Author Topic: shalaska method  (Read 4333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ice789

  • Rising Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
shalaska method
« on: December 26, 2015, 11:09:17 am »
Looks like I have a workable version of the code in RX from the UX gu
ys. Here are the results from 12 tables over 2 days so far playing ev
ery spin with no stop loss:

April 1, April 2 Hamburg Files in table order

+481
+2039
+1519
+386
+2720
-1547
-139
-658
-1147
+767
+421
-472

+4370


Note: In a a few of the losses above it was up by 500 to 1500 at one
point or another.

I've also noticed in general you can be up +100 to +200 within 6-22 s
pins. So that seems to be the most logical profit stop point. Still
looking into a few more things to make this the best method possible.
The code that I have seems to keep a continually updated spin total w
hich is not suitable to be able to track that many spins in a real liv
e casino. Since most +100 to +200 profits seem to occur quickly, with
in 25 spins or so, I'm trying to get the RX guys to code that into ano
ther version to see if it works as well. Plus it will be easily imple
mented in live play. Cause nobody could track hundreds of spins, but
up to 37 spins or so is easy. Also, I hope when you guys test with th
e code you don't go, hey man I put it through 5000 spins and it tanked
hardcore, cause I already know that it will. However, the method is
meant to make +100 to +200 in profit quickly, usually within 25 spins
or so. It's not meant to play a continuous stream of spins. However,
as I've shown below with some initial testing it does do pretty well
with the 300 or so spins from each tables day. 12 tables +4370 is not
bad coin. But that's just initial testing still. There are a bunch
of other variables I want to test as well, so I'll keep everyone updat
ed on my progress. The RX code is below for anyone that wants to test
more on their own:



system "11 sector"
{
My method(Final):

1. Look at the last 3 spins, choose the number that has the lowest am
ount of
hits in it's 11 number section, where the number you choose is the ce
nter
number of the 11 number sector(moving sector). Which means 5 numbers
to each
side of it, including itself. If there is the same number of lowest a
mount
of hits in a sector, simply choose the latest number, or alternately,
wait(do not bet) and continue progression when one is clearly the low
est.
2. Play these 11 numbers using the progression below.
3. Choose new numbers according to step 1 after every spin.
4. Advance in progression until a hit, in which case start the progre
ssion
over again. Start over at step #1. If no hit at the end of the progre
ssion,
start over at step #1.

http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=1183&forum=Roulette_Archive_2005

I am not good at English

How to play

Examples How to play

Offline RouletteGhost

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Gender: Male
  • Top Rookie
    • View Profile
Re: shalaska method
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2015, 01:36:42 pm »
I don't understand the rules
Quote
Because the house always wins. Play long enough, you never change the stakes. The house takes you. Unless, when that perfect hand comes along, you bet and you bet big, then you take the house.


Offline sqzbox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: shalaska method
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2015, 11:28:47 pm »
Looked at that thread - it seems it was still under discussion and no final conclusion had been reached - there were several variations still being researched. Did it continue after 12-07-05?

Offline HarryJ

  • Rising Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Veteran of the wheel
    • View Profile
Re: shalaska method
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2015, 10:47:55 am »
    I also checked it out. There were 3 slightly different strategies being discussed, which made things rather confusing.  There was no finality. Shalaska's  method seemed to hold the most promise. It seemed to fail because the bet selection was too complex in real play.

       I believe that if the bet selection was simplified, and the progression reduced  this method could be successful.  There were several posts that claimed to have succeeded in this, but they were ignored as they no longer represented the "GRAIL".

        Harry