+ Register

[Drazen]

Anyway, keep us updated Drazen.

Ok as you might see I touched the ceiling. This is the max amount they will give me if I wager what has left to.

Now all "extra" money I will be investing into little "trick" with which I ll try significantly speed up that rest of wagering requirements, which I described earlier here. Will it be some sort of violation in the end? I don't know... In any case it was interesting ride with no costs at all.. And to be honest I don't have strenght any more to wager it by some normal route... 

Best

[AMK]

200.20  good numbers Drazen.


I think you can make it.


I am thinking about accepting reasonable casino bonuses.


I will play one or perhaps two methods per bonus.


One of the bonuses should succeed.....


I will consider them tests : )

[Bayes]

Ok as you might see I touched the ceiling. This is the max amount they will give me if I wager what has left to.

Now all "extra" money I will be investing into little "trick" with which I ll try significantly speed up that rest of wagering requirements, which I described earlier here. Will it be some sort of violation in the end? I don't know... In any case it was interesting ride with no costs at all.. And to be honest I don't have strenght any more to wager it by some normal route... 

Best

Do you know how much of the wagering requirement has been paid?

[Drazen]

A bit more then 1/3 or so. Ah I ll do it over time I guess. I asked them can be there any violation of bonus terms in placing bets. They said no.  WE will see


Drazen

[Bally6354]

Just as a note of caution reading the 'terms + conditions' at Joyland.

[attachimg=1]

Casinos don't like low risk wagering on bonus money and WILL lock accounts if they see you playing this way. A lot of players used to do it with Blackjack playing basic strategy assuming that they had a good chance to keep most of the bonus money even after playing through the requirements.

It would be a shame to risk losing something that you have obviously worked hard for.

[AMK]

Hello again Bally,


Who said anything about me doing all the hard work?


My friend R2 also likes to play roulette a lot : )




What was that Yoda?


Look out for Darth Vader.......


LoL

[maestro]

i have just found this topic..very well done Drazen....you said above that you play some horror numbers given by Bayes...are able to upload them files so i wanna look at them or Bayes...thanks

[Drazen]

Bays-es "horror" sessions are in the attach.

If that isn't enough you can also find on RF.cc Bays-es tool called "sequence analyzer",  which can generate endless amounts of any possible roulette "horror" sessions (so as any other) by given parameters.



Best

Drazen

[maestro]

thanks Drazen i checked them sesssions but i have seen a lot worse...was RNG   two times in a row taken to 71 spins without dbl win and 3 times to 15% for reds and high in last 40 spins..but above all no loses and Bayes software is just very good..thank you for attachments and thanks to Bayes.. [smiley]aes/cigarette.png[/smiley]

[Drazen]

those horror sessionas are the worst deviations over 200 spins sequence and then next 200 spins. what you are saying are deviations over 40 spins from bayses tracker. Anyway... :-)

[spike]

If you have good bet selection, most MM schemes work
very well. But they also put you more at risk. So it always
comes back to flat betting. There is nothing MM can do that
flat betting can't if you have the right bet selection. Just last
week I saw 4 zeros in 6 spins. This will screw up any MM plan,
except flat betting. For FB, its just a blip. Bottom line is, always
risk as little as possible, you never know what's coming.

[Bally6354]

My belief is that you are only limited by how you interpretate the data which is in front of you. A horror session to one player could possibly be another players biggest ever win. A dynamic game such as roulette certainly requires having more than just one bet selection.  It requires an arsenal of interchangeable ways of playing. It's not just semantics either. We need to be careful not to limit what is achievable by having fixed ideas.

[AMK]

That being said Bally. I do believe that it might be possible to win in roulette with an "aggressive" progression.

If I am wrong please forgive me : )

[Bally6354]

I think you are right AMK. Betting aggressively can have its place.

[RyaWolf]

I've started betting using Tracker and I'v got some questions.

I've started betting two different ways to find out which one is better.

1. I waited for at least 25%(marquees on the right) before I attacked. I bet D'Alembert - increasing 1 unit after a cycle of two without a hit and decreasing after a winning cycle.
I've checked 1k spins. Mostly I was satisfied when I was ahead 1 unit/single progression. After 1k spins I was 30 units ahead. Few times I had to cut losses when what I played rised to 35-37%.

My questions are:

What am I doing wrong that after 1k spins I was "only" 30 units ahead?
Could you tell me (in average) when you cut losses? My friend who told me about this forum told me that Drazen told that he was -300 units down once before started recovering this particular progression. Drazen, did you recover that time? As we know, when -3SD occurs, if its start giving us EC once in two spins, we don't recover but -3SD is decreasing immediately so I wonder is it possible to recover from -300 units?
I recovered 120 units for 100 spins.

Drazen said he hasn't lost single session. By "session" you mean a day or your single progression?

2. I've waited until I got at least 25% and interval of losses in row occured (at least 5 losses in row). Even in this situation I had to bet 13 units mostly. I was ahead 26 units.