Quote from: 6th-sense on August 07, 2014, 12:42:20 PM
probably one of the sanest ideas on here....i told stef a long time back that the bot should include some mechanism to pick from and or use sheets that you have ie systems  just to win 1 unit and switch to next system...

I had a similar idea a while ago with Ophis's MST tracker. That particular tracker had a compendium of systems and one thing I noticed watching the charts for all methods simultaneously was how you always got one that tanked to the bottom of the ocean. My idea was to bet against the system losing the most.  (in other words, just bet the exact opposite) It produced some very good results in my limited testing.

19-3 to the Seahawks. 

Seattle to beat the 49ers tonight looks like a good bet to me.

11/10 looks tasty.  C'mon you Seahawks!!   

woohoo!!

21-13 to the Bears. 

3 quick turnoves killed it for the Buccaneers early in the 2nd half.

The Chicago Bears look like a good bet to beat the Buccaneers.

Game kicks of in a few minutes. I am taking the 1/2. Fingers crossed.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Rolex-Watch has to say.

Gamblers in general are not gentle people. We are vibrant, left-field, creative, mischievious etc... Read some of the posts on some of the older gambling forums and you will have tears of laughter streaming down your face along with some of the most insightful information on gambling you will ever find. That all seems to be gone and I find gambling forums of today very sterile in comparison. The most insightful, intelligent and no doubt experienced gamblers on this site always seem to be getting into trouble for just been who they are naturally. When they leave for good (and they will) you are just left with a shell with no soul. You only have to look at the other roulette forum to see what a dumbed down forum looks like. 

If the gambling scene is us....then we don't need to be strangled and admonished for the 'crazy' people who we sometimes are.

These stats were taking from the Hamburg tables.

They show the first repeat is more likely to come out on the 7th spin.

2 10,925
3 21,007
4 29,818
5 36,698
6 40,599
7 42,534
8 41,406
9 38,225
10 33,919
11 28,188
12 22,631
13 17,399
14 12,875
15 9,012
16 6,005
17 3,711
18 2,374
19 1,293
20 695
21 369
22 214
23 56
24 25
25 14
26 5
27 3
28 0
29 0
30 0
31 0
32 0
33 0
34 0
35 0
36 0

This could be a good stat to use when trying to develop a single number strategy. The question is how to filter out 6 numbers leaving one left to bet.

Here is something which may be of interest.

n 2 = 8.33%.......8.33%
n 3 = 15.28%......23.61%
n 4 = 19.10%......42.71%
n 5 = 19.10%......61.81%
n 6 = 15.91%......77.72%
n 7 = 11.14%......88.86%
n 8 = 6.5%........95.36%
n 9 = 3.1%........98.45%

These are some probabilities showing that it is more likely to hit a repeat street on the 4th and 5th spin.

How about waiting for the 9 original streets and then just betting the last 3 up until a repeat shows (win or lose) and then repeat the process. It would require some calculations working out the progression as you went along.

The best money management quote I have read.


"Make sure you leave enough gas money to get home"

Try this one B-T-W and see how you get on!

Start at 1 unit.
Allow a winning bet to ride three times.
Bet 2 units after losing any 1 unit bet.

You will only need 100 units for this if you are playing 100 spins. Be patient through any negative fluctuations because there will be an average of 2-3 swings into positive territory.

Your average peak gain on this over 100 bets will be 22 units and the average peak loss will be 25 units.

Don't get greedy and quit on one of those swings into positive territory. (The sooner, the better.)

*Of course it's possible you could lose all 100 units, however the worst result in a test of 600 games x 100 spins (60,000 spins) was -82.

Good Luck!

**sorry B-T-W! I missed the part where you said you were only looking to win 1 unit.

No harm done. Maybe you can try this one as well some time. It is quite good!

Thank you.

There is another fascinating read called Probability and Finance, (It's only a game) by Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk.

I can't upload it for some reason.

Here is a link. The first few chapters are worth reading.

https://uqu.edu.sa/files2/tiny_mce/plugins/.../files/.../Shafer%20.pdf

Some of you may enjoy reading this article from Mark F Schilling.