John's street system.

[John Gold]

Cheers Spin Tester, I stopped testing the 4 missing streets version a while ago. I did have 3 progression busts in a row. Sh*t happens    I still ended up in the + testing that way, but not by much over a lot of spins.
It will be interesting to see if my 5 street variation heads the same way. Progressions are great when they are working, however they do give the illusion that you have a great system when that may not necessarily be the case.
I will do some more testing over the weekend myself and post up the figures when I have finished. 

[Paulus the Woodgnome]

Hi, what progression are you using for 5 streets?

[SpinTester]

Hi John,

A further 50 real spins test, and profit now at +816, but included another progression burst.

I think Ill stop testing this one as I think it will burst the progression once every 50 sessions or so, which would be a lot of work for little profit as you have just eluded to.

I will have a look at your 5 street system over the next week or so, and see what I can come up with in the way of testing and results. . . . . .

Spin

[Kingspin]

On the plus side this system during my own personal tests at times held out over very very long sessions at the online wheel. I rate this system 7.5 out of ten. This is a method I would play again- well done for one reasonably good system.  

better than a lot of other whacko methods around. 

[SpinTester]

Just so I can finally put the original version of this system to bed, using real spins and the original progression and after 100 sessions it would be minus 520 units.   Using my more aggressive progression, and the same 100 sessions it would be down to minus 200 units.

I am going to try the 5 street sleeper later tonight when I can d/l the software, and will report back my findings.

[SpinTester]

550 spins of the wheel, real wheel numbers, +206 units. . . . .

as stated by John earlier, the play is quite slow, I think 550 spins might take over 10 hours, however I havent seen the progression go past the 8th step (out of 10) so it feels quite safe. . . . .  its only gone over the 5th step in the progression twice (once to 6 and once to 8 ). . . . . .  and who really cares how slow the winning is?!?!?

The progression I am using is;

Step 1 - 1 chip (5 total) - 7 Profit
Step 2 - 2 chips (10) - 9 Profit
Step 3 - 3 chips (15) - 6 Profit
Step 4 - 5 chips (25) - 5 Profit
Step 5 - 9 chips (45) - 8 Profit
Step 6 - 15 chips (75) - 5 Profit
Step 7 - 26 chips (130) - 7 Profit
Step 8 - 44 chips (220) - 3 Profit
Step 9 - 76 chips (380) - 7 Profit
Step 10 - 130 chips (650) - 5 Profit

Dunno if anyone can suggest a better progression (John, maybe???) as it this one tanks it loses 1555 units!!!

However, will continue testing at this level and see what happens.

[Kingspin]

Playing progressions looks very good "on paper" the only problem is when your putting real money down and not just fun chips , i have systems where i can win every stage of my progression but when you have thousands of pounds all depending where a ball drops it sort of sucks and takes pleasure out of the game. 

[John Gold]

Hello Spin Tester + Kingspin 

Spin, It is slower, but it is safer. As for the progression, I like the one you are using because it covers 10 steps and gives you a decent profit on each win. If you are more risk averse and don't mind just going to 8 steps. . Here is one that only costs 345 units. The average profit per win is only 4 units. With your one, I see it is about 6. There is a big difference in the risk however. In all my testing with the missing 5 streets, I have never went past step 8 yet.

1) 5 x 1 = 5. win 12. profit 7 / lose 5.
2) 5 x 1 = 5. win 12. profit 2 / lose 10.
3) 5 x 2 = 10. win 24. profit 4 / lose 20.
4) 5 x 3 = 15. win 36. profit 1 / lose 35.
5) 5 x 6 = 30. win 72. profit 7 / lose 65.
6) 5 x 10 = 50. win 120. profit 5 / lose 115.
7) 5 x 17 = 85. win 204. profit 4 / lose 200.
8. 5 x 29 = 145. win 348. profit 3 / lose 345.

What may happen here because the variation is slower, is for it to just take longer for it to even itself out. This may not be a bad thing if you play for real, because then it really does give you a decent chance to build up a few bankrolls. I don't think we can really ask for anything more than that when playing these type of methods.

[SpinTester]

Hello Spin Tester + Kingspin 

Spin, It is slower, but it is safer. As for the progression, I like the one you are using because it covers 10 steps and gives you a decent profit on each win. If you are more risk averse and don't mind just going to 8 steps. . Here is one that only costs 345 units. The average profit per win is only 4 units. With your one, I see it is about 6. There is a big difference in the risk however. In all my testing with the missing 5 streets, I have never went past step 8 yet.

1) 5 x 1 = 5. win 12. profit 7 / lose 5.
2) 5 x 1 = 5. win 12. profit 2 / lose 10.
3) 5 x 2 = 10. win 24. profit 4 / lose 20.
4) 5 x 3 = 15. win 36. profit 1 / lose 35.
5) 5 x 6 = 30. win 72. profit 7 / lose 65.
6) 5 x 10 = 50. win 120. profit 5 / lose 115.
7) 5 x 17 = 85. win 204. profit 4 / lose 200.
8. 5 x 29 = 145. win 348. profit 3 / lose 345.

What may happen here because the variation is slower, is for it to just take longer for it to even itself out. This may not be a bad thing if you play for real, because then it really does give you a decent chance to build up a few bankrolls. I don't think we can really ask for anything more than that when playing these type of methods.

Hi John,

This progression looks a lot safer as less chips are being risked - I too have not seen the progression go beyond 8 steps (yet!!) so will use this in my further testing.

Thanks again, will report back my findings in the next couple of days 

[SpinTester]

Playing progressions looks very good "on paper" the only problem is when your putting real money down and not just fun chips , I have systems where I can win every stage of my progression but when you have thousands of pounds all depending where a ball drops it sort of sucks and takes pleasure out of the game. 

I understand this totally, and wouldnt feel comfortable myself placing thousands of pounds to win a couple back..... thats why I am conducting all my testing using Spielbank Wiesbaden Casino spins as they are real numbers and not RNG ones, as they (for me) are more reliable for testing....

I beleive there are a couple of real online wheels available that allow you 0.10c chips; therefore using Johns progression he just stated your maximum bankroll burst is 345 chips, or $34.50.  I would never start to play any system for real money with less than 3 full bankrolls, and $100 seems about right for this.  It looks so far to be a slow but reliable system and hopefully more testing will show this.  If it stands up to 500 sessions (on this system that would be around about 3500 spins I am guessing) and shows a profit then I would be happy to put $100 of my own money in 

[SpinTester]

I have just changed to your progression, and would be +149 units from the sessions (1-29) above.  Less profits, but less risk....

Will continue testing tonight 

[SpinTester]

burst the progression twice, now at -458 

think thats all I need to see, am going to have a look at the progression and see if I can work it, but think thats testing over 

[John Gold]

Well Spin, them results are a shame. It probably goes to show what many of us already suspect. Hot numbers, cold numbers, all a load of cobblers. 
I thought the bet selection and progression could buy us some time, but it does really show that you just can't say because 15 numbers have not appeared for 20 spins or whatever,  that they are due to hit. In that respect, progressions really are an illusion and it is just a matter of time before the bubble is burst.
What this should do is to maybe help some people move in another direction now and look for alternative ways to beat the wheel. I am not being negative, far from it.
Thank you Spin for going to the time and trouble to test this idea. 

[insidebet]

John Gold is so right!
Progressions are NOT the answer.  I thought we ALL would have learned this much so far. But I guess not!

Insidebet

[SpinTester]

Hey John, no problems testing for you, am glad we can all draw some conclusions from my doing so.....

[SpinTester]

-