Hi,

The strategy is explained clearly in the video starting at 0:37 ...
If you still need the original post though, it is here: https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,399.msg4483.html#msg4483

Hi,

Long time no see. Though I just noticed that there is reference to the great Johnsom progression in another thread. Good ideas never die...

This is kind of a moderate Martingale (up when you lose) with a touch of D'Alembert (down when you win) method.
Is this the best roulette method ever? Most likely not. Is it a decent beginners system? Unquestionably! IMO it is superior to most of the systems found on the web or anywhere else.

Harryj said you should play the losing Even Chance after it lost 3-4 times. You wager for the following 3 spins.
Be that as it may, you can pick an alternate trigger if you like.

What makes this truly fascinating, beside the nice betting progression, is that you stop after 3 losses. You bet the trigger and if you lose 3 spins, you stop and sit tight waiting for the following trigger. This trick helps you avoid long continuous losing sessions.

Great post by a known member

What exactly are you trying to show in this 9min video? What is its value?

Quote from: Blue_Angel on August 16, 2016, 02:35:18 AM
It's not only about the total spins to test but also about bankroll at risk in comparison with potential profit.
For example it's one thing to risk 1000 in order to gain 10 and another to risk 500 in order to win 500.
Also if we assume that every bet selection is different, then 25% could not be for all bet selections, that's why "Gizmotron" & "XXVI" spoke about bet characteristics...
Besides the 25% it's also important to see on average how it could be distributed within the total.
The particular bet has not so easy way to calculate its average probability because it's not a fixed amount of numbers, let alone to see its win/loss ratio distribution.
If it wasn't worth, I wouldn't brought it to your attention.
Right now I'm analyzing a few variations of the specific bet.

Roulette is so perfectly balanced that if you risk $1000 to win $10 and you risk $500 to win $500 then the chance of wining the first case is much higher than the latter. It is VERY difficult to find "good" and "bad" ways or systems to bet on roulette. Each and every system I know will offer different advantages and disadvantages than the others, but generally speaking all the pros and cons even out. There are not good or bad systems. just systems that fit better or worse the specific requirements set by you (your playing style, strategy etc.)

Hello,

I'm trying to follow this topic. Is there some conclusions that you have made based on these spin outcomes and rerults?

Quote from: ybot on July 28, 2015, 02:46:37 PM
Kav, no system will work if it does not work flatbetting.
No matter what you do, you need an actual edge to succeed.
Then, Kelly criterion prevents you from bankrupcy.
In case table limits are not high, you just flatbett ever
warm regards

This thread is about the system that ill offer the least amount of profit in a favorable spin sequence.
Why flat betting is the worst way t bet is a totally different subject.
Flat betting can not be called a "system". It is merely a bet selections, since your bet will always be the same.

Quote from: Bayes on April 21, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
So, are you saying the math is wrong?
I thought the point of Kav's question was to get us to think "out of the box", but to what end? did he have something specific in mind? What is the take-away value from this exchange?
You can dream up all kinds of novel approaches, but novelty shouldn't be an end in itself, IMO.

Hi,
Yes it was a thought provoking question. This is not a test to which I already knew the answer. When you explore new territory you don't know what you will find. Maybe gold, maybe nothing.
My base idea was to ask the opposite question than we often ask. "How do I minimize profits" instead of "how do I minimize losses" or "how do I maximize profits". If we found an interesting answer then we could reverse it and see if that method can maximize profits or minimize losses.  Just a thought. A shot in the dark, but hopefully in the right direction.

I think Picasso once said that "Computers are not so important, they only provide answers". Meaning that asking (new) questions and wondering is of greater importance. Every thought process begins with a question.

@Bloohood
Thanks.
I also read your answer in the wizard forum. You are an example that a "pointless" question can provoke someone to think. Could you please elaborate about what you mean?

Quote from: XXVV on April 20, 2015, 10:38:41 PM
With respect, at the surface level, I just cannot see the point to which you are intending to drive here Kav. As stated earlier, heading negatively, which is what you appear to be doing using this 'reduction to zero', a sort of reduction ad absurdum,  in attempting to break the square, you will frustrate your worthy intentions. Please clarify further or correct me here. I do not want to make a grievous
error.

What part of my previous reply you did not understand?
Parlay is a better way to minimize you bankroll than flat betting, in the situation I presented.

With flat bet, if your wins are more than your losses you end with profit.

With Parlay/Reverse Martingale (as Bayes and others have pointed out) one loss is enough to wipe out your wins plus your initial bet.
So if the intention is to end up with as little money as possible, we should parlay a big part of our bankroll, and when we lose it we parlay another part etc. until we lose it all.

Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 06:49:53 PM
The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.

The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel.  The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best.  While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last.  The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple.  It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.

We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky.  The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest.  Remove the human factor as much as you can.  In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.

What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.

Just the facts,

Xander

No, these are not "Just the facts". These are: "Just claims". And this is a big difference.
What specific suggestion of practical use, apart from generic claims, have you made in all those 180 posts?
And if you can't give any specific substantiation or clear explanation to your claims, you better just say "Sorry guys I can't explain what I mean". That would be more honest.

Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 05:37:28 PM
Mitigating losses, money management?
Seriously guys, you need to focus more energy on how to get the edge than on this nonsense.

What kind of edge have you managed to achieve after your 180 "focused" posts and so many discussions?
Define edge anyway.

What you call focus, I call narrow-mindedness. What you call nonsense, I call lateral thinking.

Quote from: XXVV on April 20, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
However I must agree with Sqzbox, Drazen and Mr Spock that your question is quite illogical.
[...]
Hope this helps some . It will be bound to upset others however I am sure. Thanks Kav for your efforts to reach out.

Hi XXVV,
Thanks for your kind reply. What part of the question do you think defies logic?

Generic, usual questions like the ones you mention ('what do I see in roulette?' or 'what can I do to understand roulette more completely?' or 'how can I minimise my losses while learning about roulette and gaining live practical experience?' or 'how can I win at roulette?'  or 'how can I go about structuring my goal to beat roulette?' or 'can roulette be beaten and if so what are the best methods?') do not help me think differently. IMO they are too generic, abstract and common to lead to a new idea.

Hi Bayes,
I think you got that right.

Quote from: Drazen on April 20, 2015, 02:48:55 PM
In my humble opinion this question is totally absurd. It realy makes no sense and I don't understand how and what you expect to get for a satisfying answer? And  how would you use it in some favor anyway...

You are also forcing going out of the box.. Well I can tell if you want to beat the game you should definitely be IN THE BOX, not search some voodoo wormholes, becasue everthying this game is made of is very simple. Statistics --> probabilities ---> variance. And there is no simple mechanical way to overcome this, except good understanding and applying of statistics in the right way. Throught the physics or betting against strong deviations.

Cheers
Drazen

What part of the question makes no sense to you or confuses you? What do you not understand exactly?

And no, the game is not made of statistics and probabilities. These do not even existed when roulette was invented.

You are free to dismiss lateral thinking as useless. I use it all the time in problem solving.
No matter how hard you look at a wall you won't see behind it. But it you change your position a bit you may see what's behind it.

Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
If the game is random, and not biased, then you can NOT win or lose at a rate that will exceed the house edge in the long run. FACT.
Tracking the Ws and Ls is meaningless and will keep you trapped in the box that is the "gambler's fallacy".

Get out of the box please. This is a theoretical question with some parameters. I tried to put it as simply as I could. I even used a story with a man with a gun in order to make it more fun and clear. I never mentioned anything about the "long run", tracking or whatever other buzzwords. I'm really sorry you can't follow me but you are not alone.

As I already stated in the first post, it's shocking how many people, like you, have great difficulty to think out of the box. It is like being in a chess forum and asking a hypothetical strategic question "What if we started a game without the Queen...." and someone replies "But there is a Queen..."  bummer!!

[Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. The term was coined in 1967 by Edward de Bono.]