bet selection for columns (ND)

[plolp]

as all my posts are deleted with "nathan detroit" I place it here.

I just gave a result on the T1 wiesbaden yesterday;
-14 To 89 spins

[Gizmotron]

as all my posts are deleted with "nathan detroit" I place it here.

I just gave a result on the T1 wiesbaden yesterday;
-14 To 89 spins

I guess you blazed right on through betting into a bad effectiveness streak. Maybe you never bothered checking for the three states of effectiveness. That's OK. Somebody has to pay to keep the lights on.

[plolp]

I did the test with the rules that are given.
The fact that it destroys my messages completely discredits his method.

I guess you blazed right on through betting into a bad effectiveness streak. Maybe you never bothered checking for the three states of effectiveness. That's OK. Somebody has to pay to keep the lights on.

You can wait states supposedly favorable but that does not change anything.
Your permanence of spins played resemble in all respects to any permanence

[Gizmotron]

You can wait states supposedly favorable but that does not change anything.
Your permanence of spins played resemble in all respects to any permanence

That's interesting because it's not meant to change anything. The odds never change. They are the same odds, spin to spin. The commonality of winning 10 to 16 spins in a row is so prevalent on a daily basis that it would take a brain transfusion to get accepted to MIT. In other words, it's sick. I admire your persistence in all this though.

[XXVV]

It is a good idea to establish your own thread Plolp ( I have difficulty with your title but appreciate the symmetrical pattern) as then no-one is going to erase your views, unless you break a Forum rule ( as we see occasionally on the Baccarat Forum). It is good you have encouraged some interesting views from others as well as giving credit to the original thread.

In playing the raw (original) bet as stated/ outlined by ND and devised by Spike, the simplicity ( a great quality) is deceptive because the weaving together of the EC with Column behaviour is a powerful combination.  Sample testing as suggested by CEH always should be 100 spins ( no more no less) and cut abruptly so as to deny any bias. Also if showing promise up to 30 samples from varying sources, of live spin data can test objectively. Only then can you state with certainty a preliminary assessment of a bet.

I suspect this bet, from my own initial observations has some 'potential'.

Plolp you have suggested it would be more 'economical' to play just one chip as a REPEAT.

Have you some data to support that view?  You will not have the run/streaks that two column bets can enable however.

Perhaps there are ways/ times/ circumstances to change/switch the bet  ( from two cols to one)?  Also consider spin cycles?  More switches?

[sqzbox]

Remember plolp, that the bet selection here is based on following the colour. If you have suggested that it might be more economical to bet just one chip based on a repeat, are you referring to a repeat column? or a repeat colour?  If a repeat column then that is not within the confines of ND's concept so perhaps you should consider a separate thread which does not cite ND in the title.

In my research I have found that the results are identical for a repeat of the last column with a showing of the one before last. The sleeper, interestingly, seems lower. So, is a one column bet more economical? Perhaps - but is that more efficient? I would argue that "efficiency" is way more important.

So what exactly does "efficient" mean? Well, it's a little hard to explain because there hasn't been a definition of the term as it relates to gambling so we have to go with a little common sense here. However, if you look up the term in an engineering sense then you'll get the idea of what I am trying to espouse here.

Let's say that your sims of the columns or dozens, ignoring zero (can't avoid zero but what we are interested in is the appearance of the columns/dozens in terms of the last, the second last, and the sleeper) are, over 1000 spins which included 29 zeros and so there were 971 non-zero spins, as follows -

Last = 346 (35.63%), Before last = 343 (35.32%), Sleeper = 282 (29.04%)

So there is an almost equal chance for the L or the B, while the S is a reduced chance. So what is the efficient bet here? As already stated the most economical bet is a 1 column bet, but which column would you go for? I'd suggest that, in this scenario, the best bet, i.e. the most efficient bet, would be to go with both L and B.

Now, I am not suggesting the above as a bet - this is just an example to try and explain why the efficient bet is not always the economical bet, but is always the best bet. This thread is about selecting based on the colour anyway so now that we have an understanding of efficiency (by my definition anyhow) how would this be applied? Well, perhaps if you want to be economical as well as efficient then you could just bet column 2 if following black and column 3 if following red. Perhaps just following the last, or even the last plus the before last, is a good bet but that is not the discussion here - here it is about following the colour.

Let's say that you follow black and it is black that appears. If you bet on columns 1 and 2 then you have a 14 out of 18 chance that you get the hit. 2 chips out, 1 chip profit. If you played just column 2 then your chances are 8 out of 18 for a hit. 1 chip out, 2 chips profit. Which is the most efficient?

Discuss - and start up the fan!

[plolp]

for information only:

T1 Wiesbaden yesterday : +9 (133 spins)
T2__________________:  +1 (210 spins)
T3 __________________: -55 (361 spins)

[greenguy]

for information only:

T1 Wiesbaden yesterday : +9 (133 spins)
T2__________________:  +1 (210 spins)
T3 __________________: -55 (361 spins)

Seems about right.

[plolp]

With this method you always play the first column, there is no reason for it.
let's say you find a reason for it while playing only the first column you would earn more than playing both.
You lose one token plus all 37.

[plolp]

Seems about right.

There are greater catastrophe, it's true!

[plolp]

T2  wiesbaden : -28 / 216 spins    yesterday