I got angry that there is a method with the name 122 ...
It implement that you accept a small lose on your last bet and a total of -5 units ...

Is just that i could not find any bet working where +1 overcome -5 on regular basis ...
And it also is one of the slowest EC method i know ...

This is the best i can come up with using the 122 method ....

72 Sessions 64 Won 24 Loss

So why did i test this, well John Patrick wrote that you increase your staking plan after some success ...
Up as you go mentality with 122 method ...

50 Session 122
75 Session 244
100 Session 366
200 Session 5 10 10
400 Session 10 20 20
1000 Session 25 50 50

No way i say to my self, but now i am ahead with 40 session and only 10 left to reach the 50 benchmark using the 122 method.
I could never do it betting after two reds or two blacks, i use other more complex algorithm, but it should not matter and be the same thing.
We all know the saying that all selection is the same.

If any one is interested in this i tell you how and we can test TRNGs together, i pick one month and you another, that way we can see what kind of benchmark we could reach ...

31/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

30/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

29/8

-5
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

28/8

-5
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
+1

27/8

+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1

26/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

25/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

24/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

23/8

+1
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1

 
No need to explain ,,, the units gets even for both sides ,,, well still i like the 1 in 3 probability more and still experimenting ...
31 won
31 loss

42 sessions

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
-5
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1

Quote from: Bayes on August 27, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
Hi purple,


I must have missed you when you registered back in January, welcome to the forum.


I see that Lee Tutor's book is now available on Amazon, and much cheaper too. It's a pretty good book IMO, about the best I've seen for anyone serious about winning consistently, although the "math boyzzz" would dismiss much of it.   

Have you read the book ? if you say its good ,, then i buy a copy :-)

 
I am convinced that is exist some selection that is better then others ...

This is simple, i test the 122 method betting after two reds and after two blacks, it sucks and you can not get ahead ...
Same with betting after three reds and after three blacks.

But then i convert the red and blacks into 1 in 3 probability selections and i get ahead playing 122 method ...
Is late and i will hit the bed, but this is how it looks like:

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

Cheers

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on August 19, 2013, 06:07:20 AM

Hey, I see Victor got rid of those pesky green arrows... pity he seems to have missed one. Bwahahahahaha!

HAHAHA that was funny 

Quote from: Number Six on August 18, 2013, 05:56:33 PM
I don't know if it's for academic reasons or if you think you have an edge, but it's worth noting a few points anyway.

Firstly, it's impossible to gain an advantage with a roulette system, old news I know.

The system would obviously have to be simulated with flat bets, or even without any betting, as long as you end up knowing the overall strike rate. A strike rate above the expected may suggest an edge. After that you can use the z-score to find out the probability of whether the results are due to luck or something else. While the house edge would simply undermine the premise behind any bet selection, it's feasible to think you don't need an edge to win consistently, which gives hope for a holy grail system. With a long simulation you can test for a few vital bits of data (you can't get these testing real play small sessions). Mainly you can ascertain, officially or not, the variance and volatility. There are formulas for that, but they may produce a number that can't be interpreted. You can look at the variance as how far your strike rate differs from the expected; you can look at losing runs and how the strike rate dips at those moments it performs badly. And the volatility is how that variance would affect your bankroll; you can discover the max drawdown and tell whether the system is economical and what kind of bankroll you need. In short you could gauge variance and volatility without calculating it and still tell if your system has any kind of merit, or if you're going to go bust as soon as you start playing. If the variance is low, there's no reason not to think you can't play through it with some kind of grinding progression because, having tested it thoroughly, you would know that it's likely to recover quite quickly. Contrast that with not testing a system properly, most players don't know the volatility and go bust in their first serious drawdown.

Very well written ...

 
.

Maybe there is better strategy's then the one i mention ,,, then feel free and welcome to elaborate about it ...
With the method above you define what win target you need and how many session you need to win to be in safe territory ...

 
This is the facts ...

You have a bet selection and one progression with a total of 92 units.

Now one table and one way is to play this method staking 2 Euro as minimum bet size ,,, that with 92 units give us a total of 184 Euro bank.
One other table and one other way is to play 4 Euro as minimum bet size ,,, that with 92 units give us a total of 368 Euro bank.
One other table and one other way is to play 10 Euro minimum bet size ,,, that with 92 units give us a total of 920 Euro bank.

Regression method

Do start with the largest bank with win target and move to smaller bank when i operate with casino money.

Increase after a loss

If i lose my smallest bank i move up one step using a larger bankroll and win back the previous loses.

Using both regression and increase

Now lest assume i use middle size bankroll and after win targets i use regression and play with smaller bank operating with casino money.
If a loss i take a bigger size bankroll to break even and start over with middle bank ,,,

 
Nice work Victor ...

That is impressive :-)

Nice done Superman ...

Cheers

Quote from: Archie on August 14, 2013, 11:50:58 AM
You may play similar columns, lines, diagonals, and squiggles.  Very little difference, except you may move at your own pace, and on your own.

My point also ...
You can even play pattern breaker with slots, same thing as roulette ...

Quote from: Archie on August 14, 2013, 11:41:36 AM
The legal limit in the UK is 30%.  I think that the limit in the US is 25%.  But you'd be hard pressed to find slot machines (Thomas Clines) outside of 15%.  Maybe at the airport, or grocery store.

A chance at "thinking" that they have a chance.  Certainly not a chance at a million dollars from a few hundred.


Casinos put table games in with slots because the table players think exactly that; and the slots players can hide away from exactly that.  Both then have a sense of security, albeit like everything else to do with casinos, a false sense.

Ah, no.


I would venture to write off hand that if you stick to the older $1 model machines (with the older chips in, the chips being costly to replace,) and additionally to the prominent areas of a casino, that you'll wind up playing a 2% machine.  With a few further strategies to better the 2%.


Though I won't be so obvious about it, I could walk into a busy casino today, get a dozen players cards under my name, slip those into choice machines, and let others rack up a $100 in comps for me.  Mill around for a couple of hours, or play some blackjack, and put the cards back in after someone else lays your card to the side to use his/her own card.  A lot of players don't bother with the players cards.

Nice input ...

Quote from: Bally6354 on August 14, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
Instinct kind of downplays it a bit IMO. Players like Superman have spent a lot of time studying the game and doing the groundwork. I liken it more as a kind of situational awareness. A players results over time would likely show losses if they were just using pure instinct.

A player could walk up to a table with an instinct that number 23 was about to appear. Unbeknown to the player could be the fact that the 23 area is part of a cold section on the wheel due to a temporary bias. Another player at the table may have taken this factor into account and have an instinct that number 26 is going to come up on the other side of the wheel. Ask yourself who is more likely to profit in the longer term. I suppose this is a more extreme example using a physical approach, however it does illustrate a point.

You don't win longterm using voodoo or guesswork.

I agree :-)

Quote from: Bally6354 on August 14, 2013, 08:00:47 AM
The scatter on those reels makes it unplayable IMO. [smiley]aes/tongue.png[/smiley]



P.S. For anyone interested. There is a guy over on the Wizard of Vegas Forum who has started posting recently called 'mickeycrimm'
His stories are fascinating and he claims to be an AP player at slots who has lived in the Vegas area for years. I am pretty certain these are not the kind of slots you will find in the U.K. or Oz. These are like Video Poker etc.. But it is great reading and you never know what you might pick up from the guy.

cheers

Cool ...
I find his profile, so now any one can backtrack his writings :-) http://wizardofvegas.com/member/mickeycrimm/

 
Here is a graph using 2-6 method ...