I have set myself a challenge on Dublinbet to see how many wins vs losses I can get in 500 placed bets playing the E/C's using a combination of my 'pairs' ideas.

I will attempt to explain the methodology behind it all if I hit around 55% after the 500 placed bets otherwise there is no real point. 

I am also going to compare how the 'Mongoose' MM fares opposed to just flat betting.

Game 1. W W L L L W W L L W W W W

8 wins vs 5 losses.

Flat bet= +3.  Mongoose= +4.

42 spins observed.
----------

Game 2. W W W L W W L

5 wins vs 2 losses.

Flat bet= +3.  Mongoose= +4.

23 spins observed.
----------

I will likely play 1 or 2 games a day.

Do I think I can win on the E/C's?  I honestly don't know yet. I have an inkling that I might be able to doing what I am doing and should get a better idea after the 500 placed bets. I am only placing bets on roughly one third of the spins. I have to play it on Roulette because they deal too fast at Baccarat when there are no players at the table.

My whole philosophy around gambling has kind of changed lately. Variance is a double edged sword when you bet on the inside. It can kill you as quickly as take you to the moon. I have really made an effort to study the E/C's in depth. It's my belief that one or two triggers are pointless. There are too many variables constantly changing that you really need something that is adapting to what the current state is. So I suppose you could call it a form of trending. Anyway, enough about that for now. The results will show if I am on the right track or not.

cheers

horus

I will follow this thread with anticipation.  Hope it turns out well.  Must study goose.  Don't know it.

Sam

Sam, I like the Mongoose but just a straight parlay would have returned +11 in my two games so far as opposed to +8 for the Mongoose. On saying that, the Mongoose is great if things go a bit choppy and you are still getting the odd consecutive double win. Anyway, it's my belief bet selection comes before MM. Once you find a bet selection that you like, then try and fit some MM around it. (Then you could argue....why not just flat bet if you can win at the E/C's) lol.

I was reading a thread by Bombus/Skakus last night where he took on Bayes RNG and came out on top after 5000 placed EC bets. He had an unusual MM plan which he said suited his bet selection. I think that's where it's at....marrying the two together.

My test will be just flat betting and probably 500 placed bets would not be enough to consider if any particular type of MM is superior to flat betting. I just thought I would compare flat betting to the Mongoose because I have written about it a few times.

cheers

will be following--good luck!

Thanks Tomla.

Game 3.

L W L W L W W W W W L

7 wins vs 4 losses.

Flat Bet= +3.  Mongoose= +1.

25 observed spins.
----------

I will do another couple of games tomorrow.

Go for it horus!

I wish you the best of luck with your challenge, but 500 placed bets is not a worthy target amount if you hope to learn much from your efforts.

You should raise the bar to 5000 at least. 

You are right Greenguy,

This is going to be a good learning curve and I should try and learn as much as possible from it. It's going to take around a month just to place the 500 bets. However, there is no rush and I will just take it nice and steady. Playing the E/C's suits my temperament better for sure. 

Game 4.

W L W W L W L W L W L L W W

8 wins vs 6 losses.

Flat Bet= +2.  Mongoose= +4 (and a win on the first parlay stage of the next coup)

40 spins observed.
----------

The second mongoose game in that trot went W W L W L W L W L L W (ended with a 3 unit bet)

cheers

horus

If possible, could you link that challenge Bombus/Skaus won? I trust Bayes and if he said it, it's true.

Sam

Sam, it was originally a challenge set out for JL to see if he could defeat Bayes RNG simulator. Then Skakus joined in the thread to see how his bet selection and MM fared. He did pretty good by the look of things.  (must have been a 'ringer' like those reserve dogs who skate up by half the track [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley])

Here is the link to the thread.

http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9780.10;wap2

cheers

Game 5.

L L W L W W W L L L W L W W L W

8 wins vs 8 losses.

Flat Bet= +0.  Mongoose= -5 (although there is a current game running WWLW)

Running Tally = 36 wins vs 25 losses for +11 (flat bet) total after 166 spins.

36 spins observed.
----------

That was a bit of a tricky session and I was happy to take a draw.

Quote from: horus on April 11, 2015, 07:49:02 PM
Sam, it was originally a challenge set out for JL to see if he could defeat Bayes RNG simulator. Then Skakus joined in the thread to see how his bet selection and MM fared. He did pretty good by the look of things.  (must have been a 'ringer' like those reserve dogs who skate up by half the track [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley])

Here is the link to the thread.

http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9780.10;wap2

cheers

I think skakus was always going to beat Bayes' RNG. Not because he was a ringer, but because he had a winning formula. [smiley]cactus/Untitled-1.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: TwoCatSam on April 11, 2015, 07:26:01 PM
I trust Bayes and if he said it, it's true.

Sam!  thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, Skakus'  was the best confirmed result I've seen in all my years on the forums. It cannot easily be dismissed as luck either, because the challenge was a one-off. Maybe skakus will give you the system if you ask him nicely.

I followed that for awhile it was some kind of crazy d'alembert on several levels that won---got to give skakus a lot of credit on that one

Quote from: greenguy on April 13, 2015, 11:30:19 AM
I think skakus was always going to beat Bayes' RNG. Not because he was a ringer, but because he had a winning formula. [smiley]cactus/Untitled-1.gif[/smiley]

I was only joking Mr Greenguy.

I will do a few more games tonight. I was more interested in reading the Holloway book last night.

Ah, yes, I remember that challenge to JL and how the poor blighter failed miserably!  Then Skakus took off on his own and the rest is history.