Iwonder
Perseverant Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 82
VLSroulette.com Member
|
 |
« on: April 30, 2008, 03:39:30 AM » |
 Reply
|
A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted. I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.
The system was described in this way:
Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)
If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.
If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.
Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.
If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression
The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.
A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.
I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit. I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in. When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)
Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit. I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units. This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).
This inspired me to test further. I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers
A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted. I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.
The system was described in this way:
Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)
If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.
If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.
Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.
If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression
The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.
A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.
I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit. I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in. When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)
Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit. I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units. This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).
This inspired me to test further. I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers that Lohnro gave me through the process ( yes Lohnro, all 3million plus).
This took about 2 weeks, with the databse completing a file of numbers and importing the next one. From the 1998 file, there was a -6978 result flat betting.
1999,2000-5 files all generated results between +17000 and +38000 flat betting.
I also tested the progression at the same time. The progression results were within 2000 units of the flat betting each time, but the drawdown over the course of each year was invariably much greater.
My questions are:
Does anybody remember this system?
Did anybody else test it?
Is anybody willing to a: test my program to see where I've stuffed up or
b: write something independantly to test this
I have played this way at dublinbet for about the last two months and am up 500 units.
There are two things I have observed by playing this:
1 It is a slow grind. If you only play a couple of sessions, you can easily walk away with consecutive losses.
2 It is boring. 1 bet every 4 spins, you need to watch your coffee/tea/beer etc intake while you wait.
Alright, that's about it. It's up to you guys if this topic sinks or swims.
Cheers
|
November 20, 2007, 02:14:38 AM