Quote from: Sputnik on October 13, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
The point is, there is no member of this forum who can flat betting.
If some one say they can, then they lie.
Quote from: iggiv on October 17, 2013, 12:37:24 AM
there is no winning bet. it's nonsense. it doesn't exist. Whatever is winning now will lose soon. Any stiff pattern. But that does not mean, that it's impossible to win in roulette.
Quote from: Mike on October 17, 2013, 04:34:40 AM
Of course there's no consistent winning bet. The very idea is ludicrous. This guy razor is having a bit of a giggle at your expense!
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 17, 2013, 04:49:06 AM
What the heck is a "constant winning bet" anyway??
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on October 20, 2013, 06:09:15 AM
Movements on the carpet?
What are the movements?
How would they help?
Quote from: malcop on October 20, 2013, 09:05:30 AM
The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
Quote from: Mike on October 21, 2013, 05:17:24 PM
So my simulations showed exactly what the theory predicted.
Quote from: Sputnik on October 19, 2013, 09:01:54 AM
What is respect about, well i can not respect some one who claim they can flat betting.
Because they can not show how it is done, they just end up to claim they can out guess negative expectation, so boring, so why waste your time read what they reply when you know is nonsense ...
Some very interesting discussions happened while I was away on a short holiday. I was following them on my phone. I see there is some element of truth in every statement here even though they contradict. I will not get into phenomena of true-lies, but I am one who believe anything that man invented is flawed and can be beaten. And roulette was invented by mankind.
Yes, it is purely my belief and my opinion. It is my belief that you can overcome the negative progression. It is my belief that this can be achieved through flat betting. It is my belief that it is not a fight club and you can talk about it. It is my belief that you can do it mechanically. Interested? Read on then. Is this thread open for feedback? If not, I should not be posting here. Will take this personal? Yes, may be, but I do have a life beyond this. So shoot anything and everything you would like to say.
I am Pockets. Well, why is it important?
Because, I believe wealth is concentrated in pockets in this world. Energy is focussed in pockets in this world. I believe that 20% of anything packs 80% potential. I believe profits and losses in gambling occur in pockets and success lies in tapping these pockets. I believe in random outcomes clustering together in pockets of patterns and numbers. I believe in the deep pockets of casino who exploit people who voluntarily fall prey. I believe in treating gambling as something one should do with their pocket money. I believe roulette is made of pockets painted, but they carry no significance on the identity painted on them. I believe in luck striking in pockets. And finally I believe 80% of people in the world are driven by deeds that can make their pocket heavy. That's why I am POCKETS.
Some ground rules.
As no one has showed before, I will show (at least hoping that this will hold up :) how to beat the negative expectation with flat bet. Don't believe me now, because even I don't believe me now. Hold on and lets see how the mystery unravels. But I will keep it no mystery.
1. I want this to appeal to experienced and novices alike. So no complex jargons, assumptions
2. No hidden agenda on not wanting to give things on a silver plate. If I have things on a silver plate, I will happily feast you. As much I love pockets, I do like a world with equal opportunities. How one converts an opportunity should determine person's fate and not how much opportunity one gets.
3. Remaining truthful to the forums name, this thread is not about MM. it is about bet selection. So I will just use flat betting.
4. We will test at least 100 live sessions. I will post them honestly on this site.
5. This is in no means a dig at anyone. IT is an adventure and happy to take as many on board. We may agree and agree to disagree, but we are still together.
6. Strategy has to be playable. No point waiting 100 spins to play and no point the play not being able to hold people who want to play big unit sizes. For clarity, I will be using 5$ bets. You can define your own base unit. My bankroll is going to be 50 times the base unit.
7. I don't believe in stoplosses and profit targets. But I respect people with these targets. So my tests will cover both results with and without stop loss, but no profit targets.
So ladies(if there are any around here) and gentlemen, fasten your seat belts, the adventure is about to begin.
Quote from: Pockets on October 22, 2013, 11:19:17 AM
So ladies(if there are any around here)
There
are! :thumbsup:
...I love flat betting too; been developing and tweaking flat betting systems only for quite some time now.
Congrats for walking the hardest but most rewarding journey: beating the house edge with pure bet selection :nod:
As a flat better myself I look forward to what you are going to share with us, good or bad :thumbsup:
Like you I believe in sharing, none of this "I'm going to give you some clues and you work it out for yourself"
BTW my reference to "Fight Club" was simply to say that if you don't want to share then don't talk about it!
I believe in random outcomes clustering together in pockets of patterns and numbers.
Pockets
Absolutely they do!!
All we ever need to know is two things: When to get in and when to get out.
I'm looking forward to your study!
Thanks for your time and effort.
TwoCat
Interestng so far Pockets....Read my signature
@Pockets
Question for you ... will you be sharing a method of play already established by you or are you wanting ideas from everyone else to try to form a new method of play.
Just trying to get the jist of what is to come.
Thanks
B
All, Thanks for the encouraging words. It makes a writer enjoy his writings, when he knows there are others who are reading it. I am happy to be amongst a set of like-minded individuals.
Quote from: Buffster on October 22, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
Just trying to get the jist of what is to come.
Now, Buffster, just to clear the air, what I intend to do is publish methods that I have researched over a period of time.
But the truth remains that am an amateur gambler and I don’t devote much of my time at the roulette as many of the people here do.
Also, am not a creative person to come up with my own roulette systems.
So honestly what I will be posting will be ideas borrowed from friends, family and people who post here and in some other forums.
At the same time, I do not want to downplay these ideas as replicas, as I have put in considerable effort and time to suit things that work for me on a regular basis to come out of any casino session in positive.
Thanks for the details.
Sounds interesting...let's pray you don't get your thread hijacked.
[Edit: It won't. Moderators still exist here! LOL ]
Let the game(s) begin.
B
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on October 22, 2013, 11:14:15 PM
Perhaps you could you start by defining "flat bet"?
Flat betting remains a bit of a grey area with many opinions as to what it actually means.
Some exaamples;
A) 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1, etc.
B) 1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2, etc.
C) 1.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2, etc.
D) 1.2.1.3.1.2.1.3.1.2.1.3, etc.
E) 1.2.3.4.5.1.2.3.4.5.1.2.3.4.5, etc.
F) 1.4.3.4.1.2.1.2.4.3.1.4.3.4.1.4.1.4.3.1.2.1.2.4.1, etc.
Which of the above would be considered flat betting?
In my opinion, they all are.
Not to put words in your mouth MBB.......
But are you saying...
''In the long run, any progression is simply a set of many different levels of flat bets'' (courtesy of Imspirit)
cheers
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on October 22, 2013, 11:14:15 PM
Perhaps you could you start by defining "flat bet"?
Mr. Bing bell, Very valid question. I did define my opinion on what is a flat bet in one of the posts earlier in a different thread.
Quote from: Pockets on October 14, 2013, 10:24:42 AM
There are four forms of flat betting. One is flat betting in the true sense of flat betting, second one is flat betting in terms of units, but moving the betting positions, like parachute bets. Third is where you bet a progression 1,2,3,4, but on the progression loss, you move back to 1,2,3,4 again. Similar to your 1,2,2 method. You are flat betting 5 units. Fourth form is flat betting a session. Where you go to a session with a fixed pot of money or fixed Bank roll and you try to make profit or loss. The fixed bank roll/session Bank roll forms your flat bet. I have seen people practice all 4 forms and I have seen people both win and lose out of it.
However, to make things clear, the flat betting I will be using in this thread is 1,1,1,1,......... The flat betting in the common vocabulary.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 22, 2013, 12:25:20 PM
I believe in random outcomes clustering together in pockets of patterns and numbers.
Pockets
Absolutely they do!!
All we ever need to know is two things: When to get in and when to get out.
I'm looking forward to your study!
Thanks for your time and effort.
TwoCat
Am starting with the quotes from my favourite poster in this forum. Sam is absolutely right. All we ever need to know is when to get in and when to get out, and people have spent centuries finding an answer. I have read somewhere that people develop an intuition with experience and many people in this forum might have that intuition. But anything that is subjective cannot be proven and cannot be taught. It is for a reason my grandma told me that I will learn with experience and experience comes with age. I am going to attempt at how to curb human tendencies and intuition through defined mechanical set of rules.
As I told, throughout the study, I will be referring to various systems and methods and am not defining how this is going to shape as I don't know about it myself. I am just going to go with the flow. It brings another important point to the forefront that the wheel will reward you when you dance to its tune. Don't try fighting the random as its an uncontrollable monster, but instead worship it and play to its tunes.
I had a number of options to start with for my position of betting. My favourite is betting on 1 number or straights. But going with the ground rules set, I am going to steer away from it for sometime now as I found it hard to get the straight-up game when I started playing roulette. I still remember the day when me and my girl friend entered a casino in Monaco on our holiday and looked at real roulette table for the first time. I asked her where to put the money on and the answer came loud and clear - "Let it be on RED". I was expecting a bet on my date of birth, poor me.
As much as many experienced gamblers denounce it I find playing 18 numbers or ECs as we commonly call it, to be the easiest position to start for a noob like me. It gives me peace of mind because
- You don't have to wait longer for a win (ofcourse who can forget 22 reds in a row). It will give my girl friend absolute heart-ache if she is placing money on the wheel for 20-30 spins before taking money from it.
- It is easier to see how much more times you need to win to be in the positive. You place one unit, you win one or lose one. Simple calculations, simple betting sequences.
- You have the flexibility to place one bet which consolidates 18 numbers, just sitting and sipping your glenfiddich. You don't have to struggle and stretch on the table to place your bets and scramble before you hear "No more bets"
- Simple progressions, which are easier to understand and easier to relate to.
But as I said, straight-up is my favourite bet, and we will get into it once we travel a significant distance in this journey. For simplicity sake, lets start with Red and black, the ones which are visually distinct, the ones which are shown in the marquee, the ones which are easy to play for a dumbo like me.
Now that I decided the first one am going to use is ECs, how am I going to define the selection. DOMINANCE.
If at all this is a perfect world, we would be having all numbers striking atleast once in a 37/38 spin cycle, a table that chops consistently. It is not. Random plays a huge part. So we know by experience, inside and outside casino, that a random outcome is supposed to be random. If you toss heads and tails, we may not get head and tail alternatively, but in pockets. At times the head outcome will dominate and tail other times. They may be in perfect balance at some point or the other, but not always. This is an event that happens every spin and we don't have to wait for 10s and 100s of spins to see this phenomena develop.
Taking this clue, we are going to use DOMINANCE for our bet selection. We are attempting to try getting in with red when red dominates and get out when it doesn't. We are going to attempt to get in with black when it dominates and get out when it doesn't. Easy said, difficult, very difficult to execute.
A simple thing that people practice is race to 5. The claim is the fastest to reach 4 is the fastest to reach 5. If you see red reaching 4 first beating black, then red will reach 5 as well first. That's a way to tap dominance. But assuming the theory is true, the issue with that for me is it is not at all affordable flat betting. Let me explain why. Consider the following possible outcomes, considering Red is reaching 4 first and will reach 5 first as well.
4 red and 0 black
4 red and 1 black
4 red and 2 black
4 red and 3 black
The best case scenario is the next spin is red and the worst case scenario is you have to wait for 4 spins to get to red. Flat betting simply doesn't hold up, as you are talking not about a 50-50 chance here, but 25-75 chance. I have ignored the cases where black will also reach 4 and eventually 5.
The other practice people follow is look at the marquee. Red is dominating, continue betting on red. Not bad, but I don't have real control over when to start and when to end and I don't really know whether the domination I saw in the marquee is the end of a standard deviation or the beginning of an extreme deviation.
One other thing, which I used to practice was, treat the outcomes in blocks. Look at the last 5 or 10 spins. If red was dominating then bet for or against the dominance for the next 5 to 10 spins depending on your block size. Very good method to trap dominance and reduce your risk profile. The problem here for me is that I am blocking myself for a series of spins. I am restricting to a pocket of 5-10 spins, whereas the pattern packet may be for a larger or smaller number of spin sets.
Yes, I find something or the other challenging in these methods that try to trap the dominance and bet for or against the dominance to continue. But the concept of dominance is something that has remained and will remain very attractive. Now the question is what is the effective way to trap it in a negative expectation game?
Now that we decided to capture dominance on ECs, the big question is how do we do it without facing those challenges we discussed about. As Sam mentioned earlier, the key is to understand when to get in and when to get out.
Lets talk about the signal to get in.
Signal to get in
As described in our ground rules, we can't afford to sit endlessly in the table waiting for a signal to come through. Reason – We would not know whether the signal is an indication of good things to come or it is a false signal. I am sure the "most read about topic" in this forum, talks about this (Hit and Run) and it is proven that such hit and run signals end up on a false note and they are not workable as a long terms solution. But there are also people who talk about waiting for a desired SD and then start attacking for a balance, in the next set. And there are reports that people do that with some significant success. How do we turn this on its head and identify a signal almost every other spin? Is it really possible at all?
Let me throw an idea that will help you cut the chase. You observe for a maximum of 2-4 spins. The first time an EC hits 2 times (not necessary in succession), we consider that as the signal to get in. We ASSUME that the EC which hit 2 times first is the dominant. Of course, it could be a false signal, but that we will worry about when we get to our signals to get out. It might be confusing to follow, so let me explain with examples.
RR – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
RBR – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
BRR – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
BB – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black
BRB – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black
RBB – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black
Got it? What happens when zero comes up? We just ignore that it appeared eg –
0RR - we read as RR ,
R0BR – we read as RBR
R0R – we read as RR
00RR – we read as RR and so on.
Now the funny thing is once we decided something is dominant, we keep betting on the same side unless the signal to get out comes through. For simplicity sake, I have used RB, needless to say that you can apply it against High-Low, Odd-Even, 3v3 lines, 6v6 streets and so on. It is essentially 18 pockets vs 18 pockets in the roulette.
So far so good? Will leave yourselves to ask any questions and absorb this completely before I pick the next post when we discuss about the signal to get out. This is where we will talk about what if it's a false signal? What to do when in doubt? What to do when the rain gods are showering? So on and so forth.
That was all about a simple step-in. When we are talking about step-out we will also talk about when to reenter once stepped out. But at the moment, just a recap on step-in, when an EC hits twice (not necessarily in succession), assume that EC is dominating and step-in with bets on the EC that reached two times first. As easy as drinking water.
Step-out
Now things get a little complicated. We have now decided to put our head inside lion's mouth. Despite you having years of practice in circus, if you are not taking the head out at the right time, you might lose your life. Now there are three options that are possible. There is chance that you keep on going inside the mouth and you might choke the lion to death. Other outcome is you get swallowed. And the final one is you take the head out before getting swallowed and feed the lion a little to make it happy and keep the circus going. My Choice is very simple and it is the 3rd one, everyone is happy.
This is the approach that we need to do. Don't go for the ultimate jackpot, don't go for the ultimate death, play safe and steady.
When you step in, as we said we are making an assumption. How do you know your assumption is right or wrong. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Don't get fooled if someone says they can predict outcomes. So what are we going to do now, how do we know what to do?
We wait for three signals.
1. The dominance to end
2. There is a double loss
3. After 3 wins (not consecutive) there is a loss.
Let me explain better with examples.
RR – we assumed R dominates and enter the fray with bets on Red.
Next spin B – Continue betting on Red as none of the 3 signals came into picture
Next spin B – Stop betting. Two signals, dominance ended, there is a double loss.
BRR – R dominates and we started betting Red
Next spin B – Stop betting. One signal, dominance ended.
RBB – B dominates and we start on Black
Next spin B – Continue
Next spin B – continue
Next spin R – Continue, as none of the signals came into picture
Next spin B – continue
Next spin R – Stop. One signal, After 3 wins, there is a single loss.
RBR – R dominates and we start on R
B – Stop, One signal, dominance ends
RR – R dominates and we start on R
B – Continue on R
R – Continue
B – continue
R – continue
B – Continue
R – Continue
B – Stop. One signal – single loss after 3 wins
RBR – R dominates, so we start on R
R – continue
R – Continue
B – Continue
B – Stop.One signal, double loss
So the step out is not only to correct when we incorrectly went in, but also to automatically limit on not going too much that the balance starts to appear and you always end up in negative outcome.
As we incorrectly stepped in, we might as well incorrectly step out. But that's part of the game. As you can see, we are trying to accommodate most of the patterns that appear and disappear in a very dynamic manner. We are trying to accommodate a chopping and streaking table. We are trying to accommodate singles and series of 2 or more. We are trying to accommodate hot and cold patterns. We might miss some, but the key is we must catch more than we miss.
We have to treat every entry point as attack. And then whether we fight the battle depends on whether the battle field favours us. If it doesn't, retreat gather and reattack. If it favours, go until you lose your energy and then retreat. Any session will contain a number of attacks and retreats before we call it a day.
Any questions ask, as this is not the end. Once we understand step out, we should talk about re-entry signals.
Pockets
First let me say I find this fascinating. A lot of work on your part. Thanks a ton.....
Now for my question:
BRR – R dominates and we started betting Red
Next spin B – Stop betting. One signal, dominance ended.........you wrote..
Now if B comes it looks like this B R R B. Since the last three are dominated by red, why do we stop?
And why did the dominance end?
Sam
Hi Pockets
Thanks for your great work and for sharing.
I have one query in relation to stepping out where you indicates at line 3 above " 3. After 3 wins (not consecutive) there is a loss".
Assuming there are 3 consecutive wins, I think we can let the winning streak going on.....; No need to get out as long there is no loss yet;
Is it correct....? Thanks
Cheers
Rouletta
Many don't know that you need to win two in a row to get +1 unit flat betting as each sequence end with a loss.
That is one reason Regression is superior ... you win once and you can not lose it all back ...
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 24, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
A lot of work on your part. Thanks a ton.....
Thanks for the kind words Sam. Very negligible compared to the dedication and time you devote to the game.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 24, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
BRR – R dominates and we started betting Red
Next spin B – Stop betting. One signal, dominance ended.........you wrote..
Now if B comes it looks like this B R R B. Since the last three are dominated by red, why do we stop?
And why did the dominance end?
Sam, A very good question. At the moment am looking only into a quantum of time. Am not going just 3 spins back to understand the dominance.
Taking the example that you have mentioned, B R R B. Let say two people enter the casino Tom and Dick. Tom enters first and sees the numbers from B, R and R. So he will start betting on Red as the dominant and continue betting until the signal to step out. Once the signal to step out comes along, he stops and will look for the next signal to get in. So when B appears next, he is having 2 reds and 2 black, so no clear dominance from one colour. He steps out and tracks spins for next signal to get in.
Dick enters the casino a little late, when R spins first. So the first 2 spins for him are RR. R is dominating, so he starts betting R. Next spin B. None of the signals to get out is visible yet. R is still dominating, so he continues R. Now if the next spin is B as well, he will step out and wait for a trigger to get in again. If the next spin is R, he continues betting R.
So, instead of overlapping quantum of times with a ladder based approach, am looking for a fixed quantum of time once I get in till I get out, for this study. The dominance is considered for this quantum of time and it is not considered for a fixed 2 spin or 3 spin period, but dynamically over this quantum of time. Hope I answered your query.
Quote from: Rouletta on October 24, 2013, 05:24:36 PM
Assuming there are 3 consecutive wins, I think we can let the winning streak going on.....; No need to get out as long there is no loss yet;
Quote from: Sputnik on October 24, 2013, 09:06:36 PM
Many don't know that you need to win two in a row to get +1 unit flat betting as each sequence end with a loss.
That is one reason Regression is superior ... you win once and you can not lose it all back ...
Rouletta, I think Sputnik indirectly answered your question. Essentially to win in flat betting, you need more than 50% wins if you are playing ECs, more than 34% wins if you are playing dozens and so on. So for ECs it boils downs to 2 wins every 3 spins to be able to get ahead in the smallest attack possible.
The reason we are going one ahead and stopping at 1 loss after 3 wins, is because we don't want to lose the advantage we gained in this attack sequence. We want to win as many attacks as possible to be able to end the session in a plus.
Now, the question is why lose when the EC you are betting is dominating and giving you series while the opposite EC is giving single. Very thoughtful question. We will talk about it in a bit more details when we talk about re-entry strategy. But as a preview, just think about tracking for a signal to get in after we have stopped on a single loss. You will realize that you will keep getting on to the same dominating EC if it has been streaking continuously. More when we talk about re-entry points.
Pockets
This is no criticism. I once wrote a piece named "New Eyes On the Marquee". (I can't find it!) Anyhoo...........I laid out the dilemma you describe with your two guys.
I came to the conclusion that if Tom could sit down and get a trigger before Dick did, there was something wrong. All players should see the same trigger, IMO. (There, Drazen.)
So I just naturally assumed you were just looking back three spins as that is what you normally would do. You must have a dominance in three spins, zero excluded.
Drifting off a bit...........
This is a type of HAR as you're not wanting to play back-to-back triggers. As with HAR, I always asked if the fellow who sit down when you left--is he doomed to loose? Can't be, can it?
Carry on...
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 25, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
All players should see the same trigger, IMO. (There, Drazen.)
But I see the same trigger(S) every time, Sam. What I don't see the same is how much and how long I bet on situations after that. And that isn't the same.
Cheers
Drazen
I meant I used the "IMO" abbbbrrreeevaaation. Can't answer your question! Hopefully Pockets will later on.
Sam
Hi Pockets
Thanks for the response and clarification. It all makes sense.
Cheers
Rouletta
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 25, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
This is no criticism.
Sam, The reason I post is to seek inputs and feedback. Mankind would not be where they are today, if they didn't learn to accept feedback and continuously improve in the journey towards perfection. I welcome your thoughts anyday being a big fan of yours.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 25, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
I once wrote a piece named "New Eyes On the Marquee". (I can't find it!)
How can I forget it Sam. Here it goes for others who doesn't know what it means.
What are new eyes on the marquee? It is simply another person who sits down quite some time after you do and he sees a new perspective on what is happening. My ideas are these, and I'm not sure I'm willing to accept them as truth, but here goes.There are two times when your system will fail.1. When the new eyes, playing exactly by your rules, finds a bet you must pass on.
2. When the new eyes, playing exactly by your rules, does not find the trigger which caused you to start betting. (I will say, I am used to seeing ten to twelve numbers on the marquee at Dublin or Riverbelle or CasinoWebCam. A person who tracks for himself is a different story.)A woman once asked me how to people could play the same system and one win and one lose. I think this could answer it in part. One might be betting and tap out while the other is waiting for a trigger. This phenomenon happens in many systems, but never in one where you are waiting for red to hit five times and then start betting black. Everyone sees a bunch of reds, even if the whole marquee is red and they would start betting on black. Just a silly example, you know!
There are lots of your theories I just adore, another example of Two Cat Universal Profit theory if you remember it.
Coming back to the point, as you have described in the last paragraph above Sam, there are some systems which are immune to this theory. But I hear your point loud and clear. As I am still in the process of developing this, I will have to take this point on board to see how it impacts the results. As it stands now, it might look like, to a certain extent it is immune to this, which you will see when I describe the re-entry signals. The reason is because, I am trying to capture a dynamic pattern in an attack and not defined numbers. So barring the first dynamic pattern, both Tom and Dick in the example should converge at some point. But you are right, there are times when it falls for it. I need to look at this a bit more deeper to see how it impacts and how we can adapt.
Another interesting thought,
Trigger - An event that precipitates other events
Signal - An indicator
There is a borderline difference between them. The reason I used signal to get in and get out, instead of Trigger is because of this reason. I am not using the "first to reach 2" as a trigger for
Reds to come. I am just using it as a signal to
assume it might be the start of a Red dominance in this attack sequence.
Finally, it doesn't make any difference to my session, if I use a signal to get-out and I travel back spins to locate whether there was a signal to get-in so that I start in the next spin. But it will be my next attack. So just going back to the example, BRRB, one attack is getting in at BRR and getting out at B. The next attack will start at RRB and will continue until there is a signal to get out. Hope this paragraph specifically answers the query that you have raised Sam.
Adaptability, Evolution, Change – Defining terms. Apologies for leaving the thread hanging and leaving the PMs unanswered on this thread. Sam GOT ME THINKING. His "New eyes on the marquee" brought in a new vision in the way this flat betting game can be approached. I have been silent testing and shaping this approach behind the scenes. I have tested it for more than a month's Wiesbaden spins and is coming out in the positive. Let me try explaining the approach in as simple terms as possible. Once I define it, you will realize this can be approached in a number of ways using the same concept.
As a starter for ten, I completely ditched the earlier approach I was trying to explain. Well, not completely, retained the "Dominance" concept. So bet is still around the dominance concept that in short cycles of two possible outcomes, one side will remain dominant and one will remain dormant. The fresh look on the approach is based on the fact that the result should remain the same for a person who is starting the game now and someone who will start/started the game x spins before/after. It should not be different to different entry points.
Now keeping this in mind, how do we determine dominance. Then I came across the bing of an idea from Skakus aka the bell on the door, "Race to five". Ofcourse this is a very old idea that has been practiced by gamblers across the world for some time now, but I have given it a little whack with Sam's glasses.
Even though I will get into complex elements of how to combine it with multiple ECs and a dozen and column into the mixture, let me try explaining the simple synopsis first with everyone's favourite ECs Red and Black. It is very simple, once you get to a table, you just trace back in the marquee and count red and black individually. The EC which reaches the count 4 is the one you will choose to bet. So lets say the marquee reads RRBRRBRRBBBRRBRB with B being the latest spin, you start counting backwards. You realize that B is the one that reaches the count 4 first. So your next bet is B. Once the spin is over, whether it is a loss or win you keep repeating the process until either it's time for you to go home or you run out of money or you just feel happy to leave the table.
Before getting into why it works and other conditions to look forward to, to make it more profitable, I will explain this with example so that my scrapings become meaningful.
Very good, Pockets. Please continue...
Picked up table 3 spins from Wiesbaden 12/11/2013 to show an example of how my scrapings make sense. Please note, I have just used these as an example to show how the dominance capture mechanism works across the different ECs. We will get to more details on the bet after this example.
[csv=,]
Spins,R/B,Win/loss,Count,H/L,Win/loss,Count,O/E,Win/loss,Count
30,R,,,H,,,E,,
18,R,,R1,L,,H1,E,,E1
31,B,,R2,H,,H1/L1,O,,E2
21,R,,R2/B1,H,,H2/L1,O,,E2/O1
33,B,,R3/B1,H,,H3/L1,O,,E2/O2
29,B,,R3/B2,H,1,H4/L1 - bet high,O,,E2/O3
27,R,,R3/B3,H,1,H4/L0 - bet high,O,1,E0/O4 - bet odd
30,R,1,R4/B3 - bet red,H,1,H4/L0 - bet high,E,-1,E0/O4 - bet odd
2,B,-1,R4/B3 - bet red,L,-1,H4/L0 - bet high,E,-1,E1/O4 - bet odd
35,B,1,R3/B4 - bet black,H,1,H4/L1 - bet high,O,1,E2/O4 - bet odd
18,R,-1,R2/B4 - bet black,L,-1,H4/L1 - bet high,E,-1,E2/O4 - bet odd
14,R,-1,R3/B4 - bet black,L,-1,H4/L2 - bet high,E,-1,E3/O4 - bet odd
30,R,1,R4/B2 - bet red,H,1,H4/L3 - bet high,E,1,E4/O1 - bet even
22,B,-1,R4/B2 - bet red,H,1,H4/L3 - bet high,E,1,E4/O1 - bet even
20,B,-1,R4/B3 - bet red,H,1,H4/L3 - bet high,E,1,E4/O0 - bet even
29,B,1,R3/B4 - bet black,H,1,H4/L2 - bet high,O,-1,E4/O0 - bet even
10,B,1,R3/B4 - bet black,L,-1,H4/L0 - bet high,E,1,E4/O1 - bet even
36,B,1,B4 - bet black,H,1,H4/L1 - bet high,O,-1,E4/O1 - bet even
,Total,1,,,5,,,0,
[/csv]
Pockets
Like Sam said .... Please continue
B
Buffster, just not finding the time to post it amidst other commitments. Will do so this week.[smiley]blacy/blacy-red_heart.png[/smiley]
Buffster, apologies. Here you go.
We talked about entry points. Now let's talk about exit points and the number of bets.
Exit points
How many times have you chased the hot numbers and found that they turn cold for the next 100 spins. The first rule for anyone playing roulette is you can observe what is happening now and journal what happened in the past, but NEVER can you predict what is going to happen. Same goes true with dominance as well. What is dominant now, according to the laws of probability may or may not remain dominant for the next 5 spins. 4 reds and 1 black might soon result in 4 reds and 5 blacks. Against this mathematical rules, we decided to choose dominance as our entry points and primary mode of play. We decided to take the side of fallacy.
There is nothing wrong in taking the side of fallacy. We just need to know why we are doing what we are doing. We just need to know the limitations of fallacy and suit our play around it. And there comes the exit points. After careful observation and consideration, I have decided to go ahead with an exit after 3 consecutive losing spins. This to me is the taste of dominance shifting towards the other side of the coin. We STOP betting on the current dominant side after this exit point. Note, we are not stopping betting altogether, we are just stopping betting on the dominant EC that we have been betting so far. We will talk about what to do after this Stop in a little more detail, but after explaining number of bets and an example explaining exit points and number of bets.
Number of bets
Now what is number of bets? It is nothing but the number of ECs that we will chose. There are a couple of factors that will decide this. One, not every EC will show dominant characteristics at the same time always. Two, It should be simple and easy to track without too much going on our head. Three, Always allow for a plan B, as your plan A may not work always. Four, EC is a 18 number bet.
Taking all the above into consideration, my play revolves around 2 outside ECs (two out of the 3 outside ECs RB, EO or LH). Easy to follow, easy to place bets, two sets of 18 numbers to serve as plan A and plan B, two sets of 18 numbers complimenting each other with a few overlaps and not subsets and simple to track in a tissue that comes along with the snack. My primary bets are on RB and EO. It doesn't matter which one you use, all that matters is, it should be two sets of 18 numbers complementing each other. There is no point in chosing 1 EC bet as Low/High and the other as Lines 1,2,3/4,5,6. You see what I mean?
Lets get to the example. Lets take the Wiesbaden spins from yesterday table 3 and use RB and EO as our primary bets.
[csv=,]
Spins ,Win/loss ,RB,Win/loss ,OE
14,,,,
6,,R1,,E1
33,,R1B1,,E2
33,,R1B2,,E2O1
33,,R1B3,,E2O2
9,-1,B4 - bet black,,E2O3
29,1,R1B4 - bet black,1,O4 - bet odd
28,1,R1B4 - bet black,-1,O4 - bet odd
32,-1,R1B4 - bet black,-1,E1O4 - bet odd
14,-1,R2B4 - bet black,-1,E2O4 - bet odd
5,-1,R3B4 - bet black,,3 losses. End of bet
2,,3 losses. End of bet,,
28,,,,
19,,,,
25,,,,
3,,,,
32,,,,
34,,,,
26,,,,
31,,,,
Total,-1,,-2,
[/csv]
P
:thumbsup:
B
Another short break. Now if you have tried this phenomenon, then you would have noticed that it is a slow killer. Yes SLOW KILLER, killing you slowly and steadily as a flat bet should. Now we need to build up on this starting point of dominances to see how we can create an edge? Is it even possible? I wouldn't claim it is, and would play down this way of taking on the wheel. I would leave that to your own experience and see whether you are receiving some happiness by playing this way. After all, most of the people I believe are here for "pure da fun" rather than making some money. Cough. Cough.
Dominance of dominances – Let me introduce you to the concept of dominance of dominances. I don't want to confuse anyone, so I will try explaining in very simple terms. But the concept in itself is a little bit complex and it was daunting for me to get to the bottom of it. Now that I understand it, I am able to practice it better.
To put in simple terms, I see the marquee full of red and start playing red, but that might be the turning point for blacks to appear. We tried avoiding this scenario by putting in a safety break at 3 losses in a row. This is in line with the principles not to fight random, but going by its strides. But what do we do after getting out. Do we pack bags go home? Do we take a short break and join another table? That's just dodging the play. That's just hit and run. I can understand stop-losses and target limits, but if we leave after getting out because of 3 losses in a row, then it is not a workable strategy. We will be sitting idle more than we play.
What am going to describe may not work, but only time will tell. If the table is turning, why not play the turn. So far we have been playing dominance and we see that dominance is not working, so why not play against the dominance. Because that's the dominance. The non-dominant(is it a word?) is coming over and creating dominance. Confusing? Let us see an example of 20 spins.
R B B B B R B B R R R B B R R R R R B B
Applying the rule of dominances we saw earlier,
First 5 spins, R B B B B – B is first to reach 4, dominating, so we play for B.
6th spin , B B B B R – Loss, black prevails, play B
7th, B B B R B – Win, continue black
8th, B B R B B – Win, continue black
9th, B B R B B R - Loss, black prevails, play B
10th, B B R B B R R - Loss, black prevails, play B
11th , R B B R R R – Loss, red is dominant. Play R.
But this is where we decided to exit. Why? Because dominance based on our guiding principle is not dominant anymore. Now what I am telling is, instead of playing for dominance, play against because that is dominant now. I term it a SWITCH. I have some views and rules on when to do this switch in line with my dominance rules. But at the moment, let us not increase the complexity. Let us stick to the exit point definition and consider switching when the exit point is reached.
11th, R B B R R R – Loss, red is dominant. Play B as we have now switched to non-dominant side.
12th, R B B R R R B – win, red is dominant. Play B
13th, B B R R R B B – win, black is dominant. Play R
14th, R R R B B R – win, red is dominant. Play B
15th, R R B B R R – loss, red is dominant. Play B
16th, R B B R R R – loss, red is dominant. Play B
17th, R R R R – loss, red is dominant.
Now we face 3 losses in a row again. So its time to Switch. We now bet dominant side as that is dominating now, based on our rules. So we play Red now
18th, R R R R – win, red is dominant. Play R
19th, R R R R B – loss, red is dominant. Play R
20th, R R R R B B – loss.
So I hope you get the idea now. The above set of spins ended in -3 units. Fire any questions and we will head into today's wiesbaden spins playing RB and OE.
Never thought about it MBB. Thanks. Very well written in a simple manner that is easier to understand and track through.
As indicated earlier, following is the first few spins until we reach +10units from today's table at Wiesbaden.
Table 3
[csv=,]
,RB,Result RB,Comments,EO,Result EO,Switch,Bankroll
18,R,,,E,,,
19,R,,,O,,,
0,0,,,0,,,
23,R,,,O,,,
15,B,,,O,,,
24,B,,,E,,,
24,B,,,E,,,
22,B,,,E,,,
32,R,-1,,E,1,,0
15,B,1,,O,-1,,0
16,R,-1,,E,1,,0
10,B,1,,E,1,,2
36,R,-1,,E,1,,2
13,B,1,,O,-1,,2
27,R,-1,,O,-1,,0
14,R,1,,E,1,,2
25,R,1,,O,-1,,2
25,R,1,,O,-1,,2
35,B,-1,,E,-1,Switch,0
30,R,1,,E,1,,2
20,B,-1,,E,1,,2
23,R,1,,O,1,,4
35,B,-1,,E,-1,,2
5,R,1,,O,1,,4
0,0,-1,,0,-1,,2
3,R,1,,O,1,,4
16,R,1,,E,-1,,4
16,R,1,,E,-1,,4
25,R,1,,O,1,,6
35,B,-1,,E,1,,6
13,B,-1,,O,1,,6
24,B,-1,Switch,E,1,,6
0,0,-1,,0,-1,,4
21,R,-1,,O,1,,4
33,B,1,,O,1,,6
24,B,-1,,E,1,,6
14,R,1,,E,1,,8
18,R,1,,E,-1,,8
13,B,-1,,O,1,,8
22,B,-1,,E,-1,,6
20,B,-1,Switch,E,-1,,4
2,B,1,,E,-1,Switch,4
13,B,1,,O,-1,,4
31,B,1,,O,-1,,4
36,R,-1,,E,1,,4
32,R,-1,,E,1,,4
22,B,1,,E,1,,6
2,B,1,,E,1,,8
2,B,1,,E,1,,10
[/csv]
We saw how to play dominants, we saw how to twist the turns and play non-dominant. But there is a huge hole in the whole philosophy. If you have tried your hands at this then you would have noticed immediately. While the game I outlined can be played as it is as I have described with minimal variance, if you ask me whether it holds a flat bet advantage, I will have to say no. This whole dominance and non-dominance can be played very effectively using the principle of outside D'alembert that Sam has described using while playing the excel bot. Basically play for 10 or -10 and then use the dalembert on the sessions. At least so far it is giving me good results.
But what was the hole I was talking about. You would have noticed that we have described dominances and non-dominances and how we would adopt our play to take advantage of these two situations. But these are only two of the possible three state. The third state is a balanced state where there is no clear dominance on one side of the EC. This state is the killer state for this play. As neither dominance nor non-dominance is dominating we will have the table alternate between dominant and non-dominant sides. Even if we switch we will not be able to get to the bottom of this phenomenon when that happens. When playing flat betting, this balanced state will wipe off all the advantages that we have gained.
So the lesson is, it is important to understand the dominance concets, it is a key towards achieving an edge in your play but has to be used in conjunction with other techniques which can potentially lead to stronger predictions. What are those techniques?
I call them Pockets. I call them waves. We all know that waves do happen. If you draw a graph following dominant side(or the other way round) you will note that you will get a sine wave, may not a perfectly symmetrical one, but one which oscillates up and down. Now is there a way to control the upper and lower limits of this wave leading to variances which we can understand. Is there an optimal variation? How to enter the wave at the right time and exit at the right time? Big questions, but we will try getting to the bottom of it, one by one.
In the meantime, enjoy playing the dominance and non-dominance. I have botted the play i have described as per Sam's way of playing dalembert and so far doing good both in BV and smartlive.
I don't know who said it, but I have been hearing this since I was a kid "Man is a social animal". Being social means prone to distractions. I am no different and prone to distractions. While I was working on the principles of dominance and how to limit variances, a serious thought stuck me. Something that I never thought about before. I went in pursuit of it and I see that I have made real good progress. I have made very good progress up to a point that I am confident I can come out every session with a win. But as Sam always says "Time will tell". So what is it?
It is essentially the power of the law of the third, parachuting, laws of probability, sleepers and wakers all put into one simple method. I always said this thread is all about betselection and I am happy that I am not going to deviate from that thought process yet, even though I believe this method will work best with progressions. I call this method "Chaos". Read about it all here(http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/chaos-theory/new/#new (http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/chaos-theory/new/#new)), as I want to keep this thread limited to discussions on the adventure.
As I was explaining dominance alone is not sufficient. We need to have something which will limit the variance. Which will operate with predetermined top and bottom control points. Look at the following graph of 200 spins.
[attachimg=1]
There is an upper control limit, there is a lower control limit. Top point is +3, Bottom point is -3. The graph really fluctuates between these 2 extreme points. This is what is possible when seeing dominance from a different perspective. The betting always happens when it is within normalcy limits which is +1 and -1. Bettting stops/reverses when we get into the extremes. What do you think? Do you think we can break the bank by limiting variance using such bet selection?