Quote from: NathanDetroit on February 23, 2013, 12:55:12 PM
Nuff said .

ND

Why Bother?

BL

 
I'm not here to argue with you Ralph, besides...

Quote from: Ralph on February 20, 2013, 11:18:35 AM

I play EC much less than inside. EC is fun a while, and can be boring after some hours.

I also mostly play inside. Roulette can be boring no matter what you play. Winning decent money only makes it worthwhile.

Quote from: Ralph on February 20, 2013, 11:18:35 AMIf we guess right, using that we CAN know it is possible to win.

Very true words, If you can guess right more then you guess wrong then you don't need no stinking progression.

Quote from: Ralph on February 20, 2013, 11:18:35 AMHere we know it is LIKLEY to get a run of seven in 200 spins.

Sorry Ralph, nothing is likely in this game.

Quote from: Ralph on February 20, 2013, 11:18:35 AMI have tried a lot of methods and  1 -1 simply I think is devastating

My suggestion is not your usual +1/-1. It is much more elastic, and with a well thought out win-goal/stop-loss, can be devastating to the casino.

But then again, I'm a pretty good judge.

Hello Ralph,

EC's are fun aren't they.

I would not be so presumptuous to suggest any bet selection, but I have had very good success playing the EC's with the following MM.

Of course if you can't pick your fair share of winners (give or take) then no MM known to man can save you.

+1 after a win when the wL registry shows more w than L.
+1 after a loss when the wL registry shows more L than w.
-1 after a win when the wL registry shows more L than w.
-1 after a loss when the wL registry shows more w than L.
Same bet when wL registry is equal.
Same bet when wL registry reaches a gap of 4.
Reset wL registry and same bet when wL registry reaches a gap of 5.

You can reset the whole thing at +1 chip, or continue for your own win-goal/stop-loss. 

Sook.

Nice thread Bally.

Making observatory pit stops along a growing number stream is a good way to approach roulette, I think. So you should get some strong methods out of this type of analysis.

You are basically looking at averages to see if there is any edge obtainable. You are stopping every so often to reassess the averages. By using averages you can group together and quantity of numbers you like.

Why not stretch the averages from two ends then bet for a correction?

One end would be to find the average of 1 number hitting in 36 spins = 1 then shorten the spin count to 27 spins while still focusing on numbers that have attained the average for 36 spins = 1.
So a pit stop every 27 spins instead of every 36 spins, but using the average hits for 36 spins.

The other end to stretch would be to find the average of 1 number hitting in 36 spins = 1 Then only focus on numbers that have hit at least 1 more time than the average.

So a pit stop every 27 spins instead of every 36 spins, and focus on numbers that hit at least 1 above the average for the spin count.
Pit stop @ 27 =1 Focus on numbers with 2 or more hits.
Pit stop @ 54 =2 Focus on numbers with 3 or more hits.
Pit stop @ 81 =3 Focus on numbers with 4 or more hits.
Pit stop @ 108 =4 Focus on numbers with 5 or more hits.
Etc.
This should show really hot numbers.

But how to bet them? Well I wouldn't.
I would group together a few numbers then bet for an average correction of sorts.

Let's say you have tracked 81 spins and numbers 6 & 14 both have 5 hits, and numbers 18 & 27 both have 6 hits. Everything else is hitting at or below the average.

Make some 3 number clusters. They would be 4.5.6 – 13.14.15 – 17.18.19 – 26.27.28

The middle number from each set has hit above the average for 81 spins. They might continue to hit or they might go to sleep. Don't bet them. Bet on the numbers either side of the hot numbers to maintain the high average.
The bet would be 4.6.13.15.17.19.26.28.

An eight number bet in this example. You can only bet 8 numbers 4 times before a progression step is required. Your choices are to stop after any win, or stop after 4 losses, or use a martingale type progression on the betted numbers until a hit.

Hope this helps with crazy ideas. 

Quote from: NathanDetroit on February 18, 2013, 09:27:13 PM

billion, you  got a problem with that. you are a nobody in my book.

why don`t you take loooooong hike on short pier

A wet nobody now! 

Quote from: Ralph on February 18, 2013, 05:07:17 PM

This is a vague answer!

From what I've seen NathanDetroit is the king of vague!

Spike and Gizmo come close, but ND leads the way.

Quote from: Drazen on February 18, 2013, 01:13:55 PM
Oh I re-read and saw he said in average.. But without knowing worst possible scenario you don't know anything..

BTW he plays straight, but on how many numbers? One?



Drazen

Yes one number. Yes we don't know the worst case or the best case scenario, so like I said, stupid question.

Albalblahblah has more than likely reverse engineered an MM that deals with this specific scenario, but that is about as useful as a ball sack on a cow, or tits on a bull, take your pick.

Quote from: albalaha on January 26, 2013, 06:33:28 AM
Can anybody tell any money management plan which can let a straight up win, if its average strike rate is 47. It means in 1000 trials, it will win only 21 times. Any takers?

Overlapped D'Alambert with micro goals and macro resets along the way.

Stupid question though.  

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 17, 2013, 09:45:01 PM
Well, loud one, let's take Normy and Stef for example.  Their software runs on specific computers and won't run on one it is not permitted to run on.

Had Victor wanted the software protected, he could have done that.

I think we are agreeing here, Sam.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 17, 2013, 09:45:01 PM
Only a fool would program something great and then let it be the kind of program anyone can install.  An .exe, I think.

Sam

Isn't that what Victor did with this tracker?

In my experience most coders only allow their work to operate on 1 computer per payment, unless with prior agreement.

Nothing unusual about agreeing to not share software.

Systems should work everywhere, VB should work on all profiled wheels, computers should work wherever you can get away with it, and bias spotting should work wherever you find a suitable wheel.

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 14, 2013, 11:31:31 PM
If you listen to yourself you will see that all you are suggesting is potential possibilities. To some of us that's the same as wishful thinking. If you have a trigger based system to try out then please start a thread. There might still be a few experts around here that might like to power simulate it. Thanks

Ok, I might just do that.

Thanks.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 31, 2013, 07:41:34 PM
Just for the record, there has never been a trigger based system that ever proved to be economically viable in the past 200 years of attempting to find one. All rule based systems encounter more sequences that kill them off than can be avoided by any known creative discovery.

You are sadly mistaken there buddy.
Some trigger based systems do have the potential to be economically viable, but as you say too many losing sequence kill them off.

The mistakes people make are to try and avoid the killer sequences, or try and push through with firebrand progressions, both are exercises in futility.

Well what if you can flat line all the killer sequences and let the winning sequences roll on unimpeded? This is similar to what you advise, bet small when things aren't clear and attack when they are. Well you can do this with triggers, absolutely.

That's what my trigger based system does very effectively. It doesn't lose much money but it does lose time. It can take a thousand spins or more to come through some bad dispersions, but it comes through will relatively small bankroll fluctuations or drawdowns. Then the profits roll in until the next flat line.

Think of trigger based systems like a game of snakes & ladders, now cut out all the snakes, lay them flat and paste them back on the board. That's how you make a trigger based system economically viable. It's not easy to do, and takes an enormous amount of calculation & configuring, but it can be done.