« on: November 10, 2019, 04:55:32 pm »
Now great minds will read this and understand the concept.
I will show two things and if you don't understand you can look at the Spuntik's March topic at this forum board.
Personal I considering using both, with real money at my local casino.
This is only a blueprint and you need to develop and tweak with a personal touch.
I got inspired by Asymbac when he talks about his doubles to become three in a row using the banker side.
Then I come up with a pretty amazing solution for any even-money game.
Two sequences out of three will be used with this method.
Singles and series of two.
Singles and series of three or higher.
And we skip Series of two and series of three or higher.
Each event is by itself one event.
Singles are one event.
A series of two are one event.
Series of three or higher are one event.
There are two things that can happen using the two sequences above when you cut the random bits into sequences, each sequence by itself, own section.
One sequence can have one event each showing to become a triplet and if not you will have a bias sequence with at least two events repeating for three times or more in a row.
Now we have a raw explanation again.
In the long run, do we have 1000 singles and 500 series of two and 250 series of three, but as we use series of three or higher as one event they are equal or greater than series of two with the amount
500 with my example, so figure 250 is not correct.
And in the short run, you can expect a series of two and series of three or higher with the same strike ratio as singles, because there are as many singles as there is series.
Let me repeat the above again, 1000 singles and 500 series of two and 500 series of three or higher.
1000 versus 1000.
The odds are 1 in 3 to get one of the events to show in the short run.
We are betting against each sequence to not getting a greater bias then five or more in a row, with a particular touch.
The singles in each sequence are not going to grow more than four or more times in a row and the whole sequence minimum amount with two events will be five.
For example B P BB P
Now we bet there will be one more series of two or a series of three or higher for the next three attempts.
They have a very high likelihood of strike once within the next three attempts because two events to strike five times or more in a row has less likelihood.
Look at the Asymbac approach where you have one banker double and you bet that one of the next two bankers double will become three in a row, due to the slight advantage of the banker.
But I only need a series of two or three or higher to achieve the same thing, betting against a bias sequence to become less than five in a row.
Let me twist it, let's say you have to single bankers B B and one double banker BB within the next three attempts I will have at least one double banker or three or higher in a row.
Because the slight advantage of the banker side hitting more frequent overall where a series with that particular situation has a higher likelihood to happen.
A short RNG sampel
LW LW W W W LW LLL W W W LLL W W LW W W W W W LW LLW LW W LW
Another good thing about this approach is that you can use a smooth variant of Hollandish Progression - staking 111 222 333 444 555 and so on - I have very difficult to see this way of playing to lose money.
One more example with the other sequence.
BBBB B P her you would for a series of two or three or higher, betting against a bias sequence with five or more in a row.
The reason this work is that you can expect the odds 1 in 3 in the short run with variance and fluctuation.
Pst ... here is a little secret the 50/50 need to make at least five swings (singles) to the other side to lose the three attempts and among them, you have at least one series.
And a tight players use one sequence only to get less variance and more reliable periodic cycles overall.
Next, I will post method two ...