On Dublin Bet last night 73 spins were observed. Gain +200 units in 73 spins, but only 40 spins played. WF was 1, 5, 8 over 68 spins.
The private bet enabled Wheel Set +9 in 73 spins peaking at +72 , and the Street Set +63 in 73 spins peaking at +126.
Overall +72 units in 144 spins being the anticipated +50% flat staking. Overall long term the private bet records gains in the range +30% to +80% given samples greater than 3000 spins and flat staking. As sessions live are usually in the order of 100 spins or less, this often represents 30 sessions which is a suitable statistical sample.
Over the 30 sessions, some will be losers, and often as many as one third, but the losses are restricted. Winning sessions range from break even ( beats the house edge) to sometimes +300% on RB.
Often these days I try to get traction on only 200-500 units, and will short parlay winning strong bets on a 2-3-5-8 basis. I try to keep weaker bets or losing bets to single units. Recovery phase 2 bets which often cluster in groups of 3 wins in a short sequence can be played at higher units because of relative reliability based on empirical evidence over tens of thousands of samples that meet my window of opportunity criteria. It demolishes gamblers fallacy concerns. But always take care because it has a 90% success rate. And as is often the case both winning and losing phases cluster.
As I mentioned recently it would be pointless for me to provide the rules for my bet. Even those who know me quite well have difficulty in understanding my method which is now clearly set out in a report and commentary. It requires a complete overturning of mind set in seeing the linkages between spins, as opposed to the view that spins are independent. The truth is that both views are correct.
What I now seek is an approximate break even type context, ie a session where outcomes are unfolding that are not hostile to this ethos. Massive clustering would be the antithesis of what I am seeking and require, but that extreme is covered by my WF overview which would thrive in such conditions. Statistical balance is what I seek for the predictive phase of my method, and this is emphasising change
rather than same. Same enables clustering and repeats. I seek very short cycle clusters being repeatedly broken enabling predicted outcomes in rapid turn-over. In such sequences earnings can approach per set +10 units per spin flat staking.
I often reflect on what is the best future communication for this bet.
Is it best applied privately, discretely, or in a partnership in key casinos in short bursts with a partner player?
Or should a book be written and published say in 5 years time.
There is no rush because refinements and improvements in efficiency are always ongoing.
While describing your ideas, your work of 30 years in written form, or in describing it in conversation with a student or colleague, ideas and links are made fresh and stronger. Brain plasticity research/ creativity research is such that we know the clearer you can explain, the better will be your own understanding to reach further. I like ideas that have no limits.
I can appreciate concrete linear for example for practical application in life experience, but I am partial to non-linear ways and I try to adapt and blend afresh daily.
So while on this topic let's turn to MIT and Jeff Ma.
I enjoy access to www.Quora.com
where questions are raised and answered by the best and brightest. Recently George Sawyer, one of the founders of the original MIT Blackjack team, wrote a vivid overview of his experiences and also referred to an article by Jeff Ma. There are a couple of references here such as www.venturebeat.com
and liveshapespace.com. Refer to www.tenexer.com
as Jeff Ma's vehicle and also the books he has written - refer Amazon.com
Within this material Jeff Ma has written of three key principles on how understanding blackjack can make you a better more successful entrepreneur. I will leave you to do the research but one principle does involve a weak bias to fold or be passive that needs to be shifted, and another which requires the player to have the mental strength to work through loss if that player has done his math homework and Jeff is a measurer and applier of data. At one stage in his early career at LV he lost $100,000 at the BJ table even after following correct theoretical drill. After later recovering his composure, he returned later that evening and won +$125,000. However for the team their worst weekend was a $250,000 net loss. ( The best was of course $450,000).
Of course the team approach is not needed in roulette because I am not interested in illegal methodologies ( although I admire the story of the guys who were the forerunners in the eudaemonic pie - thomas bass 1985).
I believe roulette has vast potential for income but I personally make a major distinction between serious passive income through professionally managed ( by experts) accounts in the markets, and the slippery but fun hands on personal play ( perhaps the professional player needs to access a psychologist playing partner as part of the travelling show)at the tables that can provide free money. To me these work and should work at distinct levels. I like the notion of playing privately and/or with a playing partner in special locations. It takes free money to access free money however.
Overall I think roulette alone or in extreme can be harmful in that the player runs the danger of becoming self obsessed or absorbed forever questioning and checking performance.
My model ahead is now a two tier approach; with one tier being free roulette play funded by substantial passive income that has been established as a first priority; and the second tier the serious money engine that takes 2-3 years to establish and have fully operational. It has taken me the last 30 years to come to this realisation. And most of the money goes to worthy goals and not just roulette. This is not the place to elaborate on detail but in my private blog later in the year I will enlarge on this and state the specific steps and locations now tested and connected.
Nevertheless I see roulette as a remarkable microcosm of life, with so many life principles able to be viewed at the wheel, and in the behaviour around the wheel. No wonder we refer to 'The Wheel of Fortune'. It is just that it can become hypnotic.
I notice some players now refer to wheel bias or short term wheel bias to replace the term 'dealer signature'. In my view, and this is my personal subjective view, the term bias or skew reflects the recognition by the short term aberrations which are part of the natural flow from the wheel. I love these and this is the water of life for me. I do not have to explain this; it just is. I work with what unfolds.
I will write later on Jeff Ma and his work as well as the equally brilliant Semyon Dukach. They both operate as Angel Investors now and share their knowledge quite openly. But of course the casino has taken massive effective measures to neutralise advantage play. The same does not apply to roulette. Because they all believe it cannot be beaten.