183. W 16 -69
184. L 16 -85
185. W 16 -69
186. L 32 -101 <---- BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187. L 32 -133
188. W 32 -101
189. L 32 -133
190. L 32 -165
191. W 32 -133
192. L 32 -165
193. W 32 -133
194. L 32 -165
195. W 32 -133
196. L 32 -165
197. W 32 -133
198. L 32 -165
199. W 32 -133
200. L 32 -165
201. W 32 -133 <----- NEEDS TO CONTINUE
It seems unrealistic these kind of results, for 201 spins there wasn't more than 3 wins in a row, also the important thing which is missing is the bet selection, how to select when you don't post the numbers?!
It could someone made it up out of his head!
In case you have not understood it yet I'm going to make it clear, my bankroll is 600 units and I continue till I'm in the positive and gained a satisfactory profit, if I don't lose my bankroll means I've not lost the session.
From now on you will provide numbers and not w / l because the selection of which EC is very important.
Was that clear enough "beat the wheel" ??
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 06:47:28 PM
For the first cycle of 38 spins the SD is 3.16
For the first 2 cycles (76 spins) the SD is 3
For the first 3 cycles (114 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 4 cycles (152 spins) the SD is 3.60
For the first 5 cycles (190 spins) the SD is 4.12
For the first 6 cycles (228 spins) the SD is 4
The net profit of 29 units is being achieved on the 234th spin and at that time the SD was 3.74
The maximum drawdown was on 215th spin with -451 units and 4.56 SD
The darkest hour is just before the dawn...
97 wins 41.45% / 137 losses 58.55%
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
For the first cycle of 37 spins the SD is 2.23
For the first 2 cycles (74 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 3 cycles (111 spins) the SD is 4.36
For the first 4 cycles (148 spins) the SD is 4.69
For the first 5 cycles (185 spins) the SD is 5.10
For the first 6 cycles (222 spins) the SD is 5.29
The net profit of 61.5 is being achieved on the 229th spin and at that time the SD was 4.94
The maximum drawdown was on 202nd spin with -530.5 and 5.50 SD
87 wins 37.99% / 142 losses 62.01% at 229th spin which made the breakthrough
Quote from: Tomla on February 24, 2016, 09:25:22 PM
! have played bacc shoe by shoe and never lost, increasing 1 unit a shoe until ahead----bet selection hardly mattered and i haven't done it for awhile
I think this way is more conservative and in my opinion you need a bit more aggressive approach.
Quote from: Big EZ on February 24, 2016, 08:50:37 PM
Thanks for that info.....
This may sound like a silly question, but is a cycle only considered a cycle on placed bets?
Yes, only when you bet matters, whatever you see without betting doesn't alter the progression.
My progression goes up and down according the money won and/or lost.
That's why in the rules of my method I instruct to chart the 1st cycle before you begin betting, but never said to begin from 2 units because you've already 1 cycle on paper, there is BIG difference!
The initial charting without betting is something you do only once in the beginning of every session, after you start betting you keep on writing but never stop betting till you end the session.
The point of charting is for the bet selection, which in my opinion is the half of everything, the other half is the progression, none of these 2 elements should be underestimated!
I'm printing excel pages for charting casino sessions, I use a board in A4 page size in order to be able to write even when I'm not seating down.
[attachurl=1]
Hey Blue,
Have you tested this method without the bet selection to see if a higher bankroll would still beat it using the basic system?
Also, I presented this on Roulette.cc (with credit given), and they didn't even consider it for a minute due to the Marty-ness of it.
Steve (owner) even weighed in, and claimed that it would fail with no real explanation.
This seems odd, and makes me wonder about some people's motives. ???
Thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote from: TheLaw on February 25, 2016, 12:15:24 AM
Hey Blue,
Have you tested this method without the bet selection to see if a higher bankroll would still beat it using the basic system?
Also, I presented this on Roulette.cc (with credit given), and they didn't even consider it for a minute due to the Marty-ness of it.
Steve (owner) even weighed in, and claimed that it would fail with no real explanation.
This seems odd, and makes me wonder about some people's motives. ???
Thanks! :thumbsup:
No, I've not because I believe selection is half of everything, it's very important so I will never dismiss it.
If you are talking about S. Hourmouzis, almost everybody who has been involved in roulette forums knows who he really is...and unfortunately has Greek origin like me, but I believe this fact alone says nothing about the rest of the Greeks.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 25, 2016, 12:29:48 AM
No, I've not because I believe selection is half of everything, it's very important so I will never dismiss it.
If you are talking about S. Hourmouzis, almost everybody who has been involved in roulette forums knows who he really is...and unfortunately has Greek origin like me, but I believe this fact alone says nothing about the rest of the Greeks.
It's strange........I've never really seen him actively try to suppress anyone's method, and he doesn't actively try to sell his stuff (excluding adverts on the forum).
But I do find it odd that a man who claims to have a winning method (as he does) also sells cheating devices for Roulette. :no:
Quote from: TheLaw on February 25, 2016, 12:34:49 AM
It's strange........I've never really seen him actively try to suppress anyone's method, and he doesn't actively try to sell his stuff (excluding adverts on the forum).
But I do find it odd that a man who claims to have a winning method (as he does) also sells cheating devices for Roulette. :no:
What he does and what he claims I don't care.
Personally I don't know his policy about methods posted in his forum because I've not bothered with the particular forum.
But if you say that he usually doesn't bother but he did with my method when you posted it there probably means something...
Dear BA,
its not mine, I just copied and paste, go there and debate with the author, below is what he said about you.
http://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/anybody-think-such-bad-streak-can-be-won.4269/
====================
QUOTE:
Wow!!!
A reverse engineering genius in bs.cc saw cluster of wins in the end and suggested a fixed step martingale type progression, in the batches of every 37 spins. So, he will play with 1 unit for first 37 spins and then 2,4,8,16,32 etc. lol.
It is easy to make a key of one lock after having ample opportunity to diagnose that but the question is that of a master key. However, he could still not win my first horror session. He is presupposing a good cluster of wins anytime soon, which is unrealistic.
In this lesser horrible session given below with 89 wins and 112 losses, his reverse engineering wisdom will look foolish enough.
UNQUOTE.
and below not mine, but quote from with permission,
go there and, dare to debate with him if you have the...err, err...ballllllls...
================
QUOTE
If such spans can be beaten the games get beaten itself because bad stretches cause irreparable losses to the bankroll. Everybody can describe MMs to play bets doing average number of hits or a little below average only or in a way favorable or bearable to him. In the given stretches an average gambler can only think of losses or at max stop loss.
In bs.cc BTW carried these sessions after asking me and I saw good attempts to handle them although blue-angel's MM won't hold as he has an expectation of getting too many wins clustered later, in out of proportion if it started bad, which is unreal.
Innovation can not be expected from everyone.
Try whatever you feel can help. One can reverse engineer one of my sessions but not all 3 with the same approach. This could be a nice brain teaser. Every bet gets harsh moments even with the best safeguards possible. Unless you are well equipped to handle them with the least damage, you are supposed to be a loser always, at last.
UNQUOTE.
==========================
Quoteand below not mine, but quote from with permission,
go there and, dare to debate with him if you have the...err, err...ballllllls...
It's a waste of time to bother with such comments.
I'm not going to repeat it so listen carefully;
The goal of EVERY session is to make a profit, I'm not playing for fixed amounts neither fixed duration/spins.
One session could last 40 minutes or 4 hours, could gain 1 unit or 110 units, I don't know these things before finishing sessions.
What I do know is that I'll never walk away as loser, always I'm going to end my session with more money than when I've started it.
Unless there is a casino rule which obliges you to quit when you lose, I decide to continue till I'm in profit and finish when I have enough of it.
I decide it, not the casino, nor luck!
Hi BA,
No need to be agitated,
The author now, challenge you to win, the HORROR #4.
See if you win this horror#4...?
I don't think so...
BA,
You want the truth?..
The truth will kill you!
========================
HORROR SESSION 4: ( 112 LOSSES VS 72 WINS)
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
These "challenges" are really a mute point unless they are actual wheel spins.
If not, then anyone can just create a fake sequence to beat any system. :no:
Real spins only................unless you using a verified RNG (recorded from a online casino-which is still different than a real wheel, but interesting none-the-less)!!! :thumbsup:
''beat-the-wheel'',
By now you must have understood how my method works, so do it yourself, I'm not your secretary.
Besides I find silly these challenges, do I've to prove you something?
I think I don't.
By the way, like ''the law'' said, if the source of the results cannot be verified, like Wiesbaden casino for example, anyone could put up anything without being real.
And one last thing, I said that I could provide examples of sequences which have NUMBERS, not just W/L registry.
I didn't select any sequence because you could say I picked an easy one, the first 2 which I have posted are not mine, I've just played them.
B-T-W, I will make an educated guess and say the Horror no. 4 session was on a 00 wheel even though I have not seen the numbers.
True or False?
cheers
Hello
I 've done the test with this method of betting cyclical martingales
... win win ... and then lose a lot
... could be wrong
.... formula can be mistaken
I'm not very good with excel
my STOP LOSS was 600u
numbers are from file
10K RNG spins, single zero, generated by Random.org
www.roulette30.com
p.s. I had such high hopes that this will be a profitable method
Seeing a streak of either Black or Red there are 3 options :
Bet with the streak
Bet against it
Ignore it.
My decision would be to ignore it.
Quote from: BetJack on February 26, 2016, 07:22:16 PM
Hello
I 've done the test with this method of betting cyclical martingales
... win win ... and then lose a lot
... could be wrong
.... formula can be mistaken
I'm not very good with excel
my STOP LOSS was 600u
numbers are from file
10K RNG spins, single zero, generated by Random.org
www.roulette30.com
p.s. I had such high hopes that this will be a profitable method
From the first sight I recognize a fundamental mistake, you are betting always the same side.
My method is not just a progression, but selection by charting ALL EC's as well.
As you might understand this is very important difference.
However, now I've already begun calculating all the results, since there are 10k and I'm doing it manually I'll need time to finish.
Betjack,have you done this manually?
I've requested Les Howell to RX code my method but didn't get any reply, by the way does anyone knows how to RX code my method?
Seeing this same issue on other forums about this method.
Everyone wants to take the easy way out, and just test a color.
Adjusting bet selection takes much more time to test, but gives you precise results!!! :thumbsup:
When I'll finish the 10k results we will have a proof of why a progression is insufficient without the proper bet selection.
So far I'm approximately on 500th spin and never bet more than 2 units with worst balance -12 and current balance +41 (higher too).
User "betjack" had reached 16 units bet and -67 units worst balance, his current balance is -5 while his higher balance was +36.
The law, thanks for supporting me without even requesting it from you, I really appreciate it!
I'm talking about the forum roulette30 and my topic "Fallacious Holy Grail", I've read your comments...
Indeed Kavouras was trying to cover Reyth but he shouldn't because Reyth provided false information, however, I think Kavouras is good person, not like Reyth.
At least if Reyth was saying that he reached 128 units instead of 512 it would be more believable!
He never post that session, not even said the name of the online casino!
In the end tried to flatter you by saying "I still remember what you've learned me that if a system is going to lose it will be within the first 10,000 spins".
But by saying this is contradicting himself because the example of the worst sequence ever, which FHG wins, was 1 out of literally millions of results!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
The law, thanks for supporting me without even requesting it from you, I really appreciate it!
I'm talking about the forum roulette30 and my topic "Fallacious Holy Grail", I've read your comments...
Indeed Kavouras was trying to cover Reyth but he shouldn't because Reyth provided false information, however, I think Kavouras is good person, not like Reyth.
At least if Reyth was saying that he reached 128 units instead of 512 it would be more believable!
He never post that session, not even said the name of the online casino!
In the end tried to flatter you by saying "I still remember what you've learned me that if a system is going to lose it will be within the first 10,000 spins".
But by saying this is contradicting himself because the example of the worst sequence ever, which FHG wins, was 1 out of literally millions of results!
Transparency is always the best policy on these forums. The faster a method tanks publicly, the faster we can move on to the next one.
Reyth has a deep history with Kav, which started when he made Reyth a moderator. At that time, Reyth was testing the Kavouras bet 24/7 trying to get it to work. I noticed that Reyth had abruptly stopped posting his profit/loss statements on his main Kav thread, and called him out on it. Reyth then claimed that he was simply running an experiment, instead of a test, so profit didn't matter. I predicted openly that it would fail as he was clearly withholding information. One day after Reyth stopped posting on that thread (after literally months of posting daily), Kav offered his Kavouras Bet System for sale; the same day he made Reyth a moderator. :no:
Keep up the good work!!! :thumbsup:
On a private message Reyth told me that Kav bet is working for him with 5000 units bankroll...
Actually the bet selection is public, never changes, so what we don't know about it?
The money management is the only thing J.K. never made common knowledge, but to pay in order to learn the money management? I don't think so.
In my opinion, whatever selection doesn't change is not flexible to adapt to the ever changing roulette flow, thus destined to fail.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
Indeed Kavouras was trying to cover Reyth but he shouldn't because Reyth provided false information, however, I think Kavouras is good person, not like Reyth.
BA,
How do you know Reyth provided false information? If you're so certain the system can't fail, why do you want it coded?
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Reyth is a she, not a he. Not that it really matters or means anything.
Keep in mind that Reyth was a prolific poster apparently working and posting 24/7. There was a time when Reyth was responsible for most of the threads on Roulette30, so Kav probably just saw this as a way to boost visibility and reduce his workload by making Reyth a Mod along with preferential treatment; hence Kav jumping in to save Reyth if anyone should question his lack of evidence for a method.
I also caught Reyth cutting/pasting literally dozens of methods from other forums without credit. Most of of which had long been debunked on the same threads he took them from. :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Mike on February 27, 2016, 02:00:24 PM
BA,
How do you know Reyth provided false information? If you're so certain the system can't fail, why do you want it coded?
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Reyth is a she, not a he. Not that it really matters or means anything.
I wanted coded to run it automatically on online casinos while I'm playing it at brick and mortar casinos.
No, Reyth is he and his name is <edited-out>.
Quote from: Mike on February 27, 2016, 02:00:24 PM
BA,
How do you know Reyth provided false information? If you're so certain the system can't fail, why do you want it coded?
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Reyth is a she, not a he. Not that it really matters or means anything.
Technically, Reyth refused to offer the exact sequence that necessitated a higher Bankroll; I asked about this, and that's when Kav came to his aid.
I think he was also just playing 1 color if memory serves me correctly.
Mike,
seems this time you are right, never thought a woman as moderator of roulette forum!:-D
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 03:38:03 PM
Mike,
seems this time you are right, never thought a woman as moderator of roulette forum!:-D
Couple of issues with this:
1) Very few roulette forum members are female
2) Women don't tend to be interested in repetitive activities........and if you look at Reyth's posts, there's a ton of repetitive work involved
3) Reyth is notorious for using graphics of all kinds......specifically pics and gifs in his posts, so this might just be smoke and mirrors
Having said that...............maybe he is a she???
Although, Reyth doesn't strike me as the type of person who would want his/her identity known..... :nope:
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 03:38:03 PM
Mike,
seems this time you are right
I'm always right. :cheer:
It's unusual though, to be sure.
@ TheLaw,
Yes, very few roulette forum members are female, but Reyth (I'm certain), is one of the few.
QuoteWomen don't tend to be interested in repetitive activities........and if you look at Reyth's posts, there's a ton of repetitive work involved
Seems like a bit of a sweeping statement for half the world's population, and doesn't bringing up kids involve a lot of repetitive work?
QuoteReyth is notorious for using graphics of all kinds......specifically pics and gifs in his posts, so this might just be smoke and mirrors
Possibly, but I doubt it. There are head shots in most of the vids on Reyth's youtube site -- why go to so much trouble and for what reason?
Then there's this:
[attachimg=1]
And Reyth just isn't aggressive in the way that most guys would be when having to put up with the constant sniping and criticism myself and Real dish out, LOL. For me, it all points to him/her being a member of the fairer sex. I think it's kinda refreshing, and I like her (even though she's dead wrong about roulette).
Quote from: Mike on February 27, 2016, 05:49:28 PM
I'm always right. :cheer:
It's unusual though, to be sure.
@ TheLaw,
Yes, very few roulette forum members are female, but Reyth (I'm certain), is one of the few.
Seems like a bit of a sweeping statement for half the world's population, and doesn't bringing up kids involve a lot of repetitive work?
See female lead guitar players........very few actually exist, and none of them are at the level of any guitarist of note.
Possibly, but I doubt it. There are head shots in most of the vids on Reyth's youtube site -- why go to so much trouble and for what reason?
Then there's this:
[attachimg=1]
And Reyth just isn't aggressive in the way that most guys would be when having to put up with the constant sniping and criticism myself and Real dish out, LOL. For me, it all points to him/her being a member of the fairer sex. I think it's kinda refreshing, and I like her (even though she's dead wrong about roulette).
Just keep one thing in mind..........Reyth is a very slippery character who shows all of the classic signs of attention seeking behavior.
But yes..........he/she is very entertaining!!! :thumbsup:
Reyth is a man. He goes under the name Reyth77 on YouTube.
QuotePossibly, but I doubt it. There are head shots in most of the vids on Reyth's youtube site -- why go to so much trouble and for what reason?
Mike
Because Kavouras pay him/her.
Also must be of Mexican origin.
Just a report:
User ''betjack'' busted on 679th spin when his maximum bet was 64 units and lost 629 units total.
After 765 spins I'm on a new high of 76 units, the max bet never exceed the 16 units, while the max drawdown was 106 units so far.
I'll report here from time to time.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 08:36:52 PM
Mike
Because Kavouras pay him/her.
Also must be of Mexican origin.
Just a report:
User ''betjack'' busted on 679th spin when his maximum bet was 64 units and lost 629 units total.
After 765 spins I'm on a new high of 76 units, the max bet never exceed the 16 units, while the max drawdown was 106 units so far.
I'll report here from time to time.
So the difference here is that you are using a adaptable bet-selection, and betjack was using just 1 ec? ???
Yes, the progression stays the same but without proper selection I'd have already been busted like betjack. 8)
Quote from: celescliff on February 27, 2016, 06:17:35 PM
Reyth is a man. He goes under the name Reyth77 on YouTube.
Breaking news: Two people can have the same name (and in fact, the names Reyth77 and Reyth are not the same).
BA,
QuoteMike
Because Kavouras pay him/her.
So you reckon Kav is paying Reyth (who is a man) to make it look like he is a woman?
Do you have the slightest evidence for this?, and I repeat the question -- Why? Why should it matter to anyone whether Reyth is male or female? If it's because they decided that a female would have more credibility than a male then why go to the trouble of putting fake photos on youtube when it would be so much easier to make it known on the forum? And those youtube vids were only posted AFTER kav sold his system, so if he wanted Reyth to somehow add credibility by being female why wasn't it suggested before?
If that IS Kav's /Reyth's intention it obviously isn't working very well, since you both assumed Reyth is a man.
Quote from: Mike on February 28, 2016, 08:15:38 AM
Breaking news: Two people can have the same name (and in fact, the names Reyth77 and Reyth are not the same).
BA,
So you reckon Kav is paying Reyth (who is a man) to make it look like he is a woman?
Do you have the slightest evidence for this?, and I repeat the question -- Why? Why should it matter to anyone whether Reyth is male or female? If it's because they decided that a female would have more credibility than a male then why go to the trouble of putting fake photos on youtube when it would be so much easier to make it known on the forum? And those youtube vids were only posted AFTER kav sold his system, so if he wanted Reyth to somehow add credibility by being female why wasn't it suggested before?
If that IS Kav's /Reyth's intention it obviously isn't working very well, since you both assumed Reyth is a man.
Reyth IS a man. First, he's name is Reyth77 on youtube. Second, if you actually look at his videos you see that he's playing kavouras bet, with the exact type of exitement he had in the thread at the forum and THIRD, he is a QB64 developer, and he uses his software in some videos and you know that QB64 is not a very popular language.
That's my proof, where's yours?
celescliff,
None of that provides any evidence that Reyth is a man.
Like I said, "Reyth77" and "Reyth" are different names, which doesn't prove that they are NOT the same, but it doesn't prove that they ARE either.
Whatever system Reyth was playing is completely irrelevant to his/her gender.
Whatever programming language Reyth uses is also completely irrelevant.
It seems you have no idea of what constitutes evidence.
My evidence is the screenshot I posted, maybe you didn't see it?
You don't strike the name, system and language as a coincidence? I saw your picture and if you want a picture as evidence then here:
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiGuk5vY.png&hash=069d3d66c710985485c441c87147f93a6db974dc)
Yours is not an evidence either.
I give up. He/She could be whaterver he/she wants for all I care, it's irrelevant.
It doesn't really matter, if he was a woman that wouldn't make him more reliable, gender ad credibility are irrelevant.
I can tell you he is male because I listen his voice on one of his videos.
I kind of see where this thread started to derail and I think it can still come back 'online' but only time will tell.
We'll let it ride for a little while longer before chopping it up into two separate threads.
AD
Just an update report from the 10,000 spins file from random.org
After 1048 results I'm +110 units
Max bet 16 units
Max drawdown -161 units, from +55 to -106 in 121 spins, recovered at +70 units after 30 spins.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 29, 2016, 05:43:21 AM
Just an update report from the 10,000 spins file from random.org
After 1048 results I'm +110 units
Max bet 16 units
Max drawdown -161 units, from +55 to -106 in 121 spins, recovered at +70 units after 30 spins.
So roughly +1 unit every 10 spins.
Is that consistent with your previous tests?
Thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote from: TheLaw on February 29, 2016, 12:23:32 PM
So roughly +1 unit every 10 spins.
Is that consistent with your previous tests?
Thanks! :thumbsup:
I truly believe it's the most consistent in winning but it's not like a fixed interest of terms account.
Hey Blue_Angel. ...
Impressive your progression. It scares me though.
Did it ever busted ? 600 br ?
Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 05:52:08 PM
Hey Blue_Angel. ...
Impressive your progression. It scares me though.
Did it ever busted ? 600 br ?
I'll post it if ever does.
Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 05:52:08 PM
Hey Blue_Angel. ...
Impressive your progression. It scares me though.
Did it ever busted ? 600 br ?
This is a grind.......no doubt, but if it averages +1 unit for every 10 spins, surely safe enough to play nearly anywhere without any heat,and well within table limits.
The only downside is that we must be prepared to stick it out until a new high is reached, and it would take about 100+hrs to double the bank.
Even if you went to the $128 level (in theory), then you could still play a $15 base pretty easily making about $100/hr........or $200,000/year.
Work=reward!!! :thumbsup:
This reminds on a thread I made on cc. "Embrace the edge"
I played it on RNG . I waited bit longer then our 37 spins. But who cares coz on those fast spins we can start pretty fast. The only difference is the progression.
I'm gonna try it . Will see what happens.
@the law....15$ base bet? 15x128 :scared:
The law, you got it right, it is grinding, slowly but steadily.
My personal preference is 10 euros unit and aiming from 30 to 60 units per session/day.
With 6000 euros bank can make 300 to 600 (5% to 10%) in approximately 5 hours (BM casino), just a matter of time.
Not too much like 25,50,100 unit value which could draw unnecessary attention, not too low which could not worth the time.
About type of casino, I'm traditional on this one which means that I prefer to have the wheel and the croupier in front of me producing results as I place my chips at the felt.
So we need 10-20 sessions to recover from a bust.
Can I ask how many sessions you've done already?
I don't know how much time and how many spins determine a session, for you could be 500 spins, for me 300 and for someone else 100.
So better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 29, 2016, 07:57:35 PM
So better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.
WTF !!!!! Are you kidding me ? :o
Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 08:02:43 PM
WTF !!!!! Are you kidding me ? :o
Let me clarify what I said, many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one on the first example of this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
All these people just confirmed that there was not worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my progression.
Therefore was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell.
What I did was to try several progressions and first conclude to another which needed roughly 1000 units and the max bet was about 350 units.
I was not completely satisfied with my findings, mostly because of the huge max bet, thus it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)
That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.
Time is not a problem for me because I'm satisfying also my need for gambling.
Even if I could win every time in 30 minutes or less, I'd still feel that something is missing.
I get this need filled after a few hours, could be anything between 2 and 8 hours.
Never liked hit and run away like thief!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 24, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
Yes.
About card games such as Baccarat, multiply 6 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 25% OR multiply 8 decks by 52 cards and deduct from the total 33%
234 to 278 are the playable cards for each shoe, if we consider 5 cards as the average for each result we arrive to:
234 + 278 = 512 / 2 = 256 / 5 = 51 hands per shoe approximately.
We could round it up to 50 hands/results as 1 cycle.
So based on this I have another silly question....
If I/you/anyone use the same bet selection on both roulette even chances and baccarat, for one game I would need to adjust it after 37 spins and the other 50 even though its the same selection process?
And for baccarat does that formula take into account that you are going to be losing units for the banker commission? This progression applied to baccarat could be losing significant units during betting 16units per 50 hand sequence, or am I looking at this the wrong way?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 29, 2016, 08:20:07 PMthus it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)
That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.
Martingale
Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 08:44:14 PM
Martingale
This actually makes logical sense..........anytime someone writes about a large number of spins, they lose all of the "get-rich-quick" crowd. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Big EZ on February 29, 2016, 08:33:01 PM
So based on this I have another silly question....
If I/you/anyone use the same bet selection on both roulette even chances and baccarat, for one game I would need to adjust it after 37 spins and the other 50 even though its the same selection process?
And for baccarat does that formula take into account that you are going to be losing units for the banker commission? This progression applied to baccarat could be losing significant units during betting 16units per 50 hand sequence, or am I looking at this the wrong way?
Baccarat is different game from roulette that's why needs different cycle of calculations.
Banker's commision is a disadvantage but it's been compensated by the absence of a ''0''.
Let's say that there was no commission to be paid by banker's winnings but every time there was a tie you would lose your bet, whether that bet was on player's or banker's side, would that being better?
In roulette number 0 is being expected once every 37 outcomes, thus you lose 100% or 50% (le partage) of your bet every 37 results, in baccarat let's say you bet half of the total decisions on banker and from this half you are winning half of them;
So in every 37 hands you would bet 18.5 times for the banker to win, from those you win 9.25 wins and from those wins it's being deducted -2.5% from the total (-5%/2) it leads to 9.25 * 2.5 = -23.12% every 37 hands.
Of course actual results may vary, this is just an average estimation.
I don't prefer blackjack because you have only one option, you have to stick with the player's side while results are going both ways.
If you could choose from time to time to bet on dealer's cards it would be much better, also if you could skip/avoid when betting should be on the dealer and just join when the indication is clear for the player's side it would be good but not as good as having the option to bet both ways because includes a lot of waiting without betting.
What I DON'T like in both baccarat and blackjack are the automatic shuffling machines...
What I think as the best future on roulette is the option to select between 6 EC's any given time.
Craps for pass and don't pass bets has low house edge;
Let's say you bet DP half of the times 37/2 = 18.5 from these you win half 18.5/2=9.25 and 1 from those wins you don't get paid because it's a push on 12 (double 6) so that's happening once every 36 rolls and you don't lose your bet but you don't get paid if it happens during your bet on DP on come out roll.
It's tiny disadvantage for 36 results cycle but what I don't like on craps is that you cannot seat down and a single result could take many rolls, thus more time for the same results!
Quote from: TheLaw on February 29, 2016, 09:01:09 PM
This actually makes logical sense..........anytime someone writes about a large number of spins, they lose all of the "get-rich-quick" crowd. :thumbsup:
From my perspective roulette is not a run of 100 meters (speed) but a marathon (endurance).
You have to take a ''bird's view'' as Bayes had previously mentioned, you should consider as one whole long term session, not small parts of hitting the luck (when you have it) and running away before luck turns against you!
I don't know about you but personally I'm not looking for snatches, I'm looking for rock solid, consistent results!
I've got no problem playing for hours if I'm winning. Anyway I'm gonna test it on small stakes. 0,10 -100 . Make it or break it :nod:
Millions of spins...would be unbelievable if it tanks in my hands. Testing start tomorrow
Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 12:15:35 AM
I've got no problem playing for hours if I'm winning. Anyway I'm gonna test it on small stakes. 0,10 -100 . Make it or break it :nod:
Millions of spins...would be unbelievable if it tanks in my hands. Testing start tomorrow
For 0.1 a bankroll of 60 will be sufficient, it's like building up a pyramid, you begin from the lower levels and gradually you'll reach the top.
A small compounding interest can go a long way.
I'd wish you luck but you won't need it.
Anyone know where you can play .10 stakes in US online? ???
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 12:29:14 AM
For 0.1 a bankroll of 60 will be sufficient, it's like building up a pyramid, you begin from the lower levels and gradually you'll reach the top.
A small compounding interest can go a long way.
I'd wish you luck but you won't need it.
Thx Blue_Angel. ... I will share my results good or bad. And with 0,10 it's fun testing. No pressure.
On RNG I could do it pretty fast. Of course I would click till one ec is faaaar behind and then start. (Takes max 10-15minutes). Or the airball that spits out a number every 30 seconds.
Or live only ?
Denzie,
Have you been familiarized with the rules of my method?
I know only 2 RNG for 0.1 and 1 with 0.2 but I wouldn't recommended them.
At Dublinbet casino they have live tables (not studio) starting from 1, my local casinos offer airball roulette from 1 for EC's, so that's the absolute minimum for me (600 BR).
Yeah, I know the rules. Play whatever ec is most far behind.
RNG isn't that bad though. I've been playing with it the last couple of weeks. It gives the same results as a live session. (Only if your going for some dealer signature then it's a no go).
I made a thread simular to your method. But the progression was different. No idea why I stopped playing it. It did won . Anyway I clicked till an ec was around 44% and then I go in. Deepest I saw was 26%. And then it shoots up like a rocket.
Btw... go check on cc
Nick did 1 million spin...
Congratulations my friend. :applause:
Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 01:41:44 AM
Yeah, I know the rules. Play whatever ec is most far behind.
RNG isn't that bad though. I've been playing with it the last couple of weeks. It gives the same results as a live session. (Only if your going for some dealer signature then it's a no go).
I made a thread simular to your method. But the progression was different. No idea why I stopped playing it. It did won . Anyway I clicked till an ec was around 44% and then I go in. Deepest I saw was 26%. And then it shoots up like a rocket.
Actually I'm waiting for no more than the initial 37 outcomes, at that time I'm betting the least shown EC regardless of the number of times has already appeared.
Then I bet continuously till the end of the session, always following the most unbalanced EC pair.
I've a question for ALL of you, do you think that by applying the same betting schedule but for the most shown EC would generated better results?
If yes, why?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 02:00:38 AM
Actually I'm waiting for no more than the initial 37 outcomes, at that time I'm betting the least shown EC regardless of the number of times has already appeared.
Then I bet continuously till the end of the session, always following the most unbalanced EC pair.
I've a question for ALL of you, do you think that by applying the same betting schedule but for the most shown EC would generated better results?
If yes, why?
Because you're following a streak, as opposed to the ec that's behind.
One is due vs another is ahead?
Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 01:54:07 AM
Btw... go check on cc
Nick did 1 million spin...
Congratulations my friend. :applause:
Just to clarify, he used a similar system, but not exact rules of this method. It did make it to 1,000,000 though!!! :thumbsup:
His average was +1 unit per 55 spins vs +1 per 10 spins with this method.
"I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.
Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin. Blue Angel I believe only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie. I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit. Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.
As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.
Those are the only changes I can think of.
The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.
Cheers
Nick"With his method, there was a 5422 unit draw-down and 128 highest bet. That's still pretty impressive for a million spins!!! :applause:
Since this method aims for long term profit I'm going with the probability which means that at some point the deviations will start to decrease towards the average.
It's different to play 50 spins which variance could dominate, if the event's horizon would be short I'd have went with the flow instead of the probability.
98% of the world's gamblers will not play 1,000,000 results during their lifetime, except if science finds the way to make us immortals, not like highlander but without death from natural causes.
As unbelievable it might sound it's NOT impossible, actually it has been rumored that in 15 to 20 years from now such practice will be considered formality due to genetic engineering and nanotechnology!
In this case we could continue our sessions into the millions of results and expanding our records into the infinity!
For the rest 2% of the gamblers' population, who by the way could be undercovered vampires, only 10% of them will encounter such session as Nick's.
Guys, we need to work under PRACTICAL terms, in other words what we CAN expect during our gambling lifetime!
That example could be equally possible as a very large comet crushing on earth, astronomical possibility, what's the point?!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 03:17:32 AM
Since this method aims for long term profit I'm going with the probability which means that at some point the deviations will start to decrease towards the average.
It's different to play 50 spins which variance could dominate, if the event's horizon would be short I'd have went with the flow instead of the probability.
98% of the world's gamblers will not play 1,000,000 results during their lifetime, except if science finds the way to make us immortals, not like highlander but without death from natural causes.
As unbelievable it might sound it's NOT impossible, actually it has been rumored that in 15 to 20 years from now such practice will be considered formality due to genetic engineering and nanotechnology!
In this case we could continue our sessions into the millions of results and expanding our records into the infinity!
For the rest 2% of the gamblers' population, who by the way could be undercovered vampires, only 10% of them will encounter such session as Nick's.
Guys, we need to work under PRACTICAL terms, in other words what we CAN expect during our gambling lifetime!
That example could be equally possible as a very large comet crushing on earth, astronomical possibility, what's the point?!
I think the 1,000,000 spins was just to prove that the method actually worked long-term. If you say 1000, then they demand 2000......if 10,000, then they want 100,000. Just staying one step ahead of the critics.
@ 50 spins per hour it would take nearly 10 years playing 40hrs/wk to hit 1,000,000..........so if you wanted to play for a living....... :nod:
If you put it this way it's not far away from the truth and I don't find it so much 128 units bet for such extreme events, but 5422 units draw-down is quite BIG drawdown.
I've tested with and without money countless methods, mine and from others and if I've learned one thing from such experience is that the 90% of all times a bad method doesn't take too long to show its weakness.
90% of bad methods have been exceed my virtual limit within 1000 results, 5% has failed within 5000 outcomes and 5% have surpassed every expectation, FHG is one of them.
Session on RNG (Unibet , NetEnt software )
+ 35 .... highest step 4 units
Hey BA,
Steve weighed in on your system over @ Roulette.cc if you're interested.
If you would like to come over and discuss the method, we would love to have you.
If not, I understand, and thanks for the method-much appreciated!!! :thumbsup:
The original poster of this topic , has written and attached in gamblingforums ,
an interesting 'TRACKER', to share with us,
please read on, or go to that forum.
Thanks.
=============================
QUOTE.
[by Albalaha]
I saw lots of hue and cry over the progression suggested by Blue Angel which I like to call "Delayed Martingale". i have created a tracker for the same for everyone to see. Anybody is free to post/attach the tracker to all relevant forums as I do not write in other forums. It tanks so badly that eventually, it will need infinite chips and unlimited table limits like regular martingale. I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way.
I do not have any enmity with either Blue Angel or Nickmsi as both have been my friends and they have every right to suggest methods as I or anybody do. I just want to show all that just delaying the martingale by playing in spans of 37 spins, doesn't make a winner by itself.
I could not attach excel directly here so uploaded it on file upload site: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00136778777113954514
http://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/anybody-think-such-bad-streak-can-be-won.4269/
Quote from: TheLaw on March 01, 2016, 11:33:43 PM
Hey BA,
Steve weighed in on your system over @ Roulette.cc if you're interested.
If you would like to come over and discuss the method, we would love to have you.
If not, I understand, and thanks for the method-much appreciated!!! :thumbsup:
Could you attach a link?
here the tracker
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 02, 2016, 04:10:53 AM
Could you attach a link?
Go, take 100.000$, good luck!
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16641.45
Updated report from 10000 spins from random.org
After 1567 spins the total is +158 units
Bet never exceed 16 units
Max drawdown 161 units
I will upload this excel file when I'm done with it.
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16641.msg148667;topicseen#msg148667
Here is the link.
Btw that tracker...isn't that for 1 ec only? Or does it work correctly ?
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on March 02, 2016, 03:50:09 AM
The original poster of this topic , has written and attached in gamblingforums ,
an interesting 'TRACKER', to share with us,
please read on, or go to that forum.
Thanks.
=============================
QUOTE.
[by Albalaha]
I saw lots of hue and cry over the progression suggested by Blue Angel which I like to call "Delayed Martingale". i have created a tracker for the same for everyone to see. Anybody is free to post/attach the tracker to all relevant forums as I do not write in other forums. It tanks so badly that eventually, it will need infinite chips and unlimited table limits like regular martingale. I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way.
I do not have any enmity with either Blue Angel or Nickmsi as both have been my friends and they have every right to suggest methods as I or anybody do. I just want to show all that just delaying the martingale by playing in spans of 37 spins, doesn't make a winner by itself.
I could not attach excel directly here so uploaded it on file upload site: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00136778777113954514
http://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/anybody-think-such-bad-streak-can-be-won.4269/
So now I'm a bit confused.......
The tracker, which appears to use BA's progression, comes out ahead with +1710 units after 10,000 spins.
What am I missing here? ???
"I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way.".........not sure what this means. :nope:
Quote from: TheLaw on March 02, 2016, 06:03:49 PM
So now I'm a bit confused.......
The tracker, which appears to use BA's progression, comes out ahead with +1710 units after 10,000 spins.
What am I missing here? ???
"I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way."
.........not sure what this means. :nope:
He used only Red, always the same EC as user betjack did and busted on the 10,000 spins file I'm working now.
Progression without selection is party without music!
What is the sword without the hand whom wields it...?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 02, 2016, 06:55:17 PM
He used only Red, always the same EC as user betjack did and busted on the 10,000 spins file I'm working now.
Progression without selection is party without music!
What is the sword without the hand whom wields it...?
Not sure about this.........
I just checked the tracker, and the w/L doesn't match the color of the number? ???
Second session +40 (RNG)
Highest unit 16
:thumbsup:
If you are not feeling comfortable by going the whole way and bet 64 or even 128 units if needed, then better not to start at all!
It takes B&B baby! :cheer:
B&B=balls and bankroll
posted by Albalaha in gamblingforum.
==============
qoute,
Now, when his progression has failed in almost every 10k session without betting a few thousands, he says his betselection is better and hence immune from such drawdowns which is the worst joke I have ever heard.
No way of picking bet is better than all other bets, in long run or multiple small run tests. Every bet gets momentarily good or bad and in long run, close to its mathematical expectancy.
To showcase what I said about betselections, I did entire zumma baccarat having nearly 115k hands without Tie bet in 5 types of betselection. Each go almost identical as a whole. No advantage or disadvantage in anyone.
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/11...et-selections-perform-zumma-1600#.VteMU3197Mw
unquote.
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on March 03, 2016, 02:47:58 AM
posted by Albalaha in gamblingforum.
==============
qoute,
Now, when his progression has failed in almost every 10k session without betting a few thousands, he says his betselection is better and hence immune from such drawdowns which is the worst joke I have ever heard.
No way of picking bet is better than all other bets, in long run or multiple small run tests. Every bet gets momentarily good or bad and in long run, close to its mathematical expectancy.
To showcase what I said about betselections, I did entire zumma baccarat having nearly 115k hands without Tie bet in 5 types of betselection. Each go almost identical as a whole. No advantage or disadvantage in anyone.
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/11...et-selections-perform-zumma-1600#.VteMU3197Mw
unquote.
Except for the part where the 10,000 spins link that he provided actually ended @ +1710................so how is this a failure? ???
answer to thelaw:..by Albalaha,
quote.
Every session can win with a martingale of any form. It is the max bet of few thousands and DDs of -12000 or even more that makes it not at all playable.
Sadly it is being preached that this method wins at last but it is not told that any big simulation may seek thousands of chips and bets of thousands too, in a spin. How many can bet 4096 units in a go or even more? The shown sample session won at last but with max bet of 2048 units and DD of -12,000 and -10,000.
====================================
this is the horror session shown in excel with bet of 2048 and drawdown of 10k and 12k.
I am also attaching a superhorror session where one will need to bet over 65000 units with BA progression with its graph. One can put this session in the tracker and see how bad marty goes in all its forms.
unquote
==============
graph...by Albalaha
BA,
and others,
see if you could win this,
[may upload into the tracker]
Original Post :
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=669.0
Hello. . . .
I ran your Super Horror Session and have attached the graph results
My bet selection was Black or Red, whichever had the least hits.
Largest bet = 64 units
Max Drawdown = 437 units
Cheers
Nick
I have a question about this progression before I start to test it against my W/L records.
Is it always in cycles of 37? What happens if you sit down and start off with a win, do you lock up the
1 unit of profit and start a fresh cycle of 37? What if you are 15 bets in and gain 1 unit, do you lock that up and start a new cycle of 37 or is all 1 unit betting played out until the end of a 37 cycle?
Hi Big EZ . .
I tested this just like you said.
On a new high (peak) I reset the progression to 1.
The Bet Selection remains the same, only the progression changes.
Cheers
Nick
Hello Nick
I have a question about the simulation 1000000 spins at the second forum, is there, the maximum drawdown is more than 5k, with max stake 128 unit.
Did you tried to play it with stoplose let say 1000 or 600 units, then the graph looks like a positively or negatively?
Thanks for any reply
Hi Ozon . . .
When we test a system we first test it "wide open", meaning no limits on the Profits or Losses.
Then we can gauge how bad or good it will get.
With this knowledge we can then determine the best size bankroll, the best Stop Losses and Profit Targets to test further.
We have not yet determined what is the best Stop Loss yet.
Cheers
Nick
I believe it has to be between minimum 64 bet / 600 bankroll or maximum 128 bet / 1000 bankroll.
Does Albalaha have something against Blue Angel?
All I see are tests that succeed, while he claims they fail............what am I missing? ???
You can make +100 unit profit sessions. Each with 1000u br.
Then see how many successful and how many busts.
Just an idea. Cuz on fast RNG spins it doesn't take to long to get it.
Real live wheel it would probably be to long. So there for 30 units would be enough for live play with 600 br.
Quote from: TheLaw on March 03, 2016, 06:51:06 PM
Does Albalaha have something against Blue Angel?
All I see are tests that succeed, while he claims they fail............what am I missing? ???
Haters will always hate. Best thing you can do is lift up your shoulder for a second and ignore.
Don't forget also the air ball roulettes which producing results every 50 to 60 seconds.
Quote from: Nickmsi on March 03, 2016, 04:58:36 PM
Hi Big EZ . .
I tested this just like you said.
On a new high (peak) I reset the progression to 1.
The Bet Selection remains the same, only the progression changes.
Cheers
Nick
Just to be clear, you start a new cycle of 37 bets?
Because in the examples that Blue posted when he resets anywhere in the 37 bet cycle he plays out the remaining cycle for 1 unit .
Can you clear this up for me/us Blue, just to make sure the testing is being done the right way
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 01:06:50 AM
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3x +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5x +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7x +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10x +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12x +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16x +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21x +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23x +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29x +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31x +1 -10.5
32x +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35x +1 -10.5
36x +1 -9.5
37x +1 -8.5
38x +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42x +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45x +2 -12.5
46x +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52x +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55x +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58x +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62x +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65x +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68x +2 -30.5
69x +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71x +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75x +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77x +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80x +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90x +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92x +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95x +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97x +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101x +4 -76.5
102x +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104x +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114x +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117x +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119x +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122x +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128x +8 -154.5
129x +8 -146.5
130x +8 -138.5
131x +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134x +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138x +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140x +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143x +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145x +8 -162.5
146x +8 -154.5
147x +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149x +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150x +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154x +16 -146.5
155x +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158x +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163x +16 -194.5
164x +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168x +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171x +16 -226.5
172x +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174x +16 -210.5
175x +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180x +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184x +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187x +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192x +32 -354.5
193x +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196x +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
230 15 -1 +60.5
231 0 -0.5 +60
232 17 -1 +59
233 2 -1 +58
234 3 +1 +59
235 0 -0.5 +58.5
236 1 +1 +59.5
237 36 +1 +60.5
238 22 -1 +59.5
239 34 +1 +60.5
240 11 -1 +59.5
241 20 -1 +58.5
242 1 +1 +59.5
243 28 -1 +58.5
244 11 -1 +57.5
245 21 +1 +58.5
246 29 -1 +57.5
247 15 -1 +56.5
248 15 -1 +55.5
249 34 +1 +56.5
250 10 -1 +55.5
251 16 +1 +56.5
252 4 -1 +55.5
253 35 -1 +54.5
254 17 -1 +53.5
255 4 -1 +52.5
256 19 +1 +53.5
257 25 +1 +54.5
258 11 -1 +53.5
259 0 -0.5 +53
260 5 +2 +55 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
261 22 -2 +53
262 31 -2 +51
263 0 -1 +50
264 2 -2 +48
265 10 -2 +46
266 6 -2 +44
267 28 -2 +42
268 27 +2 +44
269 4 -2 +42
270 1 +2 +44
271 3 +2 +46
272 11 -2 +44
273 11 -2 +42
274 9 +2 +44
275 5 +2 +46
276 1 +2 +48
277 19 +2 +50
278 11 -2 +48
279 28 -2 +46
280 10 -2 +44
281 15 -2 +42
282 27 +2 +44
283 23 +2 +46
284 13 -2 +44
285 7 +2 +46
286 17 -2 +44
287 35 -2 +42
288 27 +2 +44
289 14 +2 +46
290 21 +2 +48
291 14 +2 +50
292 34 +2 +52
293 11 -2 +50
294 10 -2 +48
295 36 +2 +50
296 24 -2 +48
297 36 +4 +52 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
298 34 +4 +56
299 7 +4 +60
300 5 +4 +64
301 6 -1 +63 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
302 16 +1 +64
303 34 +1 +65
304 34 +1 +66
305 33 -1 +65
306 26 -1 +64
307 1 +1 +65
308 5 +1 +66
309 0 -0.5 +65.5
310 33 -1 +64.5
311 0 -0.5 +64
312 9 +1 +65
313 0 -0.5 +64.5
314 21 +1 +65.5
315 23 +1 +66.5
316 13 -1 +65.5
317 3 +1 +66.5
318 20 -1 +65.5
319 34 +1 +66.5
320 28 -1 +65.5
321 28 -1 +64.5
322 14 +1 +65.5
323 20 -1 +64.5
324 30 +1 +65.5
325 25 +1 +66.5
326 36 +1 +67.5
327 1 +1 +68.5
328 31 -1 +67.5
329 35 -1 +66.5
330 36 +1 +67.5
331 5 +1 +68.5
332 29 -1 +67.5
333 28 -1 +66.5
Summary}
6 cycles of 37 spins / 333 outcomes / +66.5 units total / highest balance +68.5 units/
lowest balance -530.5 units / highest bet 64 units
The way I play it is after resetting bet amount, the 37 spins cycle is continuing where it was.
The cycle isn't being reseted, only the bet amount.
Also there are other parameters which I've intentionally avoided to discuss.
Hello BA,
You mention that there are parameters which you have not discussed. These parameters have no impact on the method you have described (FHG) or do they? With this I mean, you have shared with us your winning method, we have all the information for this in your method description however, there are some "parameters" which can make playing less time consuming etc. For example what you just mentioned that after a session win we do not have to start all over with tracking but can begin again with the least hit EC.
I hope you have not left out an important aspect of your winning method, without which we can not win longterm.
Quote from: AMK on March 03, 2016, 08:46:45 PM
Hello BA,
You mention that there are parameters which you have not discussed. These parameters have no impact on the method you have described (FHG) or do they? With this I mean, you have shared with us your winning method, we have all the information for this in your method description however, there are some "parameters" which can make playing less time consuming etc. For example what you just mentioned that after a session win we do not have to start all over with tracking but can begin again with the least hit EC.
I hope you have not left out an important aspect of your winning method, without which we can not win longterm.
What I've already shared with you is something very strong which aims in long term victory by the absence of defeat.
In some sessions the profit might be little but believe me the soonest way to reach a distant point is by slow and steady steps, it might seems that some other methods are gaining fast but if you could see those methods after a week or a month you would realize that your progress is greater.
Consistency, stability, persistency are the names of my method.
The benefits are not only financial but it's also a good opportunity to build patience and discipline, by becoming mentally stronger you are becoming the ruler of your life.
Last but not least, I'd like to offer you a hint about the ''hidden'' parameters;
It has to do with the selection, not the progression.
Just use your mind, use your imagination, don't be spoiled and expect everything in a ''silver platter''.
Here is a test I did of 1k placed bets with BLUES progression.
Highest bet was 16 units, and I ended with +83 units
I have attached:
the 3k random.org file I used for generating my W/L registry
1k flat bet graph played through this random.org sequence
1k bet graph with BA progression
sheet with the W/L and bet amounts for each bet
edit****
Forgot to add this is in cycles of 50 based off playing baccarat
Hey guys, can anyone copy the following and post it to the Steve's forum because he restricted my account.
Anyone??
''Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.
After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.
You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.
Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!
Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.
Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.
So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.
I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.
Angelo''
Just posted this on Roulette.cc.
Hopefully this can move it forward. :thumbsup:
Quote from: TheLaw on March 04, 2016, 03:06:17 AM
Just posted this on Roulette.cc.
Hopefully this can move it forward. :thumbsup:
I just saw it, many thanks!
Peace, guys!!
I was not posting here for pretty long time for some personal reasons but since this debate has my inputs directly or indirectly, I thought it fine to speak my mind myself.
First of all, I do not have any enmity against the member blue angel or nickmsi.
Both are nice people and I have talked to them for long earlier.
Regarding this progression suggested by Blue Angel, I would just say, it is very easy to simulate in excel exactly as Blue Angel says. I have tested his version extensively. Marty can win any attack but the question is of max bet and drawdown that one is willing to have and casinos permit them too.
Any random session can get a bet of even a few thousands, if you simulate enough, this way.
I am working on BA's method's tracker to prove my point. I know Azim or Reyth are working on the same too. Whoever comes first, will prove my point. I guarantee this.
Stating that my way of picking bets is immune from dangerous hikes of martingale is indeed fallacious. Will be back here soon.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 04, 2016, 05:53:20 AM
Peace, guys!!
I was not posting here for pretty long time for some personal reasons but since this debate has my inputs directly or indirectly, I thought it fine to speak my mind myself.
First of all, I do not have any enmity against the member blue angel or nickmsi.
Both are nice people and I have talked to them for long earlier.
Regarding this progression suggested by Blue Angel, I would just say, it is very easy to simulate in excel exactly as Blue Angel says. I have tested his version extensively. Marty can win any attack but the question is of max bet and drawdown that one is willing to have and casinos permit them too.
Any random session can get a bet of even a few thousands, if you simulate enough, this way.
I am working on BA's method's tracker to prove my point. I know Azim or Reyth are working on the same too. Whoever comes first, will prove my point. I guarantee this.
Stating that my way of picking bets is immune from dangerous hikes of martingale is indeed fallacious. Will be back here soon.
You are missing an important point, all these is NOT about just a progression, there is a selection too and NOT all the selections are the same!
Perhaps you want to pass it because you are very eager to prove that it fails, but what YOU are doing is NOT my method!
Even what Nick did is NOT my method, user betjack was betting always on Red and he lost after about 600 spins and with the same progression but different selection I've reached more than 1500 spins without even exceeding 16 units bet!
You want us to believe that everything is the same?!
Does the term regression towards the mean means anything to you??
Does law of large numbers ring a bell??
My progression alone without any bet selection criteria can win even 5.5 standard deviation!
Let's be realistic and realize that has never been worse than 5.5 SD in a LARGE sample of results, in a small sample like 20 spins you can see 20 Black or even 30 in a row, BUT I'm talking about a large sample which streaks like 30 in a row is just a piece of my hair for me, while someone who bets Martingale in the classic way he wouldn't win even with millions of units!
The truth is that there is HUGE difference between someone who bets the classic Martingale and someone like me who uses it differently, there is HUGE difference between someone who bets randomly and someone who uses statistics!
You don't want to understand?
Fine, it's YOUR problem not mine and you cannot prove that my method fails as long as you don't use my method!
@BA,
Now your answer is forcing me to quote myself from gamblingforums.com post of mine
I saw a topic in roulette30.com which was written two months back:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=669.0
The author Blue Angel says: The worst 200 spins for RED in roulette history have been proven not enough in front of the "Fallacious Holy Grail"!
In that topic he chose to beat the worst doing Red, i.e. 69/200 from a German casino record. although he did play it further to win this which is perfectly fine, he passed through this so called, "toughest" phase with his innovative use of Martingale in the spans of 37 spins.
Now, when I gave him a session which is betting on Red again, he says, why should he bet Red, it is like "party without music" or "sword without hands" and bla bla. It is interesting to note that the same person who believes that his method can beat the worst recorded, shying away from sessions that do not have such stretches. I put two sessions, called "horror" session and "superhorror" session where Red is not at the worst and his innovation is failing thousands and even hundreds of thousands of units, still.
I can see that most of the forums have become a garbage yard with such methods that are only blinding people to lose even faster in a false hopes without realizing the truth ever. I created the tracker to awaken people of such fallacies. Anyone can see a random session by going into the sheet called "random" and by pressing F9 in an empty cell. Anybody can witness losses of a few thousands or even a few hundred thousands with bets going even 100k units at times.
BA, your inability to code is making you confused and myopic both together.
Any person with minimum coding skills can confirm what I just stated. You can't pick a bet which will remain safer than anything else randomly.
@ Albalaha,
You made up the sequences in order to disprove my method, unfortunately for you my method includes selection criteria, unfortunately for you I stop when my profit is good and not in 200 spins.
Is it roulette rule for someone to bet 200 sins exactly??
I could bet 50 or 150 or 350 if I wanted.
Your fictitious 200 spins sets cannot disprove my method but proving your IQ level.
Oh really?
You said earlier:
QuoteIndeed, Albahala uses the same philosophy on his betting and is one of the very few pro gamblers in this forum.
And now????
I am trying to discredit your silly innovation? Can I change the code of random session too? Anybody can look at the random session to see such things can only fail, at last.
When you accepted and rather bragged to beat the worst session betting red only you did not say that why should I go for a party without music and when your method fails badly, you have childish excuses for that?
Martingale can only fail unless you be lucky and long run doesn't not let anybody lucky for long. Please do not fool urself as well as others.
Guys like johnlegend did have such silly claims and when they found the reality they ran away to never come back, in utter shame.
Excel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.
If there was RX code we could test it with spins from B&M casinos which can make a big difference in large totals.
Everyone is free to believe what he wants...
Honorable mr Hourmouzis restricted my account just because I showed him an article which he didn't like but I didn't write it.
In his rampling even claimed that me and Kavouras (from roulette30) are the same person!
Every time I'm posting there it takes hours to appear, so I'll no longer post there.
Every sensible person knows that what Hourmouzis is selling is not his own creation, so why not a buyer to go directly to the technician who creates those roulette computers and save considerably by eliminating the mediator (Steeve) ?
If I can read advertisements about roulette computers, casinos' staff can too...so they know and do you think they are going to tolerate such devices inside their establishments?
Why mr Hourmouzis doesn't use his equipment to generate as much money as he wants rather than trying convincing prospects to buy, wouldn't it be easier and better for him?
Why mr Hourmouzis doesn't offer to his potential buyers the option to pay not in advance but from the generated profits, if he is so sure about the efficiency of the technology he is promoting he would accept to get a cut from the profits being gained by gambling with others money.
Visual ballistic cannot be applied by your ''naked'' eyes, you cannot realistically expect that you can calculate where the ball will land within a few seconds after the release of the ball.
It's impossible without roulette computer, however only very few are accurate sufficiently in order to win consistently.
However, they are not allowed inside casinos and are very expensive, let alone that someone wouldn't like the idea because he considers it as stealing.
About biased wheels theory, let's say I'm a smartass who goes day after day at a roulette table and writes results by the hours, eventually decides that the 2 wheels he was recording are not biased enough.
So he decides to visit another casino which is 1 and half hour drive, after days he sees that some numbers have been shown more than the rest and decides that at that casino and the particular wheel will bet only those numbers!
The specific numbers are destined to dominate even after a week, a month, a year and during all this time the casino doesn't know or doesn't care!
Does it make sense to you?
i like steve
but clear to see no winning method will survive there
his business is selling
this is against his best interests
would love to see more testing on blue angels system
QuoteExcel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.
There is no way to seed either Excel RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, which are rumored to be initialized from the computer's system time. Technically, a seed is the starting point for generating a sequence of random numbers. And every time an Excel random function is called, a new seed is used that returns a unique random sequence.
In other words, when using the random number generator in Excel, you cannot get a repeatable sequence with the RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, nor with VBA, nor by any other means.In early Excel versions, prior to Excel 2003, the random generation algorithm had a relatively small period (less than 1 million nonrecurring random number sequence) and it failed several standard tests of randomness on lengthy random sequences. So, if someone still works with an old Excel version, you'd better not use the RAND function with large simulation models but there is absolutely no trouble with excel 2007 or higher even for the longest simulation.
So, do not use the rhetoric excuse for failure of a method based upon fallacies on randomness of a PRNG. :no:
Blue Angel and Kav are two different people, in my opinion although they may be in same geographical zone. Reyth is in altogether different area (I think USA). Steve lacks any character himself to point on others.
QuoteBlue Angel and Kav are two different people, in my opinion although they may be in same geographical zone. Reyth is in altogether different area (I think USA). Steve lacks any character himself to point on others.
Just because me and John have Greek IP's doesn't mean we are the same person.
Actually is hilarious but Steve still believes it! :))
Sometimes you have to prove that you are not an elephant but what's the point anyway?!
BTW,thanks for the information about Excel.
Without any prejudice to any conclusion regarding whether your this system can work in long run or tank let me brief you regarding why Steve behaves this way to certain members.
Whenever a member gets to talk that any system can win in long run, he starts feeling bad as this is harmful to his business of "cheating devices". He then ask any such person to either prove it immediately or he bans him. There are two reasons for such behaviour.
1. If someone has a concluding method and he writes that openly in any forum, who the hell will risk his legs being chopped by casino staff using cheating devices?
2. Such person will not write other silly topics ever and hence become useless for adding links to the google that fetches new kids to these forums seeing the ads, that is the main motive behind running such forums.
So, he is double harmful to Steve irrespective of what his system works in long run or not.
Steve claims that one of his Computers can do 15 numbers betting with 93% accuracy. This is the biggest joke of the millenium. If it is true what one needs to do is to enter high roller room and bet $10k chips and earn a few millions in no time. Why selling for the value of a single chip?
This person has been jailed for mass scam. Don't forget that.
QuoteSteve claims that one of his Computers can do 15 numbers betting with 93% accuracy. This is the biggest joke of the millenium. If it is true what one needs to do is to enter high roller room and bet $10k chips and earn a few millions in no time. Why selling for the value of a single chip?
Common sense after all.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 05, 2016, 02:45:16 AM
Without any prejudice to any conclusion regarding whether your this system can work in long run or tank let me brief you regarding why Steve behaves this way to certain members.
Whenever a member gets to talk that any system can win in long run, he starts feeling bad as this is harmful to his business of "cheating devices". He then ask any such person to either prove it immediately or he bans him. There are two reasons for such behaviour.
1. If someone has a concluding method and he writes that openly in any forum, who the hell will risk his legs being chopped by casino staff using cheating devices?
2. Such person will not write other silly topics ever and hence become useless for adding links to the google that fetches new kids to these forums seeing the ads, that is the main motive behind running such forums.
So, he is double harmful to Steve irrespective of what his system works in long run or not.
Steve claims that one of his Computers can do 15 numbers betting with 93% accuracy. This is the biggest joke of the millenium. If it is true what one needs to do is to enter high roller room and bet $10k chips and earn a few millions in no time. Why selling for the value of a single chip?
This person has been jailed for mass scam. Don't forget that.
albalaha. i am on your side. but haven't you been preaching to stop attacking people?
Quotealbalaha. i am on your side. but haven't you been preaching to stop attacking people?
I am just answering him...
I did not make a new topic just to curse anybody. See the difference. I am quite busy to talk of quarrels .
Hello.
I may have missed the post...
Can anybody tell me what happened in The End
Blue_Angel did make all 10k SPINS
And what is the
outcome?
Quote from: BetJack on March 18, 2016, 01:53:04 AM
Hello.
I may have missed the post...
Can anybody tell me what happened in The End
Blue_Angel did make all 10k SPINS
And what is the
outcome?
His method fails if you can see the excel simulator. If you have the balls to bet even 100k bets to win 1 unit, you may try his way. It will bust the same way as classical martingale do.
Horror session 5: Losses 94, wins 52 . It has a superbad stretch in the beginning of 4 wins in 44 trials which is 5.2 SD below the mean. Extreme of the extreme.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
Many fellow members here start to jump up and down when they see these "horror sessions" and instead of accepting that such stretches will destroy whatever they suppose as winners claim that their bets are safe from such stretches which is nothing sort of foolish. A few more clever people say, if such stretches ever come, we will not play them all. My dear friends such stretches could come together even in many sessions that you play even if you jump at seeing LLLL otherwise try to play a martingale in whichever manner you wish, you will soon bleed to death. "Hit and Run" doesn't safeguard us from anything otherwise we all would have opted that only.
If you are not capable to simulate your bet yourself you can be fall for such fallacious claims and ultimately fool yourself to a big loss. Many even ask that can they change the bet and L/Ws thereby then I can only laugh at the childish approach of trying to do good or average bets only or a wrong expectation or assumption of any particular bet being very safe from these spins from hell. They are inevitable. Think over them and work out strategies keeping such encounters in mind.
Quote from: BetJack on March 18, 2016, 01:53:04 AM
Hello.
I may have missed the post...
Can anybody tell me what happened in The End
Blue_Angel did make all 10k SPINS
And what is the
outcome?
Sorry Victor.
Follow the link on this thread and you will see an application. Load spins from anywhere and you will see the outcome for yourself.
Quote from: Azim on April 03, 2016, 07:23:05 PM
Sorry Victor.
Follow the link on this thread and you will see an application. Load spins from anywhere and you will see the outcome for yourself.
I do not see any link here. Either post it or PM or email me.
Azim, can you handle the all 5 horror sessions?
I haven't looked at the 5 sessions posted.
However, here is an app to try out Blue_Angels original method.
Your program seeks an activation key. Where is that?
I need the request file it created.
Ok. I got your tracker working on my system. I simulated the attached file of 5k spins and found this result:
End balance:+7867
Max balance: +7873
Max bet= 16384
Worst drawdown point: -74600
Lol
Azim, can you confirm the same please?
P.S.: I confirmed this way back through my excel tracker that this progression is kind of a joke and only with endless hypothetical bets, one can play this.
Yes, I know, as soon as I read the thread.
That's why I wrote the tracker to prove it.
Thanks a tonne, Azim. My humble excel tracker proved the same but since too big claims were made regarding the greatness of this delayed martingale, as Blue Angel proposed it to work, your tracker removes all the doubts.
Simulations are the best way to conclude an argument.
I reiterate: No way of picking bet is superior to any other. All will get good, bad, best and the worst moments.
Well considering the claim was it had gone through the whole German database and never lost.
That gave it up.
Martingale never loses. It only sinks hundreds of thousands of units before winning back 1 unit but we can not consider it playable for that capacity.
My point is who can bet hundreds of thousands of units of bets to win 1 unit on an EC and which casino will allow someone even if someone is crazy enough
to do so?
Very true... Even in his example. People fell for it. Who would bet 4 units for 37 spins to make a 1 unit.
I won't mind betting 4 units for 37 spins to win 1 unit if there is any assurance of that win. If that 1 unit of earning ask me to bet 16,000+ unit per spin, I would mind, of course. We can win all data of world with infinite bets and martingale. Anybody interested in doing that?
It wasn't 16000 for 1 spin it was 16000 for 37 spins.
Quote from: Azim on April 05, 2016, 06:01:15 AM
It wasn't 16000 for 1 spin it was 16000 for 37 spins.
Yeah, I said 16000+ bet per spin. There is no guarantee that even betting this big we can win. Indeed this method can even seek betting a million chips each spin at some point of time.
Horror session No.: 6 240 spins, 89 wins, 151 losses. First 100 spins have only 20 Wins
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
Taking this sequence as P/B I get +28 :thumbsup:
If you take Ls as Ws and vice versa you will win even flat but that is not the motive of this. I want to see whether anybody has any strategy to cop so many losses and only average number of wins thereafter.
Whatever betselection you choose you may encounter such bad phases. Question is how much you lose or win considering that as a bad session that crept in your favorite betselection.
If the strict rule based pauses are allowed, then a few mild progressions with low stakes can survive these horror sequences with tiny profit. Flat betting is not enough for all of 6, especially in the 4th session - with my rules. But if the expectation is continous betting, then it is a different story.
Please illustrate your way.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 24, 2016, 07:42:52 PM
Please illustrate your way.
I tend to choose the option "B" (for now). :-X
Identical sequences with partially same main-rule (regarding the pauses) as before, but substituted with flat betting...so with continous betting. The highest bet was ~400 units in the session 3, but in most sessions was below ~250 units.
Btw there is no progression or generally money management (yet), (at least I have not found) which can handle all distributions. So these type of "tests" better than nothing, but not completely relevant. I think.
You did not tell what did you do with the L/Ws. Show calculations that bring these graphs. It may be good to go ahead with or may be like Blue Angel's method.
I do not know what (and why) should I reveal after 8 posts, ... and after more than 2 years very hard work and simulations. Nothing. For now. Only some principles. I will think about it...
Btw here it is the 3rd type of result, with the potentially (by me) minimum placed bets with one new applied rule the load balancing with base bet increments. But the 1st horror sequence's distribution was not 'enough' for the slowlier and less agressive type of progression...within 222 spins.
Sure, also with continous betting (substituted with flat betting) like earlier;
Max. bet sizes:
1st seq.: 28 units
2nd seq.: 9 un.
3rd seq.: 24 un.
4th seq.: 60 un.
5th seq.: 60 un.
6th seq.: 28 un.
Blue Angel did claim like you and later we got to know how hollow his method was. Unless you tell how you arrived those results, it is of 0 value. If you do not want to do that here, I will delete your posts having no substance. Show those graphs somewhere else.
You are doing a single session in three ways so far. It is what we call reverse engineering.
Horror Session: 7th.. W=45, L=60
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2016, 03:26:42 AM
Horror Session: 7th.. W=45, L=60
OK. What would you like done with this session?
AD
Play all the 7 horror sessions in one defined way, all over and test how good your method is in bad to worse cases.
Hello
Today is to say at least is а happy day :cheer: ;D
Play all the 7 horror sessions in one defined way
and
won most of them
results
sessions 1/end +35 /max bet 80 /drop down -398
sessions 2/end +13 /max bet 94 /drop down -263
sessions 3/end +19 /max bet 80 /drop down -131
sessions 4/end -195 /max bet 94 /drop down -519
sessions 5/end -66 /max bet 60 /drop down -174
sessions 6/end +65 /max bet 101/drop down -384
sessions 7/end +21 /max bet 60 /drop down -240
in
generally have to make some changes to make it better ....
but it's a start
this is the way ...
Hello
audiokinesis
I've sent you a message
Quote from: BetJack on June 14, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
Hello
Today is to say at least is а happy day :cheer: ;D
Play all the 7 horror sessions in one defined way
and
won most of them
results
sessions 1/end +35 /max bet 80 /drop down -398
sessions 2/end +13 /max bet 94 /drop down -263
sessions 3/end +19 /max bet 80 /drop down -131
sessions 4/end -195 /max bet 94 /drop down -519
sessions 5/end -66 /max bet 60 /drop down -174
sessions 6/end +65 /max bet 101/drop down -384
sessions 7/end +21 /max bet 60 /drop down -240
in
generally have to make some changes to make it better ....
but it's a start
this is the way ...
@Betjack,
You are betting too big and losing still in two sessions and overall. Need to sharpen your way yet. If you demonstrate what you did exactly, I would point out mistakes.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 19, 2016, 03:07:33 AM
@Betjack,
You are betting too big and losing still in two sessions and overall. Need to sharpen your way yet. If you demonstrate what you did exactly, I would point out mistakes.
hello
...short and sweet....
!I know where the weak points of my method!
I do not know how to
avoid them!
how to fix them!
you decide.
whether to help me with this.
You will help me to avoid them?
will you help me fix them?
I will try, honestly to point out where u r going wrong and what can be improved. Audiokinesis turned out to be my old friend from Hungary.
Hello forum friends
Today was another exciting day
spent chewing on excel spreadsheets
I would say I achieved quite a lot of
progress and improvement in my method
old results
Quote from: BetJack on June 14, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
results
sessions 1/end +35 /max bet 80 /drop down -398
sessions 2/end +13 /max bet 94 /drop down -263
sessions 3/end +19 /max bet 80 /drop down -131
sessions 4/end -195 /max bet 94 /drop down -519
sessions 5/end -66 /max bet 60 /drop down -174
sessions 6/end +65 /max bet 101/drop down -384
sessions 7/end +21 /max bet 60 /drop down -240
new
results
sessions 1/end +18 /max bet 26 /drop down -131
sessions 2/end +7 /max bet 4 /drop down -35
sessions 3/end +14 /max bet 3 /drop down -12
sessions 4/end -15 /max bet 9 /drop down -57
sessions 5/end -15 /max bet 7 /drop down -41
sessions 6/end +16 /max bet 19 /drop down -121
sessions 7/end +4 /max bet 3 /drop down -12
Session 4 and 5 are still in complete loss
... but I would say that things look very good
Having in mind that everything is rough and still could be
made better in the coming days of work
BETJACK
Hey BJ,
Just for reference, any idea what those totals would have been for an average set of numbers?
I assume a positive expectation for your method, so if your average expectation was +100 units, then you could take a hit from one those "horror" sessions now and again, and still come out ahead.
Thanks for the great work - much appreciated! :)
Why I fail in the long RUN ?
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/
Answer is here:
http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/why-progressions-fail-to-make-a-difference/
Quote from: ozon on February 21, 2016, 04:52:03 PM
After 4 loses wait for virtual win.
Quote from Bayes:
The progression is based on starting from a base of 1 unit and multiplying by around 10% - 12% to get the value of the next stake. Here is a version I just coded which is very similar to the Holloway progression using a percentage of 11.5% which gives approximately the same values and the same number of steps.
The error in the Holloway progression comes from rounding. You can see the same thing here: The middle column is the calculation unrounded and in the right column the numbers have been round DOWN to the nearest whole number. Notice that from step 27 (18u) to step 28 (21u) there is an increase of 3 units, but from step 28 to step 29 (23u) there is an increase of only 2 units!
Depending on how the rounding is done there will usually be some error like this, but it won't make a lot of difference. You could always change the values in the Holloway progression slightly to make the steps between values consistent.
1 1.115 1
2 1.243 1
3 1.386 1
4 1.546 1
5 1.723 1
6 1.922 1
7 2.143 2
8 2.389 2
9 2.664 2
10 2.970 2
11 3.311 3
12 3.692 3
13 4.117 4
14 4.590 4
15 5.118 5
16 5.707 5
17 6.363 6
18 7.095 7
19 7.911 7
20 8.821 8
21 9.835 9
22 10.966 10
23 12.227 12
24 13.633 13
25 15.201 15
26 16.949 16
27 18.898 18
28 21.072 21 << 3 from 18 to 21
29 23.495 23 << 2 from 21 to 23
30 26.197 26
31 29.209 29
32 32.568 32
33 36.314 36
34 40.490 40
35 45.146 45
36 50.338 50
37 56.127 56
38 62.581 62
39 69.778 69
40 77.803 77
41 86.750 86
42 96.726 96
43 107.850 107
44 120.253 120
45 134.082 134
46 149.501 149
In order to use such progression properly you must start with 10 units bet, therefore its increments of plus/minus 1 unit will be equivalent to 10%.
Instead of 10 you could use 25 as base bet with 2.5 as equivalent to 10 %, or 50 with increments of 5 as 10 %
I think for the most gamblers wouln't be so practical regardless of the effectiveness of the progression.
Long ago, I played this way
Using BVno Zero RNG and waiting for a trigger when the first 20 spins, we have the advantage of an event of 10 bets (12 reds-2 blacks), the begin betting on black.
Using the target profit 1 unit and stoplose -60 units. I make about 180 units with no lose ,after 4 loses waiting for vwin.
The strategy was very slow, about 3 triggers for the hour.
I know that at some point would be lost, but I do not have any program to simulate, so I stopped to play.
I do not know how behaves in long run , but i think it was just luck.
Quote from: ozon on July 21, 2016, 08:18:31 PM
Long ago, I played this way
Using BVno Zero RNG and waiting for a trigger when the first 20 spins, we have the advantage of an event of 10 bets (12 reds-2 blacks), the begin betting on black.
Using the target profit 1 unit and stoplose -60 units. I make about 180 units with no lose ,after 4 loses waiting for vwin.
The strategy was very slow, about 3 triggers for the hour.
I know that at some point would be lost, but I do not have any program to simulate, so I stopped to play.
I do not know how behaves in long run , but i think it was just luck.
Yes.
I coded it and tested it with some different settings and - like every push till win type progression (what I know) - it failed surely, as usual. The Nemesis will come. Inevitable. Gratis: back-to-back, sometimes. ;D
I do not play with these kind of progresssions which can burst all of my bankroll in any moment.
No Hope. (Just simulate enough, and witness fail.)
Can anyone post the Lou Halloway progression ?
I think it was a very long conservative progression.
Good Day Blue Angel, How's this system holding up?
Quote from: Aims on December 20, 2016, 02:09:02 PM
Good Day Blue Angel, How's this system holding up?
Currently I'm not using it.