STANDARD DEVIATION BEATING EUROPEAN ROULETTE WHEELS???

[Nathan Detroit]

Cubano,

Maybe you have missed this part in my post:

CLARIFICATION:


My idea : If you target a dozen all those  numbers  might best be sequential  LIKE  the   Grand game  ( 17 numbers) 0 with 8 numbers  on each side. Or the orphans, , the Orphelins or for that matter   tiers de  cylindre.

Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!


P.S. Sorry for the interruption. Keep going  with your original post  . I know certain things  are difficult to explain in order to get the message across.

[Far-Q]

I have ran this for 3x100 spin sessions ( just cos I like to test for 100 spin sessions).

1x100  +12 ( best  +19 worst -15 )
2x100  -16  (best +8 worst -16)
3x100 +22 (best +22 worst - 12)

[GLC]

Thanks for your system.  I was beginning to think that the end of new roulette systems had come.

You explanation is very clear and you presented the math to peak our interest.  It is a very simple system to play and could be played on the dozens or columns easy enough with pen and paper.

One question, "Have you tested this with any kind of progression, or only with the bet system you presented?"

In other words, if you were to reach a loss point of say down 14 units, does this hit often enough to consider increasing your bets to $50, $50, $200 in hopes of recovering your losses more quickly?

Thanks again,

George

[cubanopro]

I have ran this for 3x100 spin sessions ( just cos I like to test for 100 spin sessions).

1x100  +12 ( best  +19 worst -15 )
2x100  -16  (best +8 worst -16)
3x100 +22 (best +22 worst - 12)

Thank you man! I apreciate it! Then again this is not representative at all...we would need someone to code it and test it for say 10 000 spins at least.. Know someone?

Cubano

[cubanopro]

Thanks for your system.  I was beginning to think that the end of new roulette systems had come.

You explanation is very clear and you presented the math to peak our interest.  It is a very simple system to play and could be played on the dozens or columns easy enough with pen and paper.

One question, "Have you tested this with any kind of progression, or only with the bet system you presented?"

In other words, if you were to reach a loss point of say down 14 units, does this hit often enough to consider increasing your bets to $50, $100, $200 in hopes of recovering your losses more quickly?

Thanks again,

George

Hello George!
It's always pleasant to hear good comments like yours. Thank you! Now concerning the progression I have not tried any other type of progression but it does sound appealing. I have to admit that it wouldn't sound like the craziest idea.  I've been having some thoughts for some time now about upgrading my betting system and here is what I had in mind (tell me what you think):

Once again, with the standard deviation we could think of something. But for me to try something first it has to work on paper or else it becomes gambling (something I don't particularly enjoy)... Ok so what if instead of considering a loss every 5 spins missing a third dozen we would simply increase our bets on the next 5 spins? The percentages would change but so would the risk ratio... I will come back with something, I have to think this trough..

Thanks for your comment George!
Cubano  

[TicTacToe]

Ok ....still confused

Your explanation explains the 25,25,100 bets

Where would you use the  25,50 bets  or the 25 bet


TTT

Hope I'm not too thick headed.

[cubanopro]

Ok ....still confused

Your explanation explains the 25,25,100 bets

Where would you use the  25,50 bets  or the 25 bet


TTT

Hope I'm not too thick headed.

Hi man! ok I'll try to be more clear. The only time that my progression consist of 2 bets is when this happens for example:

1,1,2

The dozen #1 fell 2 times and dozen #2 fell once... the first level of standard deviation says that 68% of the time every 5 spins all dozens will fall between 1 and 3 times. What is the dozen missing? Dozen #3... Consequently I now have to bet on that dozen since I know that 68% of the time it will fall in the next two spins.

1,1,2,1

The dozen #3 still isn't there...that means that I have to bet a second time because of the 68% law stated above...

1,1,2,1,3

Winner!

I hope you get the point. The only moment i have to bet only once is when I have something like this:
1,1,1,2
I only bet once because after the fifth spin no matter what happens I stop betting. In other words remember this: ***In order for me to bet, two dozens need to fall in less than 5 spins, so that I can bet on the remaining one. If only one falls...no bet for that sequence of 5 spins and it's not a loss. That's why I say I lose less than 32% of the time.

Hope this time it was clear enough!
Cubano

[GLC]

Please note that I made a correction in my last post.  

I had written to increase to $50, $100, $200.

I changed it to "increase to $50, $50, $200."

This keeps the same ratio as your first level of bets at $25, $25, $100.

Here's an example of what I was thinking.  If you don't mind, I'll use units rather than $$ amounts.

Let's say we bet 1-1-2.  If we lose all three bets, we bet 1-1-2 again.

If we lose the second set, we will be down -8 units.

Now we raise our bets to 2-2-4.  As long as we hit on any of the bets, we continue betting 2-2-4 until we are back to even or a new high.

If we lose 2-2-4 twice without winning, we could go to 3-3-6 or 4-4-8.

We continue to bet at a level until we are even or up before starting over with 1-1-2.

We could incorporate Hermes' leveller concept and continue betting at 4-4-8 until we recover.

I'm just thinking that if the hit rate is high enough, this should work okay in the long run.

My problem is that I'm not good enough at math to be able to support such a bet strategy with confidence that we're not introducing a flaw in the system.

GLC

P.S.  I just had another thought.  Occasionally a dozen can sleep for a very long time.  I was thinking if it wouldn't make things a little safer if we waited for a dozen that caused us to lose 3 bets to finally hit before we re-track and start betting again.

While testing this, I ran into a losing streak where the 3rd dozen slept for18 spins.  That was 9 losing bets in a row.  If I had waited until the 3rd dozen finally hit before tracking again, I could have saved myself a lot of units.

Play money for now, of course.

[GLC]

Here's a test session I did before retiring.

Doz   Bet   W/L   Total

1
1
2
3   1   W   +2
1
1
1
3
2   1   W   +4
2
3
2   1   L   +3
1   1   W   +5
1
3
3   1   L   +4
1   1   L   +3
1   2   L   +1
1
2
1   1   L   0
1   1   L   -1
2   2   L   -3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
2   2   W   +1
1
3
3   2   L   -1
3   2   L   -3
2   4   W   +5
3
3
1
2   2   W   +7  This is a mistake, should be +9.  New hi so re-set to 1
2
2
1
2   1   L   +6
2   1   L   +5
2   2   L   +3
1
3
3   1   L   +2
2   1   W   +4
3
3
3
2
3   1   L   +3
1   1   W   +5
2
2
3
1   1   W   +7
3
2
1   1   W   +9
1
1
2
2   1   L   +8
1   1   L   +7
3   2   W   +11
2
1
2   1   L   +10
1   1   L   +9
3   2   W   +13
2
1
1   1   L   +12
2   1   L   +11
1   2   L   +9
1
2
2
1
3
3   1   L   +8
2   1   W   +10
2
3
1   1   W   +12
1
1
2
3   1   W   +14

As you can see, at least in this run, it recovered very well.  Of course, not every run will be so favorable, but this at least shows us what can happen.

I know that I didn't wait through all 5 spins to start betting after 2 different dozens, but I'm a little impatient and I don't think in the long run it makes that much difference.

Sorry that the columns don't quite line up, but you can see the chart clearly enough, I think.  I typed up the post on a word processor and when I pasted it into my reply, the tabs didn't carry over exactly.

George

[cubanopro]

Here's an example of what I was thinking.  If you don't mind, I'll use units rather than $$ amounts.

Let's say we bet 1-1-2.  If we lose all three bets, we bet 1-1-2 again.

If we lose the second set, we will be down -8 units.

Now we raise our bets to 2-2-4.  As long as we hit on any of the bets, we continue betting 2-2-4 until we are back to even or a new high.

If we lose 2-2-4 twice without winning, we could go to 3-3-6 or 4-4-8.

We continue to bet at a level until we are even or up before starting over with 1-1-2.

We could incorporate Hermes' leveller concept and continue betting at 4-4-8 until we recover.

I'm just thinking that if the hit rate is high enough, this should work okay in the long run.

My problem is that I'm not good enough at math to be able to support such a bet strategy with confidence that we're not introducing a flaw in the system.

Hi GLC! I appreciate your enthusiasm and that is the main reason I decided to post my system on this forum, so that we can hopefully find a solution all together to take over the house (like those MIT guys did with blackjack). The thing is that a progression like that would not work I'm afraid so...

First of all, you're assuming that the system always bets 3 times on every 5 spin. That would change the whole thing... Second of all, I calculated and according to the third level of standard deviation (99,7%) every dozen will fall between 1 and 14 times every 22 spins. This means that forget the 18 spins you were talking about, it could and it will go even further. And that's not all. It says that it could take 22 spins for a dozen to come out but are you forgetting that 0.3% says it could be more than 22? In other words, never mind  thinking that raising the betting will change anything. All we will do is lower our losing rate by a lot and raise our winning rate but it will also SKYROCKET our risk ratio and even if we would only lose 0.3% of the time it will be more than enough to kill us 1248615637 times.... Thirdly and last point, you said you were testing the system with play money... Of course by all mean you're free to do whatever you want but I honestly discourage you to use RNG because even if you win or lose it does not prove anything. On the other hand, real tables follow all the same rules and standard deviation is one of them. Anyways I think that if you really want to test this system you should find someone who can code this and test it with live roulette results. That way you could get a realistic expectation of the system's performance.  
Anyhow I thank you for your ideas and I hope more will come because that is the only way we will be able to meet our goal: success!

Have a good day my friend!
Cubano

[cubanopro]

Here's a test session I did before retiring.

Doz   Bet   W/L   Total

1
1
2
3   1   W   +2
1
1
1
3
2   1   W   +4
2
3
2   1   L   +3
...

Hi GLC!

Wow thanks for your contribution! From where exactly did you imported these numbers???

[beretta28]

Thanks to Cubano:method,answers to questions and explanations very clear,for most of members. . . . .

1st comment:If your method has solid mathematical basis,my suggestion is not to complicate it with progressions.
                     Your three progressions(1,1,4   1,2   1) are sufficient for long term winnings.
                     Progressions could speed up the wins ,but also increase drammatically your deficit ,if  very bad streaks occur!
                     With YOUR PROGRESSION ,at least 100000 spins are necessary for  conclusions if your method is valid.
                     10000 spins are not enough.
                     
Question:)  Three spins:2 2 3  you play 1,2 progression on 1st Dozen:fourth hit 2(Lose!) fifth hit 1(win!)

                   DO YOU CONSIDER THE LAST TWO SPINS OF THE PREVIOUS FIVE SPINS CYCLE(DOZENS 2 AND 1),LIKE THE                   BEGINNING OF A NEW FIVE SPINS CYCLE AND YOU SHOULD PLAY 3RD DOZEN with 1,1,4 PROGRESSION or YOU CONSIDER CLOSED THE PREVIOUS CYCLE AND LOOK FOR NEXT SPINS BEFOREPLAYiNG?
In other words you play ONLY five spins blocks or you play on a rolling basis?
I hope it's clear!


Thanks
                   

[Far-Q]

DO YOU CONSIDER THE LAST TWO SPINS OF THE PREVIOUS FIVE SPINS CYCLE(DOZENS 2 AND 1),LIKE THE                   BEGINNING OF A NEW FIVE SPINS CYCLE AND YOU SHOULD PLAY 3RD DOZEN with 1,1,4 PROGRESSION or YOU CONSIDER CLOSED THE PREVIOUS CYCLE AND LOOK FOR NEXT SPINS BEFOREPLAYiNG?
In other words you play ONLY five spins blocks or you play on a rolling basis?
  .....................

I asked the same question....see the reply #11

[beretta28]

Thanks Far-Q.
I missed it...sorry!

[Far-Q]

Thanks Far-Q.
I missed it...sorry!

No worries here mate 

[Far-Q]

-