+ Register

[GreatGrampa]

Well done Drazen. Probably we have the next Einstein here Your pic looks like one

[GreatGrampa]

No one for dozens? 

[Drazen]

Thanks Grampa

Well I don't need to "beat" the game. Only make consistent profits without too much stress and bankroll stretch.. So far very good. I hope I got the right way. I am using advices from people who are doing this successfully for years. I hope I got it right. I tested it and make enough efforts around MM of course and it worked good. Now time will tell. I was saying all the time, everyone has to find its own way. I am of an opinion that there is no only one strategy or way of play that can be be successful.

I know many different successfull players and they all use different approaches but still are more or less equally successful.

That on my avatar is Einstein actually. It is cool  funny caricature of him 

Here it is in larger size:


[attachimg=1]

Best

Drazen

[GreatGrampa]

I was saying all the time, everyone has to find its own way. I am of an opinion that there is no only one strategy or way of play that can be be successful.

Drazen,
Well said! I have started a thread where we all can pool in ideas on how to develop a strategy that works for an individual. Will be great to see some contribution from you based on this experience of yours. Cheers!

[Bayes]

Well done Drazen, and thanks for the kind words. 

TBH, I never doubted you would get there because you have the necessary determination and perseverance.
Hopefully my congratulations aren't premature, but I think you've cracked it.

Oh, and my fave bets are the EC's. 

[Drazen]

 
Ah the achillies heel, do you play the same MM over and over or does it depend on what you see/think/feel is best for that specific moment, I still don't do the same thing over and over, I did find I was doing something over and over but depending on the losses I was juggling it a bit so it ended up different each time a bad session was forming.

I would say I play it same all the time in terms of the way I increase the bets. But it is different when I cut stakes or taking few steps in back on higher chip size. If I am at higher chip size I will go back as soon as possible onto first previous level, but if not so high I take it like that until new plus.

But one thing I don't understand in your case?

Last thing you said you don't use statistics in your play anymore if I am not wrong? You just play FTL or DBL and try to "read" on your own personal judgment what is happening?

May I ask why? Are deviations as BS a fallacy?

Well Bayes is telling it is better to rely on deviation after some point then not.. And for now it seems to me it is so of course.

Drazen

[Superman]

Last thing you said you don't use statistics in your play anymore if I am not wrong?

Correct, I used to track it all but didn't see any noticable advantage so now I just jump in after spin 1.

You just play FTL or DBL and try to "read" on your own personal judgment what is happening?

FTL only, never played DBL, I just go with the flow now.

May I ask why? Are deviations as BS a fallacy?

Like I said, I used to build trackers and wait for deviations etc, but the losses would always come so to my mind MM was/is key to survival. Now I just follow the colour and use my judgement to decide on bet sizes if I am behind, like I said in all the PM's to you if the marquee is full of chops I bet small, if I 'think' the series are happening I increase the bet sizes to recover if it goes all choppy again I note the deficiet and wait until I 'think' it looks better.

Well Bayes is telling it is better to rely on deviation after some point then not.. And for now it seems to me it is so of course

If it works for you then keep going that way, I didn't see any noticable advantage to it. I've played from spin 2 now for over 7 months and probably made around 20 thousand units so it appears to work my way too.

I've stopped playing again for a bit now as I was getting bored, found myself watching dozens hitting 4 or 5 times then chucking units on 2 dozens the odd time, that's my signal to stop for a while LOL Bayes knows how I get sometimes. Why give it all back AGAIN.

I would say I play it same all the time in terms of the way I increase the bets. But it is different when I cut stakes or taking few steps in back on higher chip size. If I am at higher chip size I will go back as soon as possible onto first previous level, but if not so high I take it like that until new plus

Yup it's good to cut back and wait sometimes, its difficult to do as we want to win and be ahead when the hole is deep, its tempting to bet high after 3 or 4 losses I know but its better to win a few flat betting first I find then use those winnings on the bigger bet decreasing each time, I know I have written off a few 40 unit holes already and started from scratch, makes a long session but is much safer, patience and discipline pays off.

[GreatGrampa]

Like I said, I used to build trackers and wait for deviations etc, but the losses would always come so to my mind MM was/is key to survival.

This is a top learning! This summarizes my years of experience in roulette play! There is no real or only marginal advantage in bet selection. MM is the key to survival. Master it and then you cannot let the wheel master you. Easy to say, but very very difficult to implement!

[Drazen]

 

If it works for you then keep going that way, I didn't see any noticeable advantage to it. I've played from spin 2 now for over 7 months and probably made around 20 thousand units so it appears to work my way too.

Well  to be honest not sure what should I think about this... What is absolute truth in this?

What if we would wait 10 reds in a row (or more) and played only once or X times after that? Then letting it go and searching same trigger like that?

I asked you this have you ever done some simulation around this but never got straight answer about that...

Would such way of playing result noticeable different in any mathematical way then playing one side continuously or FTL for example? If it can be, I know it will only resulting lower variance as we know in the longterm must be 50:50 minus 2.7, but lower variance is all we need. We can't win flat bet.

I would really like if Bayes could say something about this.
He said many times that waiting for strong deviations can be effective if played in a certain way, but is that provable with some simulation?

You say you don't see any advantage, so why does he as statistician (almost graduated) is using that too and says that all you can look for to "beat" random is to rely on statistics because actually there is only thing that is there ?

Drazen

[Bayes]

so why does he as statistician (almost graduated) is using that too and says that all you can look for to "beat" random is to rely on statistics because actually there is only thing that is there ?

Nowhere near graduated yet, I'm still in the early stages with only the first module almost done, three to go (2 years more study).

I can't speak for superman because I don't know exactly how he's playing, and he doesn't know exactly how I'm playing. I assume that even though he's not using a rigid system, there is some rhyme or reason to how he chooses what to bet and when to adjust stakes. If you're relying on MM (which I agree is very important) then to an extent it does incorporate a bet selection of sorts (even if you simply pick one side and stick to it) because you have to make decisions as to when you reduce/increase your stakes. So it could be that he MAY be (perhaps unconsciously) relying on deviations one way or another. If your goal is to reduce variance then you need to be targeting your play either in the "belly" of the bell curve or in its positive direction. The only way you can be hurt is if you get caught on the negative side, and one way of attempting to avoid it is to stop betting or reduce stakes when it seems you're heading in that direction, and wait for the tide to turn. Personally, I don't see much difference between that and what I'm doing, which is to start play only when you're so far in negative territory that it seems there's not much further you can go. Even then, as you know, I don't simply start after 10 reds in a row, I look at multiple patterns, constantly adapt, and make only 2 or 3 bets before looking for a new opportunity.

[Drazen]

Thanks a lot for this explanation Bayes

Well yes those 10 reds was just taken as a simplest example of severe deviation.

So I am pretty sure now I do it pretty much right and that it makes reasonable sense what I do. Like superman confused me a bit. Not some fallacies interfered Nobody wants to believe in fallacies 

Todays sessions went smooth as silk again about 15 units all together with highest bet 6 units. I know there will be time when I ll maybe need to bet a bit more units then this, even with so slow and cautious play, but my MM and I are ready for it anyway

Well roulette sequence can be mathematically correctly observed through 3 aspects like RBRBRBRBRBRB for example as a sequence all together and each side or each bet in sequence independently, meaning only reds or only blacks in that sequence.

And that is how I am observing it. Plus as I am most of the time looking to place a bet when two different betselections "point" to the same EC and they are at same or similar STD value.

Anyhow today I have been honoured by random to see full strength of it. I have seen 72 spins without double win  IF only one loss more I would suspect something is not right.. But that resulted with 3 wins in a row for me after trend emerged.

Find opportunity, try to snap it (but not for too long if it doesn't burst at first 2-3 shots), search another one, rinse and repeat.

Don't raise stakes to fast, be gentle with it and patient, and you should swim out eventually even if some cramp gets you.

That is the recipe


Best

Drazen

[Bayes]

anyhow today I have been honoured by random to see full strength of it. I have seen 72 spins without double win IF only one loss more I would suspect something is not right.. But that resulted with 3 wins in a row for me after trend emerged.

Best

Drazen

The worst I've seen is 81 without a double win. The thing is, you do get what are called "outliers" (black swan events) in statistical jargon. Rare, but they're guaranteed to happen, which is why it's so dangerous to use a staking plan which ignores them. By the time the doubles started hitting, I was only down a few units, and made a bundle in the next 50 spins. 

[zabbot]

Marshal, did you post this system somewhere?

[RouletteKEY]

Straight up for me...although sometimes when bored I will jump on a dozen for a couple spins.  Usually I just stick with a couple numbers straight up though.

[NathanDetroit]

My fav bet are the original 22 Action numbers byJohn Patrick.( 0/00 wheel )

ND