As a follow up....

I am more inclined to believe bots/programmes would be more beneficial in other areas as opposed to roulette.

Like....

sports betting/poker etc...

Is anybody using bots or programmes in these areas with a degree of success!

Thanks.

First of all, I would like to point out that all you guys who create bots and can programme have my utmost respect. I can only imagine it as a labour of love.

I would like to see what the general thoughts are from members and how useful (ie. profitable) they are.

I have got to be honest and say upfront that my views may be a bit biased. I am an old fashioned type of guy which means pen and paper. I don't use programmes or run simulations over thousands of spins. I like to study the game spin by spin. I personally feel that this has given me a great level of understanding and insight into the game of roulette.

I sometimes think that people who are maybe new at the game and jump straight into bots and programmes are jumping from A to G and are therefore missing out on B, C, D, E and F.

Another of my concerns would be playing online as opposed to playing at live B+M casinos.
Now there are many people even on here who are suggesting a lot of online casinos may be rigged in favour of the house. Obviously a bot or programme would be of no use to someone long term if this were the case. In fact you could argue that you would lose your money even faster if any of these accusations were true.  But the main problem then would be that the player would be like a fish out of water at a live B+M casino if he lived in a country where he could not use any device which runs these programmes. (I don't subscribe to these allegations but I have to say that I have not played a lot online. I am really a pretty infrequent online player and I jump around online casinos a lot. So even though I don't agree with it, it does not mean that it is not true to some degree.)

Those would be my concerns regarding bots and programmes. (+ online casinos)

Now for the positives.....

I am pretty certain from what I have read on the net that there are countries where it is not illegal to actually use a small PDA device to work out your calculations. (I am not talking about 'roulette computers' using physical approaches either.) 

I am talking about maybe a small programme which might help you with something like 'winkel's crossings' or maybe some of FLAT'S work.

This would be great for someone who maybe has a good understanding of the game and is looking to extract as much as information as he can in such a small timeframe. (and not working out what level he is at in the 'super-duper grand martingale with bells on' system)

I think you can see where I am coming from and I hope nobody takes it as a personal insult  who enjoys using or creating bots. It is just my personal views. I would be interested in hearing what others think.

cheers.

Playing splits are great!

One advantage is that you could be playing hot and cold at the same time instead of just hot on single numbers.

example....

You are playing hot numbers 1,9,23,35.

either 4, 12, 20 or 32 will beat you.

Playing the 1/4, 9/12, 20/23, 32/35 means you are a winner even if one of the colder numbers appear.

Keep up the good run Ralph! 

And just to put things into perspective regarding variance and roulette.

I was having a quick read over on the W.O.O site.

A blackjack player betting a spread of 1-4 ($25-$100) with a 5k bankroll. He was basically wanting to know how he stood. (The guy is counting cards)

here was the reply.....

''Good news is you are playing at an advantage of +0.85%.
Bad news is your risk of ruin is 35.2%.''

It's a sobering thought when we are playing against 2.70% (and some of us 5.40%)

[attachimg=1]

Quote from: dino246 on December 16, 2012, 09:06:10 PM
How many won on each step of the progression ?

Actually..... +34 would be wrong. Sometimes you would be just betting the 8 splits instead of either 2 dozens or 2 columns. This would have happened 5 times. So the gains would be slightly more.

But I honestly could not suggest it. What about if you get a streak of 5 O's. You don't want to be betting 1 1, 3 3, 9 9, 27 27, 81 81, 243 243.

That's  units 728 units just to win 1 unit. No thanks!

The above post was just to illustrate that you could be in for a long wait looking for a run of three O's.

If I was going to use something like that. (say just a three step 1 1, 3 3, 9 9. I would wait for the three O's and just take one bite at it.)

Waiting for the 'Run of Three' can be like watching Jonathan Trott bat 

This run went 54 spins without a run of three.

A 11, 33, 99  progression would have netted +34 units.

But I don't think it's worth the risk     

16 2A
15 2C
5 1B (3)
16 2A (3) S
21 2C (3) S
1 1A (3) S
18 2C (3) S
23 2B (3) S
5 1B (3) S
2 1B (3) S
25 3A (C) O.......RUN OF 1
20 2B (C) S
21 2C (1) O......RUN OF 1
34 3A (1) S
19 2A (1) S
18 2C (1) S
32 3B (1) S
10 1A (2C) O......RUN OF 1
32 3B (2C) S
20 2B (C) O.......RUN OF 1
31 3A (C) S
4 1A (C) S
5 1B (C) S
33 3C (2) O......RUN OF 1
2 1B (2) S
9 1C (2) S
12 1C (2) S
1 1A (2) S
6 1C (2) S
30 3C (2) S
19 2A (B) O.....RUN OF 1
18 2C (B) S
27 3C (B) S
29 3B (1) O
1 1A (2) O....RUN OF 2
11 1B (2) S
18 2C (3) O
27 3C (A) O.....RUN OF 2
26 3B (A) S
28 3A (1) O.....RUN OF 1
33 3C (1) S
14 2B (1) S
4 1A (3C) O.....RUN OF 1
20 2B (3C) S
22 2A (3C) S
26 3B (C) O
24 2C (1) O.....RUN OF 2
33 3C (1) S
17 2B (1) S
6 1C (A) O......RUN OF 1
15 2C (A) S
13 2A (3) O
35 3B (1) O.....RUN OF 2
22 2A (1) S

Thanks esoito!

I have never ventured into sports betting that much although my predictions on cricket are usually pretty accurate because I love the game and have spent a lot of time studying it and watching.

Some of the guys on the betfair forum are VERY good in specialist areas like boxing and tennis etc..

Roulette appeals to me mostly because of the constant payouts. The problem with horseracing is the constant change of the fields and odds. Throw in the inaccurate going descriptions we get here in the UK and people making more money laying horses to lose in the poor races and it seems a bit of a minefield.

cheers

Thanks guys for all the great replies. 

I always used to think that there must be some kind of 'HG' bet out there waiting to be discovered. I know different now. Variance can kill any system on any given day.

It's interesting reading between the lines from some of the more experienced members on here. My opinion is we are mostly saying the same thing.

It seems the trick is to be able to go with the flow and try and get the entry and exit points right. (not to be confused with HAR)

That flow can be very dynamic but I do agree with Gizmo in that there is usually a global trend happening. Although not seeing the wood for the trees can be a real problem. Developing a kind of detatched outlook is probably a good idea and one way of doing that is just to try and make intelligent bets (ie. timing).

I am convinced we can cut variance right down to the bone. Doing this certainly gives us much more of a fighting chance.

Here is a winning and losing example from today.

These were the first few spins from Table 4 and Table 2.
　
　
　
Table 4 Spielbank Wiesbaden 15/12/2012

25 3A
11 1B (2C)
6 1C (2) O
29 3B (2) S
3 1C (2) S
1 1A (2) S
25 3A (2) S
4 1A (2) S
34 3A (2) S
4 1A (2) S
4 1A (2) S
10 1A (2) S
18 2C (B) O
11 1B (3) O
12 1C (3) S
25 3A (2) O
12 1C (2) S
7 1A (2) S
27 3C (2) S
23 2B (1A) O
13 2A (1) O
10 1A (3C) O (RUN OF THREE) BET SPLITS 1/4, 2/5, 7/10, 8/11, 13/16, 14/17, 19/22, 20/23.
10 1A (3C) S (WON +10 UNITS)
　
Table 2 Spielbank Wiesbaden 15/12/2012

22 2A
22 2A
15 2C
13 2A
26 3B (1)
19 2A (1) S
9 1C (3B) O
28 3A (B) O
9 1C (B) S
20 2B (3A) O
15 2C (3A) S
18 2C (3A) S
23 2B (3A) S
27 3C (A) O
25 3A (1) O
35 3B (1) S
31 3A (1) S
10 1A (2) O
33 3C (2) S
19 2A (B) O
22 2A (B) S
33 3C (B) S
21 2C (B) S
20 2B (1) O
12 1C (A) O
13 2A (3) O (RUN OF THREE) BET DOZEN 1 + DOZEN 2.
28 3A (B) O (LOST)

Quote from: dino246 on December 15, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
Many Thanks for posting this different type of Two-Dozen concept Bally.

Will spend a relaxing sunday working on this.

Cheers.

Dino.

No worries Dino. 

Thanks Vic! 

Here is a 'quick' game I just played. (Well, it only took 22 spins!)
26 3B
26 3B
17 2B
2 1B
3 1C (A)
26 3B (A) S
18 2C (A) S
36 3C (A) S
32 3B (A) S
20 2B (A) S
7 1A (C) O
11 1B (C) S
20 2B (C) S
30 3C (A) O
17 2B (A) S
35 3B (A) S
6 1C (A) S
4 1A (2) O
1 1A (2) S
14 2B (3) O
29 3B (C) O
15 2C (1A) O (RUN OF THREE) WON.
23 2B (1A) S

This was one of those situations where I had to bet the splits because I was hoping that the 1A would stay missing.

My split bets were 14/17, 15/18, 20/23, 21/24, 26/29, 27/30, 32/35, 33/36.

It's a much better payout when this comes in as opposed to playing either the 2 dozens or 2 columns. 

I have asked Vic when he has time to make a tracker for this.

It could be good for running along with any other systems you are playing at the time.



cheers.

I would only play for the first bet and then wait for the next opportunity.

You don't want to run into a freak cycle of O's.

Most of the time you are betting either 2 dozens or 2 columns, However there are times when the third O may indicate (for example) that the 3C is the furthest back. Now you are looking for an S and hoping that the 3C remains missing. So betting against 3C means playing 8 splits = 16 numbers as opposed to the usual 2 dozens or columns = 24 numbers.

Why? Because here, you want both the 3rd dozen and column C to remain missing.

You would place bets on the 1/4, 2/5, 7/10, 8/11, 13/16, 14/17, 19/22, 20/23.

This will happen sometimes and you just need to work out what 8 splits you would need to play.

Here is another card.
13 2A
19 2A
5 1B (3C)
25 3A (C) O
15 2C (1B) O
17 2B (1) O (RUN OF 3)WON
27 3C (1) S
13 2A (1) S
27 3C (1) S
16 2A (1) S
27 3C (1) S
20 2B (1) S
22 2A (1) S
1 1A (3C) O
22 2A (3C) S
8 1B (3C) S
34 3A (C) O
31 3A (C) S
27 3C (2) O
16 2A (1B) O
23 2B (1) O (RUN OF 3)WON
26 3B (1) S
4 1A (C) O
1 1A (C) S
18 2C (3B) O
25 3A (B) O
32 3B (1) O (RUN OF 3)LOST
12 1C (2) O
1 1A (2) S
17 2B (3) O
13 2A (3) S
8 1B (3) S
7 1A (3) S
35 3B (C) O
10 1A (C) S
9 1C (2) O
27 3C (2) S
34 3A (2) S
29 3B (2) S
5 1B (2) S
14 2B (C) O
16 2A (C) S
6 1C (3) O
12 1C (3) S
32 3B (2A) O
2 1B (2A) S
31 3A (2) O
9 1C (2) S
5 1B (2) S
30 3C (2) S
7 1A (2) S
29 3B (2) S
29 3B (2) S
17 2B (C) O
12 1C (A) O
10 1A (3) O (RUN OF 3)WON
15 2C (3) S
10 1A (3) S
16 2A (3) S
12 1C (3) S
16 2A (3) S
26 3B (1C) O
16 2A (1C) S
11 1B (C) O
3 1C (3) O
10 1A (3) S
1 1A (3) S
30 3C (2) O
34 3A (2) S
9 1C (2) S
28 3A (2) S
1 1A (2) S
25 3A (2) S
31 3A (2) S
14 2B (C) O
5 1B (C) S
12 1C (3A) O
7 1A (3) O
23 2B (3) S
3 1C (3) S
17 2B (3) S
23 2B (3) S
21 2C (3) S
1 1A (3) S
30 3C (B) O
15 2C (B) S
5 1B (A) O
18 2C (A) S
6 1C (A) S
11 1B (A) S
26 3B (A) S
14 2B (A) S
14 2B (A) S
20 2B (A) S
7 1A (C) O
7 1A (C) S
30 3C (2B) 0
17 2B (1A) O
11 1B (A) O (RUN OF 3) WON
14 2B (A) S