BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

Topic: 16 versus 9  (Read 11162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
16 versus 9
« on: June 09, 2016, 11:06:19 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • This is a fascinating twist to developments and gives a grateful nod back to the heady and comfortable days in the 80's when Martin Blakey was playing roulette between Melbourne and Launceston in Tasmania and writing his first book on his winning strategy in roulette. We were all naive then, innocent and hopeful, gauche and confident.

    In those days I traveled frequently between Sydney, Gold Coast and Auckland, and I was new to roulette. In fact I was new to any casino, so my eyes were wide and I met colourful and wonderful mentors. They were larger than life, and their personalities dominated the room.

    What was I looking for?  It was an earnest and widespread quest to find multiple sources of cashflow for which only I as the Player would be responsible. Never more any need to be beholding to fat cat Developers who understood nothing of the subtle art of Architecture. Yes I would seek and find 'control' and the source of the Nile.

    This little story will unfold in the coming posts and traverse 35 years of experience in the game, and explain the recent decision to switch from targets of nine numbers to targets of sixteen, a switch of focus and realisation, with thanks in part to Dr Blakey.


    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #1 on: June 09, 2016, 11:11:17 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • The way I have played roulette for the past 20 years anyway has been predictive.   I observe recent past cycles and spread a net based on triggers in order to trap usually 9 numbers at a time, and occasionally overlay with 1-9 targets of WF (repeaters).

    This methodology although tuned, honed and essentially flat staking, although stepping in unit value in winning cycles, can experience high variance and essentially lack of sustainable efficiency when reviewed objectively.

    My risk is further amplified by playing multiple sets in my private bet but sometimes economising with a risk bank suitable for 1-2 sets , yet playing 4-5 sets. Great when all the stars are aligned but that is only less than 10% of playing time.

    Too often this undermines further the efficiency and opportunities are missed or diluted.

    Of course at its best it seems miraculous and could go on for ever. Reality is not so, and wiser, safer strategies are needed for an interesting bet that is an overall winner when played to perfection with appropriate multiple risk banks ( one for every set with the RB being 200-300 units/ set).

    Key factor also is knowing when to bet ( with trigger) and when to stop ( stop loss).

    What happens when the predictions lose?  What is the extent of a loss?

    A loss is 9 x number of attempts. I used to stop at (9  x  6 = -54 units) but now stop at 4, or even 2 failed attempts.

    It is a balance of risk/ return and exposure/ reading of the game / momentum.

    I also have a 'Recovery' phase which after a suitable absence and then a re-appearance, enables three hits to usually fully recover earlier loss.

    However, again it requires full statistical empirical analysis to determine optimum stops.

    A win gives +27 on a first attempt and then reduces 9 for every further attempt.

    Yes 2 attempts is appealing.

    One of my playing traits however has been expansive, too expansive, which can be expensive when in a negative cycle. Better to wait and shut up shop.

    Yes it is all cyclic.

    In my case however I interpret the generation of spin outcomes through the agency of a roulette wheel as being a natural life rhythm, and I consider the Dealer  usually irrelevant. Most times I find genuine short cycle patterns in multiple sets transcend seamlessly dealer change. An exception can be an inexperienced or nervous trainee.

    However with sometimes extraordinary reading of the game and multi sensory awareness of numerous variables, I can experience sensory overload, or just be playing when I should be waiting. Timing is everything. There is a lot to be said for clarity and simplicity.

    What was noticeable was the net to catch 9 numbers was too small, and the targets sometimes slipped away, and leading to long absence which of course is partly covered by a sensible stop loss location, but still requires sometimes long waits and risk of error.

    I have a measure for this V factor and it is the number of spins from last appearance of one of a group of nine, to the eventual appearance of one of the nine. The range is usually V10-V18.

    Playing on rouletteplayers.org recently ( amongst various aberrations noted) I observed a V37. Mind you when it appeared three hits followed in succession - excellent eventual result. But what I am observing is that the 9 sometimes brings about  unacceptable risk exposure unless play conditions and rules of engagement are really tightened.

    Thanks to the exceptional variance experienced on that table - spins are supposedly sourced from 300-600 spin live samples according to SH, and it is not RNG - I have considered alternative counter strategies.  Problems can  occur between edits of consecutive games. It is not seamless when playing for special short cycle events, and play can be disastrous if the player is unprepared or overly exposed to variance at such extreme levels.

    I am not being critical of the facility and am grateful for its operation. It has in fact assisted me by speeding up live play experience and has been brutal at times to some players, including me.

    So I have re-set my strategies. More to come.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #2 on: June 10, 2016, 12:22:00 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Empirical test analysis is our friend.

    I recently monitored over three sittings, the following results for 100 shows of a bet technique to trap 16 numbers, as outlined by MB in his first book.

    100 outcomes on www.rouletteplayers.org

    Hit on attempt number   1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
                                       39  28  10   11   4     4    3    1

    note however that in the final 30 outcomes   27 hits were achieved between 1  and 2 attempts.  A huge skew to win but very misleading if that was all that was tested.

    In the next post I will show you how this success was achieved, and can be sustained.

    I am really encouraged by this and I simply acknowledge the contribution from Martin Blakey who probably observed and played more spins than all of us put together, and through his success as a professional supported his family and had a wonderful life. He passed away last year.

    The key to success is to observe the best and the worst over a suitable statistical sample, ie say 30 sessions of at least 100 spins.

    Remember the worst actually has no limits and although rare, extreme black swan events are fatal unless counter measures, such as stop loss are in place. Best events do have limits, and yes they can be outstanding. In a recent game cycle of 30 outcomes there were several 5 consecutive first attempt wins on the 16 targets, and in the 30 outcomes there were 18 first spin hits, and in the following 30 outcomes there were 15. In the combined 60 sessions recently observed ( and not in the 100 outcome sample) 48 outcomes were hit on first or second attempts. It would appear that the average expectation is about 2/3 outcomes to be hit on the first or second attempts. This is a useful stat but the player must be prepared for the worst case scenarios and investigation of stop loss and re-start triggers have to be thoroughly tested over 30 sessions of 100 spins, ie definitively. It is essential the 30 sessions are sourced from a range of locations with similar protocols of live spin data.

    Remember RNG is commercially designed to beat you, and beat you decisively after usually false early encouragement, ie entrapment. Avoid where possible.

    On the 16 methodology within this protocol I exclude 0 and/or 00.

    The way I mitigate risk here is to simply run a parallel but independent account for this on a covering bet basis on a long progression if necessary. The risk is managed and can even lead to bonus dividends if hit early in the cycle. I would carry over net loss on a Zero Account to the next session.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #3 on: June 11, 2016, 12:33:24 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Here is another 100 outcome spread based on the same 16 target numbers taken from updated play on the rouletteplayers.org results.

      1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12    13

     46    22   16    4     3     2     3     1     2     0      0     0      1


    Note the relatively consistent percentage of hits on the first and second attempts  68% - a rule of thumb is 2/3 expectation

    Even better is the consistency achieved in the 1-2-3 range - here a little high but usually in the 75% range, ie  3/4 expectation

    The relatively sharp fall from there in the decay curve suggests this could be a useful Stop Loss threshold.

    However despite all these encouraging notes - and please note these stats are based on the same 16 being used throughout and for these purposes the appearance of Zero is taken as a loss - and also one sequence of 7 x first spin hits achieved, at the close of the sequence in a corrective cycle note the following.....

    2
    1
    1
    3
    1
    13
    3
    9
    1
    3
    8
    2
    3
    1
    1

    How can a sequence that reaches  13-3-9-1-3-8-2-3-1  be handled?

    The next post will study a betting strategy and then we will monitor a live play on the roulette table referenced with a starting bank of 10,000 units than can be played from 1 to 100 straight up.  For practical purposes we can image these as 1.0 EUR units (live table) or 0.10 EUR on an imaginary table given allowance of this small unit value.

    Also note the bet targets never change so they may move from warm to cold to hot to sleepers but we do have a spread of 16 numbers.

    You can thus call this approach non predictive - it is mechanical and thus must rely on appropriate MM and handling of Zero on a unique independent account.

    Can this approach work and provide steady results over the coming week?

    This is a live experiment.

    We will explore the optimum most efficient and effective bet staking and money management, as well as signals for exit and suitable timing.

    Note that if a method exists to measure warm and cold numbers the 16 would change, say by using WF criteria, and this could be a second experiment to follow. The theory is that improved bet selection (BS) will improve results in conjunction with money management (MM).

    It is then a matter of Operator Self Management (OSM) to ensure rules are followed consistently but also that learned efficiencies can be incorporated into the play, so that results should reflect improved performance over the next 2 weeks.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #4 on: June 11, 2016, 03:42:30 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Okay

    I want you to be clear.  This is an experiment mainly with MM. The bet selection will be a fixed 16 targets, and the results will move in and out of gain/ correction. The casino of course has an edge paying 35-1 and return of original bet on 37 outcomes. Zero is mainly a trap for outside table bets, but we play it as just another number and we maintain a loose cover bet that ensures better than break even results.

    I want to demonstrate that with simple and careful management there can be a steady accumulation of profit and the reading of a game cycle can assist our aim to win, but choosing, where possible to quit a session while ahead, achieving a suitable goal ( say +10% gain on RB), and writing off losses occasionally. However by stopping after 4 bets if there is no hit, this covers nearly 90% of outcomes. Nevertheless there can be circumstances such as the example shown earlier which present a nasty sequence that is a corrective phase. Within these it is best to mitigate loss , and recover original units where possible by a simple formula. Now in this example because this bet has no inherent edge ( ie it is always fixed) I will simplify a process in 3 steps. Occasionally this will exacerbate a difficulty, but more often than not will reduce a loss, and I suggest that occasionally during a strong positive run the player occasionally increases the bet value ( a gentle parlay) to gain a little extra which can be  set aside for later use against loss - a sort of insurance fund.

    As a very simple exercise suppose we encounter a loss of  -44 units and SL. My suggestion is that after the bet is won in virtual mode we re-start and play at 3x value.  Next round we play at 2x value, and on the third round we return to standard units.  Of course if two adverse situations are encountered in close proximity, just play it out on the same basis, even if a small net loss remains. This can be later mopped up by the reserve fund.

    Also play Zero every spin with more than enough to cover the outlay units to date, outcome cycle by outcome cycle.

    We stop at 4 attempts anyway, but until the loss is extinguished keep the Zero bet slowly growing. It will show on average every 37 spins but in this technique its appearance will be a blessing, and bonus.

    If at the end of a session and the profit goal is achieved then the Zero account can be written off as a tax, or reduced, or carried over for in total or part till the next session.

    Here is the simple betting strategy.

    Recall there is no edge here because we are not registering hot or cold numbers or any trends or short cycles.

    We simply select 16 numbers, easily and quickly bet, that reflect a balance of colour, dozen and column, high or low, even and odd.

    So I suggest simply 4 corner bets.

    2/6   11/15    16/20   31/35
     
    These are one of many variations suggested by MB and adjusted by my  choice and preferences and they largely balance out although slightly favouring lower value numbers. but they represent all columns and dozens. These avoid obvious skews.

    The corner bets are very effective and pay out 8:1 with a return of the winning bet unit.

    My simple staking strategy for speed and economy given a 1000 unit RB is as follows.....

    Bet One      1 unit   25  and if wins net gain  +5 units ( ie 5x25)

    Bet Two      2 units  25  and if wins net gain  +6 units (ie 6x25)

    Bet Three    3 units 25  and if wins net gain  +3 units (ie 3x25)

    Bet Four      5 units 25  and if wins net gain  +1 unit ( ie 1x 25)

    Total Stop Loss SL is   -44 units  ( 1100 or 10% approx of RB)

    In recovery play a hit on the first attempt will achieve +15 reducing net loss to -29, or +18 on the second attempt etc.

    My personal approach is to go for  a  session target of +10 to +20% gain on RB, and gradually build from there.

    In the event of encountering a corrective phase it is good to leave at break even or a small loss.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #5 on: June 11, 2016, 03:48:59 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Live Session #1

    RB 10,000 units  date 11 June 2016  table results rouletteplayers.org

    Spin outcomes

    26
    10
    35
    ----
    0  zero cover +36-4= +32
    6
    ----
    1
    9
    31
    ----
    10
    7
    16
    ---
    36
    28
    20
    ----
    11
    ----
    31
    ----
    26
    27
    16
    ----

    close session

    account balance + 11,395
       gain of +1,395

    Outcome phases

    3
    2
    3
    3
    3
    1
    1
    3
    ----   

     eight outcomes enabled the target goal for session of +10%

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #6 on: June 11, 2016, 04:04:28 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • This session in 19 spins achieved a reasonable session goal of +10%, and is a conservative coup.

    By playing longer there is a risk exposure of a corrective phase swing but note the distribution of outcome numbers

      1    2    3    4     +

      2    1    5    0     0

    We will keep a running count of these to anticipate what may come - so far a running average of 2.40  over 19 spins and 8 outcome cycles.

    Over such a duration of less than 20 cycle outcomes (25-50 spins or more) the average appears to range from about 2.1 to 3.0 so this a middle range event.

    Really favourable streaks rarely extend further than 12 outcome cycles. so it is unwise to extend too far.

    This is the principle of timing- take the profit and quit when ahead, then re-set for next session.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #7 on: June 11, 2016, 04:16:13 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • What I hope to demonstrate here over a test series for the next week is a conservative but successful winning strategy.

    To follow I hope to then illustrate how a moving group of 16 WF targets can be pooled and with the edge of warm to hot numbers, a better net result may be achieved. We are operating in very tight time cycles so the economy of betting in corners may not be appropriate, but nevertheless the efficiency and less variance of a 16 number spread can be demonstrated. We hope to show how the WF can also add a winning edge advantage to the bet efficiency.

    Offline soxfan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 489
    • Guinness Time I'm Back!
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #8 on: June 11, 2016, 04:19:00 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Who is this Blakey cat, hey hey?

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #9 on: June 11, 2016, 04:24:50 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Dr Martin Blakey -  Roulette - A Winning Strategy

    -book is available in pdf format - refer Roulette Forum and Google - a genius in roulette but attracted much adverse publicity before his untimely recent death- ignore the trolls on roulette30.com


    Offline from100

    • Steady Member
    • **
    • Posts: 67
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #10 on: June 11, 2016, 05:16:28 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Thanks for effort, XX!

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #11 on: June 11, 2016, 06:25:09 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Session 2 live

    Spin outcomes

    24
    15
    ----
    3
    ---
    31
    ----
    4
    10
    6
    ---
    29
    15
    ----
    achieved 12,000 but will continue to make +1000 this session

    36
    25
    7
    33

    stop loss after 4 losses

    8
    30
    22
    1
    16
    -----
    finally a virtual hit on 9th attempt so re-commence
    but staking 3 x usual in recovery play RP

    35
    ----
    9
    30
    6
    ---
    6
    ---
    15
    ---

    back to standard staking

    32
    ----
    12
    ----

    close session on +12,160 units ( gain now of +2160 units on 10,000 RB in 2 sessions)

    Outcome Cycles

    2
    1
    1
    3
    2
    9
    1
    3
    1
    1
    1
    1
    ----

    12 Cycles  average 2.20  very favourable after dealing with the corrective 9 - the Stop Loss and Recovery Phase worked well.

    Throughout this session Zero was covered quite aggressively with two adjacent wheel neighbours hit.

    42 spins now on the running account since Zero was last hit ( 15 +27)

    Two good sessions although this one was a test - could have stopped after 5 spins and achieved 12,000 but we have gone further although there was no warning over the 9 duration cycle.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #12 on: June 11, 2016, 11:44:31 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Time moves fast in my research lab and I can report I played 4 more small winning sessions using short bursts, and then encountered a very difficult sequence.  This was in the cycle format  7- 1-2- 7 -2-9 -2- 3-2-3 -4-4 .  Just could not get traction to dig out so called Stop Loss. To encounter such so soon after starting testing shows this is not a recommended bet, at least not for me, to be played in this format - way too vulnerable to disaster/ stress.  However I have further links to test. The account is currently around +13,000 units and had peaked at 15,000 at one stage, and then the stop loss cut in in the really bad corrective cycle. Of course flat staking does not work here because even though zero is insulated , there is no consistent winning edge.

    MB dug himself out of many holes and probably, as I have encountered in this interesting test, some 50% of the time he could sail along without going into deeper waters. However recall his is a bet without an edge , although it will have short winning sequences but longer and more challenging corrective phases. The only way MB was able to deal with the difficult and demanding stuff was through a managed progression and to any player who has tried his calculations and formulas live in the casino, it is stressful. He sometimes lost a bank, and that was the safety valve - a 1000 unit bank. Without using a measured progression, and just trying short exit strategies I have demonstrated the bank would often be lost.  He tried to template certain other 16 number configurations with particular Dealers but in my view this is very subjective, rather superstitious, as I see the generation of spin outcomes emerging from Nature, not from a Dealer.

    So it was merely a topic I wanted to briefly cover but if you are interested or innocent you could read his literature. It is full of complexities and even some errors that were never corrected, so tread carefully. I always love to read his work because he loves the game of roulette and is so passionate about it. He was an expert and later played with an assistant at his side to speed and prepare the templates he knew. However much of that work was done, and his original pattern making play was most active before computers became really powerful and fast, so his research was very time consuming. He trod carefully through the minefields and dodged the bullets, occasionally losing a bank - but more often than not he was a winner.

    What really interested me was that he chose 16 numbers to target - that was the point of this short research test.

    It is not a winning bet in this format although his strategy often but not always dug him out of trouble - he was a professional applied mathematician for goodness sake.

    What I propose to do now and test, is to overlay the MB bet  with the WF selection for a permanent moving window of 16 qualifying targets. Now that is exciting and although still a dynamic cyclic package/ envelope, it is skewed more to operate more often than not in winning edge mode. The task here is to see if we can engineer a winning methodology, flat staking where possible. The format will be in streets, corners, splits and straight up bets.

    Further, it may be also an exercise to overlap the 16 targets with the private bet predictive methodology so that where private bet targets overlap/ mesh with the MB corner bets they are activated. I can visualise a sort of 3D clustering and colour coding in operation - very dynamic.

    Also I had a twilight semi-dream idea about targeting the last 16 numbers spun in a moving matrix, and parallel with that retaining in the matrix repeaters in order to hold onto warming and some eventual hot numbers which will really drive consistent and regular wins.

    Of course there may be better more efficient ways to do this, and perhaps a small core of say 4-8-12 repeater targets might be better. We shall investigate.

    I will set out some initial results in the next post.


    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #13 on: June 11, 2016, 11:30:45 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • This is a surprise - eventually.

    First here is a distribution spread based on a live casino play from yesterday based on a moving window of 16 last unique spins with the aim being to mark when one of the 16 previous is hit by the latest new number as a repeat.  These are the cycle events...

    1
    1
    3
    2
    2
    1
    2
    5
    1
    4
    1
    4
    1
    1
    2
    1
    2
    6
    9
    1
    11

    not at all helpful

    However when I reversed that it made a great sight betting on one of the moving 16 to NOT be hit ( by the merging remaining 21 numbers).

    So I devised a moving window of 21 latest spins and the aim was for every new number emerging to NOT hit, ie we back the 16 numbers.

    Here is the result in distribution chart form based on 123 spins live and 67 event cycles.


      1     2    3    4    5    6


      45  15    4    2    1    0

    An outstanding result.  Now we have to check if this was a live game aberration. I will check on a larger data sample. I suspect of course this is part of a bigger swing cycle, however let us see if there is any genuine consistent 'edge' to be taken advantage of here.  We are betting 16 numbers, so that is sensible. It is a sort of Reverse Bet, but I suspect it will swing to other corrective phases as well. Nevertheless, most interesting.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #14 on: June 12, 2016, 01:41:20 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Here is an approach I would suggest if this Reverse Bet has any merit with big sample testing.

    Stop after 2 attempts and write off the loss on the basis of  unresolved bets x -(2x16)

    In the first 'test' of 123 spins

    Test #1  123 spins live

    45 x  20  =    +900

    15 x  4   =     + 60

                        +960  less    7 x SL  ( 7 x -32)   -224   

    result   net    +736   units in 123 spins    


    Test #2     92 spins live


    Distribution


      1     2     3     4      5      6

     16    10    1     3      1      0



      16 x 20  =       +320

      10 x  4   =        +40

                             +360

    less  SL 5 x 32    - 160

    net result            +200 units flat staking in 92 spins