Ok, I'm still thinking here. Lucky Strike, I think your Cut Point Methodology can be modified to benefit this method's functionality. I just did a quick read of the concept, I didnt understand it all, but my intuition says it will be beneficial when combined with the L0W registry.
Bloom

bloomone2002 should we make something out of this or should we skip it.

Gents

I put in a lot of hours on that little bugger.  Many hours of thought while building a carport.  I had that idea years ago and wanted to re-visit the thought.  

Here is my opinion:

What he calls a "reduction in volatility" is the same as just betting every tenth spin of the wheel.  You can say, "Hey, I will only face the chance of losing one spin out of ten."  You have also reduced you chances of winning to one spin out of ten.

I did find it interesting that he actually increased the house edge.  I didn't think that was possible.

Sam

OK, bloom

I reviewed your LOW idea.  Let's get specific.  You look for three Os?  What about three Ls?  Combination?

As I studied the Lw Methodology, we first had to determine what pattern the wheel was producing.  

Are you saying something like this:  When the wheel has produced three non-Ws in a row, we bet?  Example: LOO, LLO, OLO, LLL, LOL.

I'll study with you on this as it's a new twist.

Sam

bloom

Sure, start a thread.  

Could you post exactly how you are doing the test?  

I'm thinking I'll do this:

Look for the EC + EC then wait for three Ls or Os, then bet the opposite of that EC

Example:  Red/Odd is the first thing I see.  I am seeking Black/Even and wait for three spins with no Black/Even winner the bet for B/E to occur.

I assume zero is always a loss.

Is that acceptable?

Sam

Hai all,

After reading a lot of statistics books and after studying a lot of the systems/strategies that can be found on the web, the remarks of monte carlo really puzzle me (sorry, I'm not a native speaker).

Has any of you heard of this person again? I'm really interested in what he means with "inverse betting"!


greets rd

OK,

It took a while, but I finally cracked it: the statements of monte carlo are, unfortunately, not true.

By combining two EC bets, say high/low and black/red we do decrease the "volatility" when we defined this by win/loss per number of total bets, but we actually INCREASE the probability of a long losing streak!

I will not bother you with mathematics, but a simple example will show what I mean:

When we combine bets there are many ways to lose two times in a row:
break even= b/e
lose =l


l - l
b/e - l - l
b/e - b/e - l - l
etc. . .

l - l
l - b/e - l
l - b/e - b/e - l
l - b/e - b/e - b/e - l
etc. . .

l - b/e - l
b/e - l - b/e - l
b/e - b/e - l - b/e - l
etc. . .

if we do the math, the probability of losing two times "in a row": 0. 2770.  When this with only black/red:
The probability of losing 2 times in a row with black/red is equal to (19/37)*(19/37)=0. 2637 for European roulette.  In other words, the probability of losing two times in a row increased!! Well, we can actually proove that this is always the case with even money bets.

This basically means that all other conclusions drawn by monte carlo are incorrect as they depend on reduction of losing streaks.

Unfortunately.  I would, like many others, rather have it otherwise.  I tested all kind of methods for almost a year and these are my conclusions:

1.  spins are truly independent: online casino's do not need to cheat, they just have to invest in good RND generators
2.  in the end the house edge will get you
3.  progressions do not work, in the end
4.  systems where you have to bet on single numbers have a better "survival rate".  no wonder systems based on single number bets take a long time to prove unsuccessful, but in the end the house edge will get you
5.  things like Allison mixtures, Parrondo Paradox, Volatility pumping, Kelly criteria all do not work because no betting combination favors the bettor

There is one more system that I'm designing: a system that is using unlikely events to come out positive: all systems I have seen thus far focus on regular winnings.  money management is used to try to survive rough times. 

After that, I'm done with gambling: I lost (luckily) only a few hundred dollars.  And many, many hours simulating million of spins for almost all systems that I could find on internet (+ a couple of my own design that were also used to study Parrondo, Allison mixtures and Volatility pumping, Optimal strategies).  None of them were winners, although, again, systems using single numbers might give you the illusion that you have an holy grail somewhat longer than systems where you bet on outside bets.  And I found 1 system that gave you winnings 99. 7% of the time, but it was devastating 0. 3% of the time.