Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sputnik

Pages: Prev 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84 [85]

It is based upon a charting method that was used before computers entering the world.
The two state the document describe is very similar towards singles contra larger series of events.

Its still a experiment and will update this later after more testing.


Chasing for events or regression/correction towards the mean.
I took Bayes document into the observation and calculations with Marigny's principals.

One state is when there is not happening to much with the distribution.
Singles and series of two chop for tiny, medium and long periods of time.
Then we have tiny, medium and long periods of time when larger series show.
In between does we have series of three.

I use one March to catch the regression/correction of larger series to show after singles and series of two chop.
And i use one March chasing to catch does dominant singles and series of two chops.

This is the results with today's random org file ...

Catch the regression/correction (larger series) during 300 trails.


This one is the March chasing to catch the singles and series of two's.


The first option seams more tight overall, it also show that the strike ratio is much higher then the last option.

So sure there is a difference how you play or base you game upon, selection.
It should be the same, but in this case i am pretty sure it is not.

As the first option is sooner or later due to hit series of six, seven, eight, nine and so on during 300 trails and will produce strings with high strike ratio.
When you pick the last option, then the cycles of does chop has to hit very frequent if you are going to get the same strike ratio as option one.

We could also put it like this, if i was going to play Oscar Grind, then i would pick the first option.
As i would know before i start to play that i would sooner or later would hit larger series if they did not show in the beginning as i have never seen 300 trails with out them.
And if i was to play up as i go, positive progression i would also pick option 1.

Dozen/Column / Re: Second and Third Column
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:49:09 pm »

 Just took a look and want to say, nice topic ...


Mixed / Re: Has anyone tried Frank Barstow's twist on the fibonacci?
« on: January 17, 2013, 08:45:55 pm »
I like to flat bet my way through and i use fibbo when in the minus zone. After i win some i do play a regression letting ride my wins. It is pretty effective  , even with a very standard bet selection like FTL after a win that comes after a series of losses (LLW).


(Attachment Link)

 LOL i like your name as i am expert regarding his work.
 I can see that you run numbers with notpad and by hand do some testing, cool.
 It looks like you running Mac or Linux.

 I also do allot of hand testing, but most regarding different even money bet selections.

Mixed / Re: Has anyone tried Frank Barstow's twist on the fibonacci?
« on: January 17, 2013, 08:42:19 pm »
Hello Sputnik
The only mention of the fibo in this particular book (beat the casino) is on page 76.
It just looks like a plain 12 step fibo to me...
1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 (risk 608)
He did go on to mention that he thought this method would be ideal for team play.
"one could use it eight hours per day for a solid week with reasonable expectation of winning about $20 per hour and having not a single series loss. A husband and wife team betting opposites could anticipate $40 per hour profit"
He went on to say....
"If one were to use this method for three to five hours at single zero roulette, the odds that he'd never lose his bet series would be enormous - surely better than 5/1"
Well, I don't call 5/1 odds enormous myself. He does seem to enthuse more about this method compared to the others he talks about.
cheers  :thumbsup:

 Thanks for the input ...
 The fibo i been experimenting with in the past looks like this 1 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55  89

 I am not a progression freak, but i notice that you don't have to win every bet with the progression it self as winnings chop and produce tight streaks ...

What kind of bet selection for even money bets does he suggest in his book, curios.

Mixed / Re: Has anyone tried Frank Barstow's twist on the fibonacci?
« on: January 17, 2013, 06:25:19 pm »

 I know fibo and see a old post in the past about Frank Barstow's variant of the 12 step fibo.
 his version was 15 steps.

 Is it in the book you buy, if so could you post his variant or variants of the fibo ...

 Many Thanks

Gambling Philosophy / Masse Egale
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:18:17 am »

General Discussion / Re: Victor ...
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:20:15 am »
Here is the first one:
There's a tricky bet for having a 36-number layout coverage and yet win +1 unit on a hit:

How can it be? Targetting #19 as the only number to leave open, the bet goes like this:

3 chips go to number 0
72 chips to low (Covers 1 to 18 )
48 chips to 3rd dozen (Covers 25 to 36)
16 chips to corner 20/24 (CVovers 20-21-23-24)
4 chips to straight-up number 22

If any number other than 19 is spun, you win +1.

You need a table with "Le Partage" rule for this bet to work.

Testing the validity of this bet with Roulette Xtreme.

First you need to enable Le Partage:

Then proceed to test the winning bets:

At a straight-up win, we win 4 x 36 = 144 chips, minus 143 chips layed = +1

At the corner, we win 16 x 9 = 144 chips, we lost 143 chips layed = +1

At the dozen, we win 48 x 3 = 144 chips, taking in to account 143 chips layed = +1

At the even chance, we win 72 x 2 = 144 chips, substracting 143 chips layed = +1

If Zero shows up, dealer returns us 108 chips as payout for it, then takes away losing chips: while from the 72 chips layed at low by "Le Partage" rule enabled at the even chances dealer takes 36 and we get 36 chips back. As we won 108 = 108 won + 36 chips back = 144 chips - 143 layed = +1 unit profit even when zero hits! Positively letting only 1 out of the 37 numbers as a loss, and winning +1 unit at 36 numbers.

It is important to notice at regular Roulette without Le partage, you have a net loss of 35 chips when zero hits so we really need this Le Partage splitting rule:

Of course, the downside is losing spin costs 143 chips. But for doing that bet your REALLY have to do next spin and want the very least numbers against, this "tricky bet" can do.

Also you can mathematically split all the bets in half to win +0.5 instead of +1... but the problem is the Zero. The dealer won't be too fond of you splitting a chip in two to bet 1 and a half on zero


Thank you Jucied91, that was exactly the one i wanted to find.
The other one was Romansky and i find it among old topics.

Many Thanks.


General Discussion / Victor ...
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:23:20 am »

 Hello Victor ...

 I search for two old topics and can not find them.
 One is that you can over all the table accept one number and still win plus 1 unit.
 Second one has the name Kasparkow something, it also cover a great deal the table.

 Many Thanks


Pages: Prev 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84 [85]