Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 10:15:00 PM
OK, now I see what you're asking.   I was working with the 1-2 loop but have since gone back to flat betting VDW.   Comparing several previous shoes and running them both ways, the outcomes were nearly identical.

AD

.......but I thought that only flat-betting VDW loses over the long-run.

Didn't Nickmisi's charts show this as a losing method without MM or progression?

Thanks AD!

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 12, 2016, 08:28:51 PM
Hello Justme . . .

When I tested for the Stop Losses, I started a new cycle every time it hit the Stop Loss setting.  So if Stop Loss set a (-1) then at the first loss we would start a new cycle.

A Stop Loss of (-2) would mean we had a loss of -1 followed by another loss of (-1) OR we first had a loss of (-1) then a Win of (+1) and then and then we had 2 losses in a row.

The same is true for the Profit Target.  Almost all the time the Profit Target is set for (+1) so at first profit we start a new cycle.

Yes I did test 100 sessions of 3,000 spins and the results below.  A Stop Loss of (-2) was better than (-1).

Cheers

Nick

From post #145.......attached chart appears to win flat betting with stop-loss in place........unless I'm missing something.(I think it's no zero simulation)

Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
I'm not sure of what the question is but I was simply flat betting each wager.   I was only attempting to see if the play is viable with the waiting from time to time for the appropriate AP to show up to wager on.

AD

I think he's asking about the stop-loss that you added to play after the initial larger tests by Nickmsi failed to show a profit with flat betting only.

The charts with -1 and/or -2 stop loss (then restart a new game), were the only ones that showed a profit without a progression.

So still flat betting with an added -2 stop loss then restart new game. Is that correct?

Also, how was the waiting time between bets?

Thanks!

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 13, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
Hi Mark, bbbbbb128

Mark is pointing out that this method is not the Holy Grail and he is correct.  However, it is one of the safest, most consistent and stable bet selections I have ever found.

A few weeks ago at the Mohegan Sun, Ct,  my brother and I played baccarat for the first time.  We flat betted and In 1 1/2 hours we doubled our meager $100 buy in.   It was fun and easy.  No Stress.

With this thread I hope to expose more people to a new way of playing roulette/baccarat.

The question is can we improve this basic VDW system?

Some of your suggestions might lead us to a better method.  Like, bbbbbb128 asked "how do we handle the Mutual Bets".

Right now we skip (no bet) when there is a Mutual bet and start a new cycle.

But what if we bet instead of skip?

What would you bet?  Would it help to bet just one side, like banker or Red for the entire cycle?

Could we bet both Banker & Player for first 4 hands and then bet just one of them for the last 5 hands of the cycle? Or vice versa?

Could we bet all 3 EC instead of just one in roulette?

Would be bet all 3 EC Independent of each other or dependent on each other?

Could we bet something other than an EC?

Just food for thought.
Cheers

NIck

Just had a thought about this :

If this is a stable enough betting selection, then shouldn't the right MM + progression turn it into a winner.

I'm thinking something very conservative like flat bet until you're behind a certain number of units.......then raise by 1 unit........then implement an extended divisor method in case things get ugly.

Either a conservative approach should win with this bet selection..........or the bet selection is simply not that stable.

Hey Sputnik,

So we should try to keep it under 50 spins to calculate SD?........I assume mathematically there is an exact number, but a rough estimate is probably close enough.

Thanks!

http://www.rp2.ru/sys_96.php (needs google translate)

Like this?

I know that this has been discussed before.......but a large Labby (50+ lines).........including a degree of flexibility........might beat the right bet selection.

A large enough Labby can handle the blast of the worst loss in 200 spins. The question is where to start.........and where to finish.

Normal variance on EC (betting blind) is probably too risky.........but if you could buffer the extremes.......then a Labby might actually work.

Just my $.02.

So does this mean that we should see a guaranteed win by the 8th spin?......perhaps not mathematically, but practically?

If so, then why not apply the same principle to the 8th spin.......waiting for 7 virtual losses (not including zero).

This is really getting down to brass tacks here if we are limiting this to 8 spins......and expecting a win nearly every time.........this would be the tightest betting window that I've seen yet related to a superior bet..........it's usually dozens of spins or more.

One other idea to throw into the mix.......does the spin (#1-8) increase the likelihood of a win?.......not up to that spin, but just the spin itself (just thinking out loud here)?

Cheers!

@Trbfla

1 - No reason to play a mutual bet if it will be a draw anyway........or worse a loss due to zero(s)

2 - A rare consistent bet is enough.........remember my example above with only +1 unit per 1000 spins (roughly 20hrs at the table)

Also, wonder if it would work on RNG?

@Nickmsi

A Consistent Winning Bet using VDW

What if we force a "win" by only betting the 9th spin when the option arrives?

So basically we would have a losing 8 spin sequence, and if we must win the 9th spin (excluding zeros of course)......then this should create a consistent winning bet (or at least win more than we lose).

Now......first reactions to this will be the "not enough betting options" crowd. Keep in mind that this would be a constant rolling trigger for 8 losses on all 3 EC (so 6 options in all).

Just run some quick numbers:

For the sake of argument: If we only net +1 unit every 1000 spins (super-grinder) and play for 40hrs per week (+2 units), then we will win +104 units per year. Even if your bankroll was 100 units, then that's a 100% return on your investment.

Finally......it can be treated like Card-Counting with a low-level cover bet.........and then a full-size bet when the 8-loss sequence trigger appears.

Cheers!

Progressions are always tempting, but ultimately, flat-betting is king.

Flat betting allows much higher bets at a table without drawing unnecessary attention.

Also, a cover bet is always an option if betting options are sparse..........again, keeps the eye-in-the-sky away.

John Legend was a notorious troll who posted inaccurate info on his "winning" methods just to get attention.

Nothing that starts with a lie.........ends with the truth.

Hey BJ,

Just for reference, any idea what those totals would have been for an average set of numbers?

I assume a positive expectation for your method, so if your average expectation was +100 units, then you could take a hit from one those "horror" sessions now and again, and still come out ahead.

Thanks for the great work - much appreciated!

I've included 3 different W/L records below played on 2 dozens (w=+1 L+-2).

Any ideas for Progressions to beat it?

I've tried all the standard Marti-Labby-Parlay-etc (look at the last example for some real chops). Started to look for clusters, but the cops of smaller runs will rear its ugly head.

Weisbaden Test #1

WWWWLLWLWWLLLLWWWWWLLWWWWWWWLWLLLWWWLWWWWWWWLWLWWWWWWLLWLWWWWLWWLWWWLLWWLWLLLWLWLWWWLWWWWW
LWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWLWWWWWLLWWLLWLLWLLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLLWWWWWLLLWWLWLWWWWLWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWLWLWW


WEISBADEN #1 01.07.2016 #176

LWWWLLLWWWWLWLLWLWWWWWWWWWLLWWWWWLWWLLLLWLLLLLWWWWWWWWWWLLWLWWWWLWWWLWWWLLLLLWWWWWWWWWWLWL
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWLWWWWWWLLLLWWWWWWWLLWLWWLLWWLWWWWWLWWWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWLWLLLWWWWLLWWWLW

WEISBADEN #2 01.07.2016 #200

LWLWWWLLLLWLWWWLLWWLWWWWLWWWWWWWLWLWLWWWLWLWLWWWLLWLWLLWWWWLWLLWWWWWLWWLWLLWWWWLWLLLLLWLLWWWW
LLWWWWLWWLWWLWLLWWWWLWLLLLLWLLWWLWLWWLWWWLLWWWWWWLWWWWLWLLWWLWLWWWLWWWLLWWWWWLLLLLLWWWLWLWWWLLWWWWLLWWLLWW

Cheers!

Quote from: mogul397 on July 02, 2016, 07:32:56 PM
Well your results are interesting. But so are mine.  I'm glad you dredged out the
results that you did. To me, it always seemed curious about Ignatus, that all he posted was
charts.  Pretty good drawdowns. But in some peoples mind, there is no meat on the bone or
skin in the game.

That's what you added. But I don't see a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Did you look at my latest (actual) run?  Tells the same thing.  Way more doubles than
greater than.  I think it still has hope. All my results actually win, flat betting. And when
you play both you get better amounts of spins.

Basically your work seein up to 20 units bet confirms what I have been thinking.

I'd like a forthright answer from Ignatius about how it was actually working.

Keep plugging. Don't shut your mind of to

a) betting for doubles and
b) possibly switching sides.

B is a general concept that I think could be useful.

I think that Ignatus just enjoys the thrill of the hunt.

Betting against 2 turning to 3 dozens means betting 2 dozens......which does not have the same recovery ability.

Again, the pace is really what kills the method......unless we could create tons of dozen bets with different numbers.

The 2 dozen bet just seems like low-hanging fruit that would have been seen long ago.

Also interesting to note that the 2 and 3+ dozens almost rarely ever show back to back:

LLLLWWLLWLLWLLLLLWWLLLLWWWLLWLLLWLLW (W=3+/L=2)

222233223223222223322223332232223223
232323232323232323232323232323232323 (2 and 3 back to back)
s  s    ss       ss s  s  ss     s  ss     s      s      ss (where 2 and 3 back to back occur)