Well it is good fortune to be able to post this at this time.
Sometimes as noted it is darkest before the dawn, and in recent weeks after the disappointment of the flawed Macao results and then some very tentative and rather frustrating research into LWB applications, I was beginning to think the goal of a flat staked break even bet that was 'simple', looked bleak. As always, cruelly initial results look great and then the correction cuts in and with flat staking it is the torture of 'death by a thousand cuts', slow and painful. Flat staking results are notoriously able to wander off into a long and lost correction over say a 1000 spins, and that is no use in practical real time play.
I kept turning the LWB idea in my head and after a few false starts, I have come up with a fresh idea, suitably spurred by Bayes remark that 'simple' bets will not work because they are incapable of adjusting to the variations within random flow of outcomes ( to paraphrase). It was a great statement in that it was thought provoking, stunning in fact, and credit to his approach and rigorous application. However it was also disturbing, a little too glib, because it ruled out the possibility of a relatively universal trap bet that could respond to opportunities, and could at other times shut down, using the concept of virtual and live play modes ( which really upsets some mathematicians).
I use the simple construction analogy of a window - it can be shut or open. It can be open to the elements or sealed. Or a doorway.
My attitude is, like some scientists, if it works, acknowledge such and we will explain it later.
Well, virtual works for me.
WF refers to warm fuzzy theory application to capture warm to warming to hot numbers that repeat in short cycles. It is explained in some of the threads of this XXVV Blog Section.
LWB is the last winning bet in a WF game cycle ( the cycle averages usually around 20 spins) and is thus the number that has appeared three times in a short cycle ( from 3 spins to 40 spins or more sometimes).
How to trap the LWB, and it is close enough to catch it direct or its neighbour on the wheel, or on the table.
By trial and error I am going for nine numbers wheel, and 9 numbers table.
Wheel central target and 4 neighbours either side, eg if 0 is the target play 12,35,3,26, 0,32,15,19,4
Also if target is 5 play on wheel the 3 streest around but as straight up numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
The only variation is playing 0 on the table with neighbours ... I suggest 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,34,35,36 ( ten)
Play both bets at the same time once the WF hit has been made ( no matter whether WF1 or WF 12 - what qualifies is the final winning WF bet).
Key breakthrough here is play both flat but when one hit is made halt the game and close it and await the next game.
Outcomes will be....
+27 or -9 if not hit
+18 or -18 if not hit
+9 or -27 if not hit
0 or -36 if not hit
-9 or -45 if not hit
-18 or -54 if not hit
and stop at 6 attempts maximum but sooner if hit
Outcomes for the Table Game are identical as above
However outcomes by combining the two games can be....
W1 W1 +54
W1 x +54 -9 = +45
x x -18
W2W2 +54 = +36
x x -9 -9 = -18
W2 x +27-9 = +18 thus o/a +0
and so on
worst case scenario
x6 x6 -54 -54 = -108
compare to a last minute success
W6 W6 -18 -18 = -36
x6 W6 -54 -18 = -72
( alternative to this staking and limit of Stop Loss after 6 attempts is to keep going on progression/ step and we will measure to see distribution of outcomes in this bet approach. So far in 100 bet attempts I have had 1 that required a x6 x6 SL and that was not in this spin sample.
Here is a study of 1000 spins from Martin Blakey played at Launceston, Australia
46 games of WF thus 46 sets of LWB 33 winning games (if you call +0 a win), 13 losers.
TOTAL RESULT +290 units 1000 spins audited result
This is a very small sample so do not take this result literally but it is a superior result to other LWB work. It may be we can combine WF play with this LWB method, and again the hope is that the WF results can be supported, balanced and vice versa.
Another approach once we establish a possible break even status flat staking on a suitable sample size is to step and progress in key circumstances usually to reinforce / enhance advantageous postions, and stop play or go defensive in an adverse series. That is the window/ drawbridge analogy.
Feel free to ask questions or provide short session examples.
Please do not send me results of 25,000 results from RNG ( unless it is successful- lol).
My focus is short session samples and the MB examples were taken from his own live play.
I will now run this through a week of Wiesbaden table 3 session spins, day by day and publish WF and LWB results.
This is a little test to see whether a 'simple bet' can operate, or what is needed to enhance it if needed. Hope this helps. i have received several PM's from experienced players who do step and progress on WF type repeat targets.
One last thought - is to find a further layer of qualification before attacking live a WF target. Perhaps it needs to be qualified in a finales group or street, or wheel section or some other set as well, ie multiple and stronger qualification, an enhanced layered bet.
XXVV May 1 2014