Here is an example sheet. I have recorded all the wins in green and losses in red and also included instructions on how it plays out. It's pretty straightforward really. You would only bet a further 2 spins down the line for a repeat when you see a 'same' or 'diff'.
Exceptions are when you get either a 'same' or 'diff' follow either a 'same' or 'diff' on the very next spin in which case you will delay the bet a further spin. You would also need to switch over sides if for example a 'diff' followed 'same' on the very next spin and bet 'diff' instead of 'same' in a further 2 spins. It's all recorded and explained clearly in the  sheet. As always, just ask if you don't understand anything.

cheers

Over the next few days, I will post up my final roulette strategy. I don't promise the HG but it's an interesting and easy way to play when you get the hang of it and more than holds its own as anyone interested will find out.

It revolves around the dozens and columns where anyone playing it would be making a single bet of either a dozen or column for 1 spin attempt. So you either win 2 units or lose 1 unit if flat betting and then wait for the next attack.

The first thing to understand is how I define the cycles. It's exactly the same for either the dozens or columns.

Here is an excel sheet explaining it. Any questions, just ask!

Just touching on the LIAR.

Here is a shoe.... P121311221121113111134121211114.

Here are my bets in sections.

Section 1.
W
W* no bet
L no bet

Section 2.
W
L no bet

Section 3.
W
W* no bet
W* no bet
W* no bet

Section 4.
L no bet

Section 5.
W
W* no bet
W* no bet
W* no bet
L no bet

If I bet everything, I am +6. By just taking one bite at the cherry, I am +4. Is there really that much difference when I can flat-bet and still win. Well, not in my opinion.  Because what about the day when you don't get those runs of 3/4. On saying that, this shoe was pretty smooth. You can develop framework for when shoes shoot all over the place and bet accordingly but the key IMO is keeping those LIAR down to as low a figure as you can and also not forgetting that less is more in relation to how many bets you actually place.

cheers

Quote from: Lugi on November 11, 2018, 11:28:24 PM
Nice one, what was the closest repeat gap between the 11 occurrences?

Shoes 6, 7, 8, 14, 26, 27, 28, 55, 65, 83 and 91 all produced one sequence only of BBBBPPPPP. Running a few tests shows the average for a 9 hand sequence hovers around 11-12 with it going as low as 7 and as high as 15. I like to crunch the stats because things tend to come out fairly uniform over 100 shoes. For example...The BBB came out 857 times in my example above. This 850 average give or take a few is also consistent over 100 shoes for any 3 hand combination (excluding the ties) Can any of this help? I don't really know! I think Jimske and yourself have already alluded to the grail in an attempt to cut down on the LIAR. That's where the real gold lies.

Here is something I was just looking at. I was running off 100 shoes on the BB2 Simulator and looking to see how many times on average you get a sequence of any 9 results.

In the following example, the sequence is BBBBPPPPP and it came out 11 times.

[attach=1]

So how about if you waited for any BBB combination and then bet against the remaining BPPPPP with PBBBBB. It would cost you 63 units on a failed attempt.

How many times did BBB appear?

872 times was the answer!

[attach=2]

It's more of just thinking out loud rather than anything else based on what Lugi posted.

Less is more when considering how to cut down on LIAR. I prefer to go for one bite of the cherry and take the win or loss. Attempting to ride a run guarantees you are going to end on a loss. Personally, I wouldn't contemplate looking for or betting on weaker triggers when a specific bet placement in whatever shape it arrives is a strong one. Then again, it could get pretty damn boring sitting there twiddling your thumbs for most of the shoe. Luckily Genting have these terminals which are linked to the live dealer now similar to their linked roulette tables. You don't feel as awkward sitting there waiting for a bet.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on November 10, 2018, 09:26:59 AM
You are a GREAT LIAR!

BlueAngel,

Not that I need to speak up for Lugi, but this guy is pretty much as straight as a die and it's always worth reading/considering his posts because of the experience he has. Actually, he is one of the few posters I respect 100% and I am sure a few others who know what time of day it is concur as well.

Cheers

Quote from: james on September 05, 2018, 11:20:45 AM
No mechanical system can beat Baccarat. But some believe that a flexible system, "Follow the Shoe (FTS)" can beat Baccarat. As its name implies, you bet according to what the shoe is doing. It is claimed that some have become millionaires playing Baccarat, using this approach.

Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But if Norm was betting 5k units as was mentioned, then it only takes winning 200 units to reach the first million. You could argue that someone somewhere is going to get lucky and win a few hundred units. He was reportedly using a 1,2 loop progression which makes it even more achievable with such high units.

The stats for the doublets get interesting when you run two different streams.

So taking the 4 combinations which could be anything really...…

11
12
22
21

I got the following after a few more short tests....

11 = 48/6 = 8 (weakest)
12 = 41/12 = 3.5
22 = 41/9 = 4.5
21 = 45/13 = 3.5

2nd test

11 = 30/6 = 5
12 = 39/13 = 3
22 = 21/3 = 7 (weakest)

21 = 39/13 = 3


Based on that info, my approach would be to play against the weakest when opportunities arose.


cheers

Thanks Nick for starting another interesting thread on ideas surrounding non-random concepts.

I did a quick 200 spin test using random.org to test the doublets just to see how the averages performed and they were pretty much in line with what the video suggested. It's always great to see things in a different light because it gets the creativity going.

Cheers Nick!

I am looking forward to reading/studying your part 2 of using math to beat Roulette/Baccarat. I know there are quite a few of us still looking into the 'non-random' concept and it will be interesting to read about any new developments.

Now just thinking about it, I seem to remember you can't get a mutual bet situation up to spin 6. You can only get them from spin 7 onwards. So using the 2 streams like above up to spin 6 maybe isn't such a bad way instead of playing just the one stream through to spin 9.

cheers

Just on the subject of the VdW for the E.C's.

It was probably mentioned before somewhere, but you can run two different streams using the same numbers.

So here, I am looking for the traditional arithmetic progression and also using a 'same/difference' stream as well.

[attachimg=1]

Hello guys,

The pairs in any format are always interesting to re-visit in case anything catches the eye.

I always go back to either a missing pair of the following.....

Red/Red or Black/Black

Odd/Odd or Even/Even

Low/Low or High/High

In the following example, Red/Red has missed three times and is what I would term as the furthest back because the Red/Black, Black/Black and Black/Red are all more recent.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

The numbers and colour as they appear are as follows......

27 R (L)
8 B (W)
2 B (W)
34 R (L)
31 B (W)
31 B (W)
18 R (L)
13 B (W)
26 B (W)
26 B (W)
17 B (W)
34 R (L)
6 B (W)
36 R (L)
21 R (L)
22 B (W)
24 B (W)
21 R (L)
22 B (W)
30 R (L)
9 R (L)
23 R (L)


The W/L registry is not too severe!


I often think about VdW in it's simple guise and these pairs. You can play for the arithmetic progression in 9 spins and get a few losses and then no bet because of the mutual situation. Any missing or 'furthest back' pair has to give you a win if you back the opposite pair as long as the furthest back pair continues to miss (excluding the 0/00).


cheers

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 09, 2018, 06:42:46 PM

On second thought please don't bother or to waste your time. I've looked at several threads regarding this around the internet. It's a baloney festival.

Fair enough! Now not to brag or anything and for sure it doesn't proof anything really, however, here is little old me on the 'roulette simulator' website in top spot.

[attachimg=1]

Going by what you requested, it seems you just wanted to take the basic concept and proof to yourself that it didn't work. Good for you.
Mr J was bang on with what he said on Kav's forum the other day and that was that some people just REFUSE to learn. But you are in good company Giz. Keep doing it your way.