+ Register

[Pockets]

Buffster, just not finding the time to post it amidst other commitments. Will do so this week.[smiley]blacy/blacy-red_heart.png[/smiley]

[Pockets]

Buffster, apologies. Here you go.
We talked about entry points. Now let's talk about exit points and the number of bets.

Exit points
How many times have you chased the hot numbers and found that they turn cold for the next 100 spins. The first rule for anyone playing roulette is you can observe what is happening now and journal what happened in the past, but NEVER can you predict what is going to happen. Same goes true with dominance as well. What is dominant now, according to the laws of probability may or may not remain dominant for the next 5 spins. 4 reds and 1 black might soon result in 4 reds and 5 blacks.  Against this mathematical rules, we decided to choose dominance as our entry points and primary mode of play. We decided to take the side of fallacy.

There is nothing wrong in taking the side of fallacy. We just need to know why we are doing what we are doing. We just need to know the limitations of fallacy and suit our play around it. And there comes the exit points. After careful observation and consideration, I have decided to go ahead with an exit after 3 consecutive losing spins. This to me is the taste of dominance shifting towards the other side of the coin. We STOP betting on the current dominant side after this exit point. Note, we are not stopping betting altogether, we are just stopping betting on the dominant EC that we have been betting so far. We will talk about what to do after this Stop in a little more detail, but after explaining number of bets and an example explaining exit points and number of bets.

Number of bets
Now what is number of bets? It is nothing but the number of ECs that we will chose. There are a couple of factors that will decide this. One, not every EC will show dominant characteristics at the same time always. Two, It should be simple and easy to track without too much going on our head. Three, Always allow for a plan B, as your plan A may not work always. Four, EC is a 18 number bet.

Taking all the above into consideration, my play revolves around 2 outside ECs (two out of the 3 outside ECs RB, EO or LH). Easy to follow, easy to place bets, two sets of 18 numbers to serve as plan A and plan B, two sets of 18 numbers complimenting each other with a few overlaps and not subsets and simple to track in a tissue that comes along with the snack. My primary bets are on RB and EO. It doesn't matter which one you use, all that matters is, it should be two sets of 18 numbers complementing each other. There is no point in chosing 1 EC bet as Low/High and the other as Lines 1,2,3/4,5,6. You see what I mean?

Lets get to the example.  Lets take the Wiesbaden spins from yesterday table 3 and use RB and EO as our primary bets.


[csv=,]
Spins  ,Win/loss  ,RB,Win/loss  ,OE
14,,,,
6,,R1,,E1
33,,R1B1,,E2
33,,R1B2,,E2O1
33,,R1B3,,E2O2
9,-1,B4 - bet black,,E2O3
29,1,R1B4 - bet black,1,O4 - bet odd
28,1,R1B4 - bet black,-1,O4 - bet odd
32,-1,R1B4 - bet black,-1,E1O4 - bet odd
14,-1,R2B4 - bet black,-1,E2O4 - bet odd
5,-1,R3B4 - bet black,,3 losses. End of bet
2,,3 losses. End of bet,,
28,,,,
19,,,,
25,,,,
3,,,,
32,,,,
34,,,,
26,,,,
31,,,,
Total,-1,,-2,
[/csv]

[Buffster]

    P




   B

[Pockets]

Another short break. Now if you have tried this phenomenon, then you would have noticed that it is a slow killer. Yes SLOW KILLER, killing you slowly and steadily as a flat bet should. Now we need to build up on this starting point of dominances to see how we can create an edge? Is it even possible? I wouldn't claim it is, and would play down this way of taking on the wheel. I would leave that to your own experience and see whether you are receiving some happiness by playing this way. After all, most of the people I believe are here for "pure da fun" rather than making some money. Cough. Cough.

Dominance of dominances – Let me introduce you to the concept of dominance of dominances. I don't want to confuse anyone, so I will try explaining in very simple terms. But the concept in itself is a little bit complex and it was daunting for me to get to the bottom of it. Now that I understand it, I am able to practice it better.

To put in simple terms, I see the marquee full of red and start playing red, but that might be the turning point for blacks to appear. We tried avoiding this scenario by putting in a safety break at 3 losses in a row. This is in line with the principles not to fight random, but going by its strides. But what do we do after getting out. Do we pack bags go home? Do we take a short break and join another table? That's just dodging the play. That's just hit and run. I can understand stop-losses and target limits, but if we leave after getting out because of 3 losses in a row, then it is not a workable strategy. We will be sitting idle more than we play.

[Pockets]

What am going to describe may not work, but only time will tell. If the table is turning, why not play the turn. So far we have been playing dominance and we see that dominance is not working, so why not play against the dominance. Because that's the dominance. The non-dominant(is it a word?) is coming over and creating dominance. Confusing? Let us see an example of 20 spins.

R B B B B R B B R R R B B R R R R R B B

Applying the rule of dominances we saw earlier,
First 5 spins, R B B B B – B is first to reach 4, dominating, so we play for B.
6th spin , B B B B R – Loss, black prevails, play B
7th, B B B R B – Win, continue black
8th, B B R B B – Win, continue black
9th, B B R B B R - Loss, black prevails, play B
10th, B B R B B R R - Loss, black prevails, play B
11th , R B B R R R – Loss, red is dominant. Play R.

But this is where we decided to exit. Why? Because dominance based on our guiding principle is not dominant anymore. Now what I am telling is, instead of playing for dominance, play against because that is dominant now. I term it a SWITCH. I have some views and rules on when to do this switch in line with my dominance rules. But at the moment, let us not increase the complexity. Let us stick to the exit point definition and consider switching when the exit point is reached.

11th, R B B R R R – Loss, red is dominant. Play B as we have now switched to non-dominant side.
12th, R B B R R R B – win, red is dominant. Play B
13th, B B R R R B B – win, black is dominant. Play R
14th, R R R B B R – win, red is dominant. Play B
15th, R R B B R R – loss, red is dominant. Play B
16th, R B B R R R – loss, red is dominant. Play B
17th, R R R R – loss, red is dominant.

Now we face 3 losses in a row again. So its time to Switch. We now bet dominant side as that is dominating now, based on our rules. So we play Red now
18th, R R R R – win, red is dominant. Play R
19th, R R R R B – loss, red is dominant. Play R
20th, R R R R B B – loss.

So I hope you get the idea now. The above set of spins ended in -3 units. Fire any questions and we will head into today's wiesbaden spins playing RB and OE.

[Pockets]

Never thought about it MBB. Thanks. Very well written in a simple manner that is easier to understand and track through.

[Pockets]

As indicated earlier, following is the first few spins until we reach +10units from today's table at Wiesbaden.

Table 3
[csv=,]
,RB,Result RB,Comments,EO,Result EO,Switch,Bankroll
18,R,,,E,,,
19,R,,,O,,,
0,0,,,0,,,
23,R,,,O,,,
15,B,,,O,,,
24,B,,,E,,,
24,B,,,E,,,
22,B,,,E,,,
32,R,-1,,E,1,,0
15,B,1,,O,-1,,0
16,R,-1,,E,1,,0
10,B,1,,E,1,,2
36,R,-1,,E,1,,2
13,B,1,,O,-1,,2
27,R,-1,,O,-1,,0
14,R,1,,E,1,,2
25,R,1,,O,-1,,2
25,R,1,,O,-1,,2
35,B,-1,,E,-1,Switch,0
30,R,1,,E,1,,2
20,B,-1,,E,1,,2
23,R,1,,O,1,,4
35,B,-1,,E,-1,,2
5,R,1,,O,1,,4
0,0,-1,,0,-1,,2
3,R,1,,O,1,,4
16,R,1,,E,-1,,4
16,R,1,,E,-1,,4
25,R,1,,O,1,,6
35,B,-1,,E,1,,6
13,B,-1,,O,1,,6
24,B,-1,Switch,E,1,,6
0,0,-1,,0,-1,,4
21,R,-1,,O,1,,4
33,B,1,,O,1,,6
24,B,-1,,E,1,,6
14,R,1,,E,1,,8
18,R,1,,E,-1,,8
13,B,-1,,O,1,,8
22,B,-1,,E,-1,,6
20,B,-1,Switch,E,-1,,4
2,B,1,,E,-1,Switch,4
13,B,1,,O,-1,,4
31,B,1,,O,-1,,4
36,R,-1,,E,1,,4
32,R,-1,,E,1,,4
22,B,1,,E,1,,6
2,B,1,,E,1,,8
2,B,1,,E,1,,10
[/csv]

[Pockets]

We saw how to play dominants, we saw how to twist the turns and play non-dominant. But there is a huge hole in the whole philosophy. If you have tried your hands at this then you would have noticed immediately. While the game I outlined can be played as it is as I have described with minimal variance, if you ask me whether it holds a flat bet advantage, I will have to say no. This whole dominance and non-dominance can be played very effectively using the principle of outside D'alembert that Sam has described using while playing the excel bot. Basically play for 10 or -10 and then use the dalembert on the sessions. At least so far it is giving me good results.

But what was the hole I was talking about. You would have noticed that we have described dominances and non-dominances and how we would adopt our play to take advantage of these two situations. But these are only two of the possible three state. The third state is a balanced state where there is no clear dominance on one side of the EC. This state is the killer state for this play. As neither dominance nor non-dominance is dominating we will have the table alternate between dominant and non-dominant sides. Even if we switch we will not be able to get to the bottom of this phenomenon when that happens. When playing flat betting, this balanced state will wipe off all the advantages that we have gained.

So the lesson is, it is important to understand the dominance concets, it is a key towards achieving an edge in your play but has to be used in conjunction with other techniques which can potentially lead to stronger predictions. What are those techniques?

I call them Pockets. I call them waves. We all know that waves do happen. If you draw a graph following dominant side(or the other way round) you will note that you will get a sine wave, may not a perfectly symmetrical one, but one which oscillates up and down. Now is there a way to control the upper and lower limits of this wave leading to variances which we can understand. Is there an optimal variation? How to enter the wave at the right time and exit at the right time? Big questions, but we will try getting to the bottom of it, one by one.

In the meantime, enjoy playing the dominance and non-dominance. I have botted the play i have described as per Sam's way of playing dalembert and so far doing good both in BV and smartlive.

[Pockets]

I don't know who said it, but I have been hearing this since I was a kid "Man is a social animal". Being social means prone to distractions. I am no different and prone to distractions. While I was working on the principles of dominance and how to limit variances, a serious thought stuck me. Something that I never thought about before. I went in pursuit of it and I see that I have made real good progress. I have made very good progress up to a point that I am confident I can come out every session with a win. But as Sam always says "Time will tell". So what is it?

It is essentially the power of the law of the third, parachuting, laws of probability, sleepers and wakers all put into one simple method. I always said this thread is all about betselection and I am happy that I am not going to deviate from that thought process yet, even though I believe this method will work best with progressions. I call this method "Chaos". Read about it all here(http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/chaos-theory/new/#new), as I want to keep this thread limited to discussions on the adventure.

[Pockets]

As I was explaining dominance alone is not sufficient. We need to have something which will limit the variance. Which will operate with predetermined top and bottom control points. Look at the following graph of 200 spins.

[attachimg=1]

There is an upper control limit, there is a lower control limit. Top point is +3, Bottom point is -3. The graph really fluctuates between these 2 extreme points. This is what is possible when seeing dominance from a different perspective. The betting always happens when it is within normalcy limits which is +1 and -1. Bettting stops/reverses when we get into the extremes.  What do you think? Do you think we can break the bank by limiting variance using such bet selection?