+ Register

[Nickmsi]

Hi Ozon,

I tested the Triplets with progression on 10,000 Single Zero spins and on 10,000 No Zero Spins, results per attached.

While both made a profit, the Single Zero was erratic and below profit for 3,000 spins or so.

Perhaps a different progression might help.

Cheers\\Nick

[Sputnik]

Hello Ozon - Holloway made a progression for bets that have higher strike ratio than 50% for even money bets.


Cheers

[Sputnik]

 Hello Nickmsi - I will put together one explanation about this selection based upon my opinion and understanding.


What you do is to play against patterns not repeat and the probability or the odds increase for each losing group.
For example, you have Red and play Black twice, the triplet and continue doing so on a rolling basis.

So each random march will end with a losing sequence and that combination is the principal of 1/3 because you bet against triplets.
So when you look at two loses you have one series of three and if you lose again you have another series of three and if you lose again you have a series of three.
They can come in any combination, and the march is to bet twice against triplets.

When you look at the sequence with the vertical perspective you see three patterns of the same formation repeating three times in a row.
And when you look at the sequence with the horizontal perspective you see the triplet that made you lose.

RRB
RRB
RRB

RBR
RBR
RBR

RBB
RBB
RBB

RRR
RRR
RRR

BRB
BRB
BRB

BBR
BBR
BBR

BRR
BRR
BRR

BBB
BBB
BBB

Now two patterns XOO XOX create a direct win and one pattern is a tie OOX and one losing pattern, the triplet XXX
If you continue betting after six loses the probability and the odds increase to 1 in 16 where you get groups of four or patterns with four in a row repeating three times in a row.


RBBR
RBBR
RBBR

And so it continues to grow with equilibrium and probability and odds for each new triplet.
I would say that you should stop after six losses and wait for a fictive win and start over.
The odds and probability is very small to get three repeaters back to back.

Here is also the possibility to experiment with triggers.

Cheers

[ozon]

Hi Sputnik
I have this progression
Probably even slight modifications made by Bayes.
It has 46 steps.
I've never really simulated it.
I wonder if he is able to bring profit even after losing these 46 steps, sometimes.

[Nickmsi]

Hi Patrik and Ozon,

Thanks for your insights Patrik and Ozon if you have the 46 Step Holloway progression could you post it here or send it to my
email nickmsi@aol.com.

I am finishing up my vacation with the grandsons and would love to test it with the Triplets.  I am sure I have it at home but it would save me some time.

Cheers

Nick

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Sputnik,
Wait for the extreme variance to pass, as your idea, that...wait  for 6losses, then a  fictive win, and start bet...

[Sputnik]

Here is Holloway's progression, raise, and fall ...

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
18
20
22
25
28
30
32
35
40
45
50
55
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
135
150

[Nickmsi]

Thanks Patrick, that is just what I needed.

Cheers

Nick

[Albalaha]

Hello jsintl

The progression we are using is as follows:

Flat bet for first 100 spins

If in profit after 100 spins, keep flat betting.  Always flat bet when in profit.

After 100 spins  if the total Losses greater than the total wins, increase bet +1 unit.

Keep bet the same for next 11 spins, then if in profit flat bet, else raise bet + 1 unit

Recheck for new bet every 11 spins.

We are currently winning 97/100 sessions.

The largest bet so far is 29 units.

The biggest drawdown so far is -304.

Total spins played = 68,117

Total Profit = 1,507 units

Average Profit/Session=15 units

Profit/spin=.022

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Nick

Isn't it only a  matter of luck that you are in a net profit still? Your progression is slow but is it enough to ward off big losses? Will it not end with a huge loss taking away whatever you have won so far as any other progression does?

[alrelax]

Isn't it only a  matter of luck that you are in a net profit still? Your progression is slow but is it enough to ward off big losses? Will it not end with a huge loss taking away whatever you have won so far as any other progression does?

And what you just said, "Will it not end with a huge loss taking away whatever you have won so far as any other progression does?", is basically what happens almost every single time, everywhere I ever play.  Even with the better skilled players. 

There are very easy defense tactics for the player, but most if not all, will believe way too much in themselves and be governed only by their own misconception of the game.

[Nickmsi]

Hello Sumit, good to hear from you. 

And yes, both you and Glen are correct.

It is a negative progression that we first started with and that will fail in long run but what we want to  see if what defenses were necessary, ie, what stop loss would be the worse, what was the maximum bets, could a Trailing Profit Stop be employed, etc.

Now we are testing a positive progression as this system wins more than loses and we are still seeing how the defense is doing.

Cheers,

Nick

[Albalaha]

And what you just said, "Will it not end with a huge loss taking away whatever you have won so far as any other progression does?", is basically what happens almost every single time, everywhere I ever play.  Even with the better skilled players. 

There are very easy defense tactics for the player, but most if not all, will believe way too much in themselves and be governed only by their own misconception of the game.

It happens with everybody because everybody uses same erroneous approach of increasing bets without any safeguard. The worst moments wait for the highest bets to get you the inevitable total loss. An empty belief that I won't get that worst moment will keep killing those stereotype progressions.

    Sadly, the topic headline doesn't match with what we are discussing herein. We aren't using any kind of maths/stats to improve from where we started. Unless a progression can successfully pass through the virtually possible worst patches without killing itself, it is not playable, in my humble opinion.

[Johno-Egalite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDw2Pu0-H4g

This video very quickly confirms the advantage of the bet selection OLD.  If we equate the finding to Baccarat, TH (in essence a chop) is will occur twice as frequent as any double HH, which of course s confirmed by the Zumma stats (50% of all hands are chops v's 25% of all hands being a single repeater). 

Just like to add, any and all losing patterns can be defined, we as system players can pick and choose our nemesis pattern, hence we should avoid those methods that fail against the most common occurring patterns, which is why I thought VDW was not a practical option to take to the gaming tables. 

Apologies if my response is dated.

[Sputnik]

Nick, I send you a personal message!

Cheers

[alrelax]

A lot has been posted by Alrelax and Gizmotron about how they win using their years of experience, knowledge of the game, situational awareness etc.

Others like Xander and Mike have posted that you need an edge.

I am not here to debate the merits of Alrelax and Gizmotron's methods, but I would like to explore Xander's and Mikes position of having an EDGE.

What is an EDGE?  Can you actually get an EDGE?  To me an EDGE would be something mathematical, statistical or physical that would turn the odds or probability in your favor.

The above is a quote from the OP.  Yes, you are absolutely correct about wins and losses.  You can never be on all sides with an Edge.  It is impossible, so--IMO, why attempt to do that.  However, trying it leaves room to improve your knowledge of reality the game produces.  Problem is, most of us are not in reality and refuse to see it. 

It is also like someone saying, that restaurant specializes in seafood and is well known for having the best seafood in town.  There is no way they could have a great Asian dish, it is impossible.  But, maybe they really do?  Maybe their sole Asian dish is horrible.  Maybe is great on the days a certain chef is working and off on the other days when that chef is not present?   

Same in baccarat.  But there is no edge that can give you consistent wins on anything that will redundantly appear.

People attempt to convert computer statistics to live gaming and those statistics were not derived from the amount of hands that you will be playing in front of.   

The real edges come from other avenues within the game of baccarat.  I don't know about the game of roulette, perhaps so or not?  But in baccarat the edges are not definable by mathematical numbers.  Disclosure:  IMO.

But there are edges.