I've improved my practice software to store immediate practice sessions while the software is running and have it cut to the clipboard and paste the accumulated results if wanted.

The chart is set up so that it can all fit on a small sized index card. The last 6 sets, on the right side, are all customized groupings made up on the inside layout.

Here are 5 sessions practiced back to back in about 7 minutes.





-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ 72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ 104 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- L  ( $ -40 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 32 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -40 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 32 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- W  ( $ 104 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- W  ( $ 72 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 104 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ 72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ 108 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  30
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -144 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -216 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -144 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -216 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -144 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -144 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- L  ( $ -216 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -144 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -216 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- W  ( $ -144 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- L  ( $ -216 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -288 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -216 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ -144 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ 72 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 104 )

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 02:50:57 PM
I've created a progression for EC bets which it succeeds as long as there are 25% wins out of the total of the bets placed.
This means that the expectation is being reduced to half of 50% (roughly).


The ratio of: 1 out of 4, 2 out of 8, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 16, 5 out of 20, 6 out of 24, 7 out of 28, 8 out of 32, 9 out of 36, 10 out of 40...etc
Can we get 10 out of 40 bets right as minimum??


It doesn't matter when those 10 wins will occur, on the beginning, on the middle, on the end, all the same as long as the ratio is being confirmed at some point, any point.
So the real question is, how long before a 25% wins for Even Chances is being achieved?

Funny. That depends on luck.

Quote from: Jimske on May 26, 2018, 02:28:14 PM
We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up. 

Great point. I never heard that before in the past 12 tears.

I have a brainless, no edge test to consider. I did it so that I can prove variance, randomness, has opportunities. Spin out 300 spins, any source that you consider fair, real spins if you must. Now track the results of just the red numbers as the winners and the others as losers. Now that takes care of having a bet selection, that includes a so called bet selection with an edge too.


With me so far? Now, if any of you have a rudimentary education, let's see if you can find opportunities that occurred in that 300 spins among the red winners. Don't give me any of that stuff that it all happened in the past. Just because you are unskilled at recognizing an opportunity, as it happens, does not mean that someone else with the right skills is as helpless as you claim to be.


I'll bet there were at least two sleeping dozens that lasted more than 14 spins in a row. There were probably at least one streak of the even chances that lasted the same for 12 to 16 times in a row. There were dozens of streaks of singles. All these things are exploitable, even though there are intellectuals in this world that insist that they can't be. You guys are too sacrosanct for your own goods, and that you are blinded by a self serving arrogance. I don't have your definition of an edge. So what. All of that crud is summed up by this single experiment. I hope you approach all of life by your philosophy. Win at gambling or not, you are blind never the less. I think that is fitting too. There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.

Quote from: Jimske on May 25, 2018, 12:21:50 PM
...  4 of 19 ... "LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch! "

Yep, that is a very steep dive into shallow water. It happens to me about 20% of the time when I start to play money. I've also opened with a massive win streak before too. I even experienced a four day repeating characteristic of the same 18 numbers dominating all day play. It all goes to bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad.


But it looks like you played through it flat betting. Interesting tactic. It's the only way to confirm that eventually you might swing above the statistical expectation for a brief moment and reach a "quit while you are ahead moment." That sounds like defiance of winning without a mathematical edge to me. It's a bold way to play. But it really flies in the face of those that say you must lose in the long run.To me it looks like an edge though. You control when to stop. You can stop at a point that is near breaking even instead of at the killer point of 4 wins to 15 losses. You can play to negate downturns as an edge. Selecting the stop point is an edge, I think.

Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 01:55:42 AM
Ten reds in a row is meaningless.  It's no more relevant than a bear pattern in the clouds.  I don't know why you're enamored with it.

Money! I want free money. I want money that comes from my acquired skill where there are people like yourself that say it is impossible, like without an edge. Money earned in this way is far better than being paid as some functionary. And it's bragging money too. It can be earned in 5 minutes or more likely under 2 hours. It's not a comp gathering game either.


I'm so fascinated by the world you see around you. You have an edge. You claim that there can't be any kind of edge in guessing. You won't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as a streak of reds. That it's some kind of meaningless cloud formation that needs to be ignored. How can you be an expert at using it if you can't see an edge in it?


Try this logic. I proposed it at least a decade ago to the mathBoyz: If you see a meaningless pattern occurring, can you use it as if it means something, even though we all know that it is meaningless? Can anyone pretend that it has a beginning, a middle, and an ending? If it has no meaning, can it be used to give you a meaningless temporary edge?


Now, I'm still waiting for the mathBoyz to respond. They all chickened out. Perhaps you will not. I know what to do with 22 black numbers in a row. You apparently don't. We all know that the color of a slot on a Roulette wheel is symbolic only. We also know that the table layout is not a real representation of locations on the wheel. But the only thing that matters is that the casino will not just take money laid on the table. They will also give money even if you have a meaningless experience. I like that too. You have raised my conscientiousness a degree. It makes making money off a casino even more rewarding that it is meaningless and without an edge. Yep, I really like that.

Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 01:35:51 AM
Gizmo,

Winning is not a mindset.  The game doesn't care about your discipline.  It doesn't care about how many games you're trying to win or what your money management is.  What matters is whether or not you have the edge.  If you don't have the edge, then your expectation moving forward is simply the sum of all of your bets multiplied times the house edge.   Along the way to the long run you'll of course contend with variance bobbing up and down, but it's a zero sum game that's merely a short term distraction.

Xander, I get it. You are selling having an edge while dismissing anything else that you can be categorized as not having an edge. Ten reds in a row are not a "zero sum game."  Perhaps we should move on to word games like zero some manipulations. I'm fascinated by your anal retentive perpetuation of this world of having an edge. It's like confirmation bias meets the Grand Inquisitor. You are officially labeled the "edgeNatzi." It's great to belong to a club, don't you think?


There is no chance in ell that you are concerned that I will be disappointed without your caring warnings. So, why are you here? We are all dummy dicks on a puss farm full of cats. Are you the gambling savior? I just don't get it?

Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 08:33:34 PM
So I was curious if you have come up with a strike rate for your method and, if so, how it compares.

I will try to bring up context and how I have changed in the past 6 months. It really goes to structure in my bet selections and how I use my strike rate. I hope it answers your question. I found out that I wanted too many wins in my gambling sessions. That I needed to hit the big win streaks to make the trip worth it. That almost always led to a mentality that I did not mind descending into my bankroll deeply before hitting my goal. That ended up getting the best of me for years.


So I knew something had to change. First I decided to figure out how much was enough to make a trip to the casino worth it. Turns out that $300 per day is just right. After that I figured out that 3 net wins was good enough to achieve that with. So I set out to find the best way to get 3 net wins. I have decades of playing experience with double dozen and even chance bets. For years I would play the Even Chance bets waiting for the monster win streak. You can see that in all my writings over the years. I'm just saying that this way of thinking was wrong for me. It might or might not be wrong for others. They will have to decide.




Nathan Detroit mentioned John Patrick's "up and pull" method a few days ago. I discovered a very low risk method of reaching 3 net wins in just 2 steps. So that is what I'm doing now. It's not fashionable but it fits my lifestyle.


So with that in mind I would like to point out that even though the general trend might slowly grind its way downward at or near the rate of the house's advantage there are micro upticks along the way, much the same as candlesticks in a day trading stock chart. These little upswings can be seen in my playing charts as characteristics of randomness. 6 reds in a row. A swarm of singles. A dominance of high 18 numbers.  All these things happen from time to time in a session of play. I target, or structure, if I understand what you mean by structure, my bet choices looking for a way to get to just 1 net win up. Once I have that, I let the house's money ride for one bet, just to see if I have bet correctly and reached my third net win. So it's a tiny little war to get first net bets, or one net bet up at some point. I may have to do that three times, or I might not.

So yesterday I built a sim that allows me to take the above single hot number progression to test. It stops at the end of each step to allow me to select a new hottest number if I want to change to one. It has a chart to show what numbers are doing well as you go along. I broke down the first 35 spins to 12, 12, and 11 without changing the $5 value. So it acts just like you would act if you were playing at a real casino. After each win it reverts back to the starting point of $5.


It's interesting too. If I change numbers to what I think might be the hottest number, or most recent hottest number, I tend to win. If I just select a number randomly and stick with it, I usually get killed. Funny how it represents proof that you can read randomness and do better than if you just use blind statistics to prove ignorance. I guess it's unfortunate that such knowledge exists. Still, I prefer JP's "Up & Pull" MM tactics with just two net wins on even chance bets. Done by a randomness expert that JP method almost never losses. There are so many wins that the occasional losing session is just a small feature that can easily be lived with.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 22, 2018, 05:33:11 AM
For example, give me a session of roulette with 111 spins and a number placed anywhere three times(confirming house edge of 2.54% of European roulette), I will get a positive score, for sure, without going deep in losses. It might not hold true without a progression though. It is merely an example of how a progression can help handling negative expectations. In another way, the progression can handle temporary variance too and get a net win, thereafter.

Interesting idea. So I started to work out a single hot number progression for a $5 table minimum inside bet. I got to 71 spins before continuing.


Example:

35 -- 5  won 175  lost 175
6 -- 6  won 210  lost 211
5 -- 7  won 245  lost 246
4 -- 8  won 280  lost 278
4 -- 9  won 315  lost 314
3 -- 10 won 350  lost 344
3 -- 11 won 385  lost 377
3 -- 12 won 420  lost 413
3 -- 13 won 455  lost 454 
2 -- 14 won 490  lost 482
3 -- 15 won 525  lost 527
-------
71 spins

Now if you win anywhere before you reach a full number of spins for each step then you will win money worth doing it for.


Has anyone put together a good progression for a single hot number at a $5 table? I'd like to see it.

My 2 cents on how much of your bankroll you should risk.


You should take the full amount you are willing to risk and cut it into 5 parts.


You then take one of those one-fifth parts to the casino.


For each session you can use a one-fifth part if you want to adjust the above.


You then make bets that are either the minimum allowed or one-tenth of the one-fifth that you brought to the session, if the table limits allow. So you have ten tries at the high level to make your goal, hopefully quickly. The minimum bets are used to create a real-results data stream from.


A smart player would end the session at 30% of a session's bankroll up, if they do well. A smart player would know if a session was difficult and end it before using the entire one-fifth session bankroll up. It's possible to fight to get back to near even before quitting. This MM tactic is about dealing with randomness, that can never be controlled, only reacted to. You can see what you are getting in your active session even though others here say that you can't. It is far more likely that it is just they that can't see what they are getting. So they soft sell you that as some kind of soap salesman. You must figure it out for yourself. Leave the plantation of your mind. Take the red pill Neo, and move into the world of the real.

BTW: 10% of 20% is 2%. That's 2% of your entire money risked on one single high-level bet. Not that far from 1%.

1. Use past results as the basis of your decision.


I use past results because it is the only way to know how the session is going. It is the only way to know when enough is enough, in any case.

Quote from: Mike on May 20, 2018, 06:20:48 AM
Gizmo,

We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.

And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons  why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.

OK, I get that you and your "we" crowd are tired of all this. But now you are selling more snake oil with "hit & run" is actually "quit while you are ahead." Is that really true?


So let's look closer at this thing you keep trying to pawn off on the rest of us. This: "previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely." It's amazing to me that all you guys in your "cult" keep standing on this simple to understand axiom. Of course past spins don't cause random opportunities to occur. Any simpleton should know that. So why is it that you guys never get that memo? Is it because you need an excuse to close your minds or to keep them closed? Is it some kind of safe place? Is it the argument that you think you can always win and that shuts down debate? I think it is some kind of Kryptonite for you guys instead.  The sky is blue. Anyone that argues differently will be subject to one more of our boring lectures.


What about patterns being equally likely? Well at least we, we in our culture here, we thank you for now admitting that your team admits the existence of patterns. What about killer diller, long lasting, perfect patterns? Are they ever "likely?" I love the fact that all of this posturing implies that you would ignore a blatantly amazing opportunity, just to satisfy your position as a well informed person in our community.


Your implication that micro swings in candlestick charts happens because of trading activity, manipulations by trading activity, and by herd mentality all suggest that a cause must occur before you can speculate on swing changes. Why does there have to be a cause? It's just you suggesting that there is a cause that suggests success if anticipated, but never for Roulette. Is that actually logical? The charts go up and down in micro pulsations while having over all movements that indicate longer over all generalized changes. Who cares if they are the cause or effect of outside forces? They still move. Is my use of similar movements somehow negated just because you say there must be a cause? I'm telling you that there is not any cause whatsoever. Now please remember that the next time you spread your dogma all over the carpet.

Just look at the title of this thread:"Up as you lose, flat betting, up as you win. Which is best?"
This will be difficult for math oriented absolutists to stomach but the answer is in the second half of the title. Just consider that most people stop when they have depleted all or as much as they can stand of their bankrolls. They play to lose. What bothers math oriented players is that they won't admit that a few players play to win. It's inconceivable that a player can be  ahead in an even chance game and that reaching a realistic point they would end the session while they are up. In other words, up as you win.


Ever seen a candlestick chart for a stock trading graph? Did you know that when you graph an even chance gambling game you get the same kind of candlestick track. Now the game can follow the expectation required by statistical dogma. It almost always tracks in a general downward angle. But there are moments while doing so that track upward while still going down in general. Those moments are identifiable to a very smart person like myself. Just because I chose to see them and exploit them does not make them disappear for people that chose to deny their existence. And this is the critical part of the point being made. Just because a person denies the existence of these upward steps in the win loss outcomes, it does not make them not exist. So we come to the reason I point this out. Math oriented neo-experts are trying to impress others with subjective arguments. I said that just to hook the ego's of those that have and will continue to mislead others. I expect them to offer no answer to my observation of them other than cliche and ridicule. It comes with the territory on gambling forums. They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.

I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?


If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?


I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.