BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

Topic: 16 versus 9  (Read 10912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
Re: 16 versus 9
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2016, 01:53:56 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • This is tricky and does require some counter intuitive thinking but from these two samples from differing live sources, and both flat staked with a simple Stop Loss after 2 attempts, the result appears most encouraging. Beware.  Later results may swing in the other direction. We shall see, and if you can get your head around what I am visualising here, and you can manage the results and window treatment during live play, then this may be a rewarding application.

    We are betting for the existing 21 'targets' NOT to show, and thus are seeking to have the 'other' 16 instead to show. I suppose this sort of approach relates to the loosely labelled theory of 'Law of the Third'. Refer to Bayes recent exposition on this subject.

    These are just first conceptual thoughts here outlined, so tread carefully.

    On the plus side note that we are to target 16 numbers, and 0 is just one of the 37 overall. Thus the results in the tiny samples shown already show defeat of the house edge and no Zero Management  ( ZM) is required.


    Offline wannawin

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 727
    • Don't get into Drugs, you will enjoy them!
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #16 on: June 12, 2016, 02:50:21 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • So interesting. The disclaimer to maintain caution is appreciated. Please continue to share these topics that you have an eager audience.
    say things directly to show respect for other people's time. Walter.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1624
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #17 on: June 12, 2016, 04:23:39 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Thank you for your comments - they are much appreciated. As all things are cyclic, so is my current appetite to experiment, write, share and push some boundaries.

    There is much going on in the many fields of research in roulette, and I am always keen to try to find ways that can be applied live in the casino without technology but where sophisticated thought has been developed and refined with engineering efficiency to play simply and effectively with consistent success, handling notes and data within the format of conventional casino roulette record cards. This format is ideal.

    With uncertain times ahead the simplicity of cash machine application at the roulette table is appealing. This is a major challenge, but I believe is a realisable goal over the next 9 months. I am working on new ways, reviewing past methods and seeing them in a fresh light, and objective criticism.

    Among these is the work of Martin Blakey which we have started, and will be explored with a review of short managed progressions to bridge necessary gaps. The current work of Bayes regarding Gaps and Law of the Third is very much appreciated. The WF theory will be reviewed with short progression also and the theory of a moving window of 16 targets. Also I am exploring this Reverse Bet notion which came about, like some good ideas, by accident or default.

    The work and words of Gizmotron are always deeply appreciated, and the challenges of my work in CWB on columns and dozens, and the Column Dominant will also be discussed and shared.

    My own Private Bet needs further refining. The enemy is always Variance. I am adapting some ideas from top professionals in the world financial markets to manage variance, and I will discuss all these over coming weeks.

    These are exciting times and I want to embrace and share this energy, within reason.

    Further test results on the Theory of the Reverse Bet will be posted to follow.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1624
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #18 on: June 12, 2016, 04:42:00 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • The result testing will now be titled carefully as #1  MB ( Martin Blakey) 16     and #2  RB ( reverse bet) 16

    Test today from rouletteplayers.org table

    100 spins

    46 cycle events  average  2.20  ( closer toward 2.0 and below 2.50 is  good signal)

    Distribution Chart  Test   MB 16

      1    2     3    4     5     6     7     8

     18   15    5    4     3     1     0     0


    Trial and error from this and other samples indicates an effective SL is after the second attempt.

    Staking is 2 on bet one and 3 on bet two on the fixed  corner bets - in live ply MB adjusted selection of which corners to play as the results came in, and his assistant helped him track comparative performance. Crown Casino permitted this in The Private Members Room.

    Results

     18 x +10    =  +180

     15 x  +7    =   +105

    total                + 285

    less

    13 SL x -20      - 260

    net gain            +25    with Zero Account as bonus   4 Zero hits  average gain +15    total +60

    TOTAL               +85 units in 100 spins


    By aiming to achieve close to break even on the corner bets the Zero Account provides a safe bonus. As the game cycle proceeds, close the session when the net balance is ahead, with a target gain of say +50 units per 100 spins played.

    Stop Loss on the corner bet after 2 failed attempts is -20 units.

    This is the cycle outcome and the comparative dominance of 1+2 bets is very clear. We are untroubled by any rare events that go to 10 or more attempts ( one went to 13 yesterday).

    4
    2
    3
    2
    4
    1
    4
    3
    2
    1
    1
    5
    1
    1
    1
    5
    3
    3
    1
    5
    2
    3
    1
    1
    2
    2
    1
    2
    2
    2
    1
    1
    1
    1
    4
    2
    2
    1
    2
    2
    1
    1
    6
    2
    1
    2
    ------

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1624
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #19 on: June 12, 2016, 08:33:08 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Here is the chart of outcomes and distributions from an evening game on rouletteplayers.org.

    Tough session and I saw this from the outset although continued. I recovered loss by alternate technique plays private bet and the balance on the account remains at +20,000 units.

    Cycle sequence

    2
    1
    1
    9
    2
    6
    3
    2
    1
    5
    2
    3
    12
    1
    3
    2
    1
    5
    1
    5
    1
    5
    3
    4
    -----

    no opportunity to gain traction to recover in this session

    75 spins  24 cycles  average 3.10   ( very high)

    Distribution Chart

    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10   11   12


    7    5    4    1    4    1                1                  1



    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1624
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: 16 versus 9
    « Reply #20 on: June 12, 2016, 10:42:41 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • The previous session is an example of the 'variance' we have to deal with. How do you handle such a session? Flat staking or even gentle 2-3 stepping saw a decline in bank because there was just no traction with for example 3 wins a row. The first two cycles were just observation. That is why I jumped in -lol. Recall I am playing only 1 and 2 attempts and then SL.

    The other techniques got back my balance but for the purposes of testing this 'difficult' series on rouletteplayers.org is interesting and hopefully useful.

    The high rates some players are achieving are I believe through extended progressions - certainly not flat staking-lol. However give credit where it is due and you can observe their reports on rouletteforum and on Google search.

    So what do we do with this MB 16.

    Well we do what MB did and we will explore short/ limited progressions used with these corner bets, and we will view it all as MM.

    I will research past data, the book and if readers who are past students or fans of MB wish to contribute they are very welcome. I will fence off those unintelligent trolls however - you know who they are - and they are not on this forum.

    For clarity I will do this work under a new thread heading MB 16.

    Then on this thread I will continue to explore and test the mysterious RB 16 and give a clearer explanation of why and how it came about.