Take any bet selection technique that has a basic fixed set of rules. That includes as wide a set of rules as following the strongest trends to follow the last decision.

Any quality executed method should bring at it's simplest, results that fit into three basic conditions. One condition is that the bet selection is doing very well. Another condition is that the bet selection is doing very poorly. That leaves the third condition that it is flat without positive or negative results.

It doesn't matter what technique is used as long as it produces these kinds of results as streaks of the three conditions. I have no problem in illustrating examples of bet selection that show these conditions. It's not hard for experienced players to imagine scenarios that fit this type of results.

But that's not the point of this thread. This is a topic discussing exactly what to do with these conditions. Where are the system builders for that? I recommend a two level betting technique that coincides with these conditions. Maybe there is a better way to approach this. Perhaps there is a way of combining an increased flat betting method based on session to session play? What works best?

This approach clearly invites to having three sets of attack-modes. One per each identified condition/state.

Tacking two opposite bet selections might be a way to cope with it.

Trying to match the one with the best state at the moment, and when it goes "so so", it goes like such for the two of them hence it would matter less which one you choose.

Just brainstorming a bit on it

One thing that is key for me is that when the conditions are consistently bad, as far as a bet selection goes, I opt to salvage what's left of the streak by attacking the opposite.

Another comment/question: would you say it is worth to identify timing with numerical selections opposite a lot of numbers? Example: The most sleeping double-street versus the others.

When you track and mark the hits linearly, it's inevitable to notice the close succession of hits on the event at times, for which a non-saavy player would say is going contrary to the expected probability for 30 numbers, but on which a saavy player recognizes that the game HAS A MATHEMATICAL NEED to fulfill and it balances-out the basic tendency of hitting 30 numbers by making clumps of the lesser probable event, in this case hitting the 6 numbers above than expected in a short period of spins, as a needed thing to keep balance.

Otherwise without such clumps the game would be simply as easy-to-beat as always betting with the most simple probability (5 lines, 11 streets, etc.)

So, should we be tracking those clumping times for the lesser numerical groups? Or would you say it is preferable to keep numbers balanced and focus on even chances?.

Thanks.

Victor, I've never tried to build a randomness game based on correction & balance before.

It's as good a reason to use as characteristics of randomness.

If you use a technique that attempts to follow all corrections after imbalances are detected then you are bound to expose the three conditions for effectiveness.

You might be able to exploit the conditions where imbalance is occurring too. It's a fascinating concept.

Discussing how and when to attack in that technique would be useful.

It might be exactly the same as in my use of trends for bet selections.

Concerning your original question about what to do with the conditions resulting from a chosen bet selection, broadly speaking -

Quote from: gizmotron on November 13, 2012, 07:29:45 PMOne condition is that the bet selection is doing very well.

Positive progression

Quote
Another condition is that the bet selection is doing very poorly.

Regression

Quote
That leaves the third condition that it is flat without positive or negative results.

Soft negative progression





Betting in the fertile period after an imbalance.