Quote from: Turner on July 03, 2013, 10:25:37 AM
Hi sogget
I play first dd because i wanto just win. that's it. 1:2 odds.
I play h/l to get the dd loss back...and win 1:1
1:2 followed by 1:1. In the trigger quad area.
Then on to the quad via streets.
The quads will only fit into 2dozens completly
1 =D1,2  then low
2 = D1,2 then low
3= D2,3 then high
4=D2,3 then high.

Half my wins are dd hit where the trigger dint hit

thanks, got it now

edit, first test 100 spins - ends +13 units, so far so good
(I wasn't retracking, after win start from scratch)

Hello Turner,

I've been looking at the "quads" from a different viewpoint which may be worth exploring.

Here is a recent record of successive real results as they happened to me and noted in their respective quads: 1,2,3 and 4.

424344431124404342244414
334222133341121221442414
412424411221221244322214
412114422242224333121422
311144133422044411221214
144221244424314143414242
211............

Do you see what plainly stands out?

There are such a LOT of "repeat" quads!

So my idea is targetting repeats.

Strategy is to wait for FOUR results WITHOUT A REPEAT then start betting FOR a repeat quad to occur...

The betting strategy used can be same as "quad cycle" if you prefer ie. use street betting OR parachute "cocoon" type bets as suggested by yourself and GreatGrampa.

I would also suggest not chasing for more than 5 bets - but the repeats ARE quite commonplace and will happen.

Here we go:

4
1
2
1  four without repeat (4-1-2-1)
1  WON
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
4 four without repeat (4-1-3-4)
4 WON


Atlantis.

@A

if 15 is the largest space between repeats, less your four tracker, u still need a Nine Point progression list.
Any suggestions?
C

---

Sorry I did not at first see your bet limited to 5 suggestion.

Thanks Atlantis....I like it...and I had noticed.


One thing that isn't clear (to me anyhow)


When we have 4 without a repeat, what are we betting on?


1 came up WIN and 4 came up WIN, but why were we betting 1 then 4 in the first place ?

i think he means to bet "blind" that after 4 tracker, non repeat numbers,
U then bet that the next number will repeat, and so on for the next 5 series numbers.


I think so! 

oky doky....but.....


If we play for a repeat, and it doesn't happen, we track again?


If we don't, the idea failed and we are just waiting for it to hit for no reason.


It makes more sense to track again on the second part of the progression.


perhaps atlantis can explain.

Ok...for sure, tho if U re-read his small example, he does re-track until there are 4 in a row, non repeats and then plays again.
I guess, U could as U say, take up the next level, as U will be potentially down by 5 units, on a complete 5 series loss,
(which, if U think about it, is a Cycle in itself!!) lol


I see what U mean! 

I shouldn't speak too soon, as I am just a rookie. But this is one method that interested me, and I was looking at means of accelerating the game, as this is tad slow.  So I will share what is holding up in the testing so far for me. But wanted to hear your opinion.

It is played a little like the "for" vs "against" method. After two losses, virtual bets until a win and then commence from where it was left. Following is how it works for the numbers atlantis posted.

[reveal=  Here is +150u from 80 spins]
4 - track
2 - track. Two different sectors. Play the last two sectors appeared.
4 - for. win. + 6.
3 - against. Win + 12
4 - for. win. +18
4 - against. loss. +12
4 - for win +24
3 - against. loss +18
1 - for. loss +6
1 - against. virtual loss
2 - for. virtual loss
4 - against. virtual win.
4 - for. win. +30
0 - against. loss +24
4 - for. win +36
3 - against. win +42
4 - for. win +48
2 - against. win +54
2 - for, win +60
4 - against. loss +54
4 - for. win +66
4 - against. loss +60
1 - for. loss +48
4 - against. virtual loss
3- for. virtual loss
3 - against. virtual loss
4- for. virtual win
2 - against.win +72
2- for win +78
2 0 against. loss +72
1 for. loss +60
3 - against virtual win
3 - for. win +84
3 - against. loss +78
4 - for loss +66
1 - against virtual win
1 - for. win. +90
2 - against. win +96
1 - for win +102
2 - against. loss +96
2 - for win. +108
1 - against. loss +102
4 - for. loss +90
4 - against virtual loss
2 - for virtual loss
4 - against. virtual loss
1 - for virtual loss
4 - against. virtual loss
4 - for virtual win
1 - against. loss - +66
2 - virtualloss
4 - for . virtual loss
2- against. virtual loss
4 - for. virtual win
4 - for. win 72
1- against win 78
1 - for win 84
2- against. win 90
2 - for win 96
1 - against. loss 90
2 - for. win 102
2- against. loss 96
1 - for . win 108
2 - against loss 102
4 - for loss 90
4 - against. virtual loss
3 - for. virtual loss
2 - against. virtual win
2 - win. 114
2 - against .lost +108
1 - for. loss +96
4 - aga8hst virtua win
4 - for, win - 120
1 - against. 114
2 - for. loss 102
1 - against. virtual loss
1 - for. virtual win
4 - against. 126
4 - for . 132
2 - against. 138
2 - for 144
2 - against. 138
4 - for 150
[/reveal]

sorry, Im not clear at all.


I don't see what you are betting on, how you are betting, or what for and against means.


You will have to explain (to me anyhow)

Sorry Turner. Was unclear in my explanation.
Basically am trying to play quads as even chances. So at any point in time, I play two quads together (6 streets).

Say for example, the last three spins are 25, 19, 2. This comprises of 2 quads. I play both these quads. Now every spin, I alternate between two quads that are appeared last to quads that didn't appear.

For example, if the spin data is like this 25, 19, 2, 2, 17, 12, 30, 3. I play like.

25
19
2 - tracking spin ends. two distinct quads.
2 - bet for one of last two quads that appeared to repeat. win
17 - bet against the last two quads that appeared to repeat. Win
12 - bet for one of last two quads that appeared to repeat. win
30 - bet against the last two quads that appeared to repeat. win
3 - bet for one of last two quads that appeared to repeat. loss

In case I get a double loss, I stay on the same bet selection for one spin. ie, stay on for if I was betting for.
I am using a simple cyclic progression which is +1 win/-1loss on cycles of 5.

I am attaching the complete play for the numbers that you have played in the first post here. Refer to sheet "Play 2". Will be keen to know your views. I have done number of tests and it seems to hold up.
Note : Play 1 sheet was a different experiment. Will explain that probably once am sure with more tests.

@Priyanka

Very ingenious idea for playing the quads. Worth a try. Hope it holds up.

@Turner

1
3
1
4 - four quad results without a repeat: trigger to bet quad 4
3 - lost: bet quad 3
1 - lost: bet quad 1
1 - won: repeat of quad 1 occurred.

But Priyanka's idea might be even better!

A.

Atlantis....thanks...
I think my way and my progression works but its far too slow. These ideas are great. Im very pleased you guys are trying to improve it.
there's a horrible possibility that slow death over hours to win 10u is the only way for CWS...and aim for 1 loss in 100 ....BUT...I don't know about you...but I have better things to do than sit for hours to win a few units.
Fine balance between a hobby becoming a boring job.
My heads in Menorca now....leave on Friday. Im gonna read Brett Mortons playing to win....and come back refreshed
Thanks to you and Priyanka for taking interest in this bet selection idea.

@priyanka....


I hope Im doing this wrong, but this is simply my first file in RX that I had downloaded a while back. Its my first test.


It goes horribly wrong for me. Can you check it pls?


SIDE NOTE: There is 7,7,7,7 in this set of numbers. Most rare

Hey Turner,

My guess is you are playing it right. It indeed goes horrible with 9 straight losses within the first few spins. But I guess its part of the game, as it recovers with 6 straight wins after that. Following is the summary and the BR graph for all the 271 spins you have posted. I have also attached the excel (refer Play2 - session 2 sheet).

51 spins - -6u
100 spins - +90u
151 spins - +228u
200 spins - +336u
271 spins - +312u

[attachimg=2]

Cheers
Yanks!

PS : May be we can consider waiting for virtual win when there are 3 consecutive losses.

Thanks priyanka....just making sure i understood. I've always been excellent at understanding what's going on in my head....but slow with others ideas.
Looks like we are on Sams wave again