So if I understand these things, You start the session some time after walking into the casino. That means your sequence, using Pattern Breaker, is completely different for you than the sequence for someone else starting one hour later. So when you start is a factor of the difficulty in hitting the moving target.

In Pattern Breaker the point is to avoid back to back loses, and to have a win ratio greater than 7/1.

So in Pattern Breaker you wait for a last pattern standing. You then bet it won't strike at the very next three spins.

The only bad part left of all this is the waiting. I'm suggesting that all the waiting is unnecessary. You should be able to select one of the patterns randomly

Once you have randomly selected one of the eight possible patterns you can move on to randomly selecting the exact moment when to commit to the bets.

It takes from 30 to 60 spins to discover the last pattern standing. So all you really need is a random spin between one and thirty.

You should be able to walk into a casino with one of the eight patterns written on an index card. You should be able to bet against it hitting on an exact random number of spins, for example, you might have written down 17.

Now this should be the exact same mathematical probability as the full duration Pattern Breaker. It just makes it faster to get to a decision point.

That being said, you can get more sessions in on each visit to a casino.

 Now I wonder if it avoids the loses as much as Pattern  Breaker does?

Spot on Gizmo, I totally agree with that mindset, let's say you did actually lose your 1st 3 bets, you could use the same 3 bet sequence again after the predetermined gap of spins, it remains 50/50 but what are the chances really?

Your method will let random hit you roughly once every 8 attempts if you have just less than a 50% chance each time...times 3 (for the line) = random can get you.

With patience...and that REALLY is the key, build up your bankroll over months until your units are £10 a time and even if you clear 20 units a month that is £200...imagine betting £50 as 1 unit at a time = HUGE money

Don't rush it, the table will still be there in 9 months time when you can assault it with £50 unit bets and not £1 unit bets. Just my 2 cents 

Quote from: subby on November 15, 2012, 05:25:26 PM
Your method will let random hit you roughly once every 8 attempts if you have just less than a 50% chance each time...times 3 (for the line) = random can get you.

The exact moment is a factor also. It's a one in thirty chance. It should be added to the one in eight odds.

Would it be worth looking at the number of spins it takes to get the last pattern?

The minimum number of spins it takes to be down to the last pattern is 21, that's assuming you get a different pattern every 3 spins, but that would be fairly rare, and the max wait is around 60 spins.

Just wondering whether there's any relationship between the number of spins you have to wait and the chance of a loss. Mathematically, there shouldn't be.

If I do this then I'm going to start out with $25 chips.

Now consider this. You can play ten separate sessions simultaneously. If you have ten different pattern/spin number combinations then you can play all ten sessions at the same visit to the casino. At least I can.

Interesting questions Bayes.  My vast number of years looking at changes to randomness tells me that trends almost never hold up over sixty spins. In fact the trends will be completely different by then.

Someone suggested not making stupid bets if a dominance favoring a loss were present at the decision point, where the bet sequence starts.

Quote from: gizmotron on November 15, 2012, 05:02:53 PM
In Pattern Breaker the point is to avoid back to back loses.

Would it be an idea only to bet after you saw a win for PB.

I think that would make it extremely hard to get caught out.

Bally, it's just me, but it might not be a good idea to deliberately pass up wins.

Here's an interesting question that I have. Does picking the exact moment, by whatever means, change the odds?

I'm thinking of writing a simulation to see how many three-step-progressions lose on the first three spins of 30 spin randomized spin segments. If I test thousands of them then I'll get a basic figure that should be close to a statistical value.

Power tested this mathematical form of Pattern Breaker.

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, American Wheel - 0/00

Results:
Wins = 84,515
Losses = 15,485
Double Losses = 2,319
Triple Losses = 342

Conclusions are that it mathematically loses once every 5.45 sessions.
It pays 1/7 in 1, 2, or 3 spins when it wins.

Gizmo,

Did your simulation include the zero?

The 'exact moment' concept seems fuzzy, how can you not bet at an exact moment? what's the difference between an 'exact' moment and a moment which isn't 'exact'?

Bayes, yes there is a single zero included.

Here is an example of an exact moment. You wait for exactly 71 spins and then you
bet black, black, red with a three step Marti. Then you go have lunch, come back to
the table and wait exactly 32 spins and then bet on one of eight combinations of red
& black with a three step Marti to win.