The Eggleston Betting system

[harald]

Just be sure after a win that you wait for the next trigger, which in this case is a new movement to the left.    You don't automatically start betting to the left after a win to the right.   

But after that right bet your next bet must be left?
Sorry if I ask some things more then once or repeat myself.  .  .  but I like to be sure. 
Let's say after a win on right my first trigger is right again.  .  .  do I just keep on spinning till I have a trigger for left?.  .  .  or do I follow the first trigger that comes up.  .  .  .  so in this case bet on right again?

There is often a couple of tracking spins before the trigger for your next bet.    Otherwise, you seem to have it just right. 

There's 1 thing I also don't understand.  .  .  and that's your progressive bets of 1,2,4,8 etc. 
If you use that progression on a 2 dozen bets your always behind if you win. 

You bet 1$ on 2 dozens.  .  .  you lose so that's 2$ loss total.  .  .  .  the next time you bet 2$ on 2 dozens.   You win now so that's 6$ minus your 4$ bet is 2$ profit.  .  but you lost your 1$ bet so minus 2$ so your profit is zero. 
Lets say you also lose your 2$ bets on 2 dozens.  .  .  so the next time you put 4$ on each dozen.   You win so that's 12$ minus your 8$ bet is 4$ profit.  .  .  but then you still have your lost (6$) from the first 2 spins.  .  .  etc etc.  .  .  so no matter when you win you always lose.   Someone else talked about 1,3,9,27 etc progression.  .  .  that's also the progression I used when I tried other 2 dozen bets.  .  .  .  .  then if you win after some losses you still win. 
Am I missing something about your progressive betting?

[birdhands]

This is a very conservative progression, and far less likely to bust than a usual 2 dozens progression.  Most of your profit comes on repeats; the progression just keeps you in the game.

Sam

[birdhands]

Here are my two big questions:

The longer we play, the more vulnerable we are to the 0, so what if instead of tracking two more spins (or however many we need to get a new direction) after 0, we just treat the numbers before and after the 0 as contiguous?

What if we don't wait for a new direction, ie. if we win on right and then the next number goes right, we bet right again.  I just hate to miss out on strings of repeats because I'm waiting for the direction to reverse.  This would also shorten playing time and avoid more zeros.

I'm sure Colbster has thought of these; I just can't help but ask.

Sam

[harald]

This is a very conservative progression, and far less likely to bust than a usual 2 dozens progression.   Most of your profit comes on repeats; the progression just keeps you in the game.

Sam

Now comes the bear and takes my icecream away.

In my mind your losses with this progression are very high. . . . the longer this progression takes place the higher your lost. . . . so how can that keep me in the game?
If you loose your first 3 bets then you loose 1x2= 2, 2x2=4, 4x2=8 total of 14 lost.  Your next bet would be 8x2. . . if you win then you win 24 minus your 8x2 bet so total win is 8. . . but your lost of the previous 3 bets is 14. . . so although you win you still lose 14-8=6
So my profit must come from 7 repeats?
Then the whole progression thing sounds silly to me. . . why go progressive to get a lost no matter when you win?
Again i'm missing an important thing. . . it doesn't make sense now. . . now it looks to me that you must have lot's of repeats to win back what you loose from your progressive betting. . . a progression that never wins anything but looses everytime no matter when you win. . . . that can't be right. . . . some things sound like they are back to front. . . the other way around.
It would make a little sense by now if you use a 1,3,9,27 progression. . . . then i see profit in the repeats and the progression.


Another thing. 
It also would make more sense to me if you repeat on the new dozen.
If i bet on M and H and L drops. . . then in my next bet the L is my 'repeatdozen'. . . but since that dozen already dropped wouldn't it be better to take the new dozen as a repeat?. . . . and see the L as the win?. . . . . otherwise to me it seems that you alway's walk 1 step behind winnings on the repeat. 
And i know random is random but Colbster said:
"I stick with the stats that suggest that there are three times as many doubles as triples and three times as many triples as quads. "

So i would say theres 3 times as many singles as doubles. . . . so 3 times more change the new dozen will drop instead of the same (double) dozen.

[colbster]

@Birdhands re:
Here are my two big questions:

The longer we play, the more vulnerable we are to the 0, so what if instead of tracking two more spins (or however many we need to get a new direction) after 0, we just treat the numbers before and after the 0 as contiguous?

The 0 risk is built into the math that I outlined at the beginning of this thread.  Yes, you will have 0's come along the way.  That said, by not betting on every single spin, only on those right after the trigger, you will have many 0's pass you by without any harm whatsoever.  Regarding playing the numbers immediately before and after the 0, that is certainly an option.  The reality is that we have the same odds no matter which 2 dozens we play, and no matter which we claim is the "repeat" dozen and which is the "win" dozen.  Your way is no more right or wrong than mine, I just like having some sort of rule by which I play consistently.

What if we don't wait for a new direction, ie. if we win on right and then the next number goes right, we bet right again.  I just hate to miss out on strings of repeats because I'm waiting for the direction to reverse.  This would also shorten playing time and avoid more zeros.

I have had numerous people suggest continuing to play without stopping on a win.  Since triples are less likely than doubles, I deduce that we will have too many situations where we gain 1 unit on the double and lose 2 units when we fail on the triple, netting a loss of 1 unit.  Some sessions might find it good, some might find it terrible, but I believe it to be a losing bet to chase previous spins.  I just use the previous spins as a trigger for lack of a better method, but I don't claim that there is any magic that comes from it.

@Harald

In my mind your losses with this progression are very high. . . . the longer this progression takes place the higher your lost. . . . so how can that keep me in the game?
If you lose your first 3 bets then you lose 1x2= 2, 2x2=4, 4x2=8 total of 14 lost.  Your next bet would be 8x2. . . if you win then you win 24 minus your 8x2 bet so total win is 8. . . but your lost of the previous 3 bets is 14. . . so although you win you still lose 14-8=6
So my profit must come from 7 repeats?
Then the whole progression thing sounds silly to me. . . why go progressive to get a lost no matter when you win?
Again I'm missing an important thing. . . it doesn't make sense now. . . now it looks to me that you must have lot's of repeats to win back what you lose from your progressive betting. . . a progression that never wins anything but loses everytime no matter when you win. . . . that can't be right. . . . some things sound like they are back to front. . . the other way around.
It would make a little sense by now if you use a 1,3,9,27 progression. . . . then I see profit in the repeats and the progression.

By using the 1,3,9,27 progression, your units risked grow beyond the constraints of bankroll and table limits very quickly.  The 1,2,4,8 gives you more spins to be correct.  You are partially right about the losses, and I have addressed this in earlier posts.  When you chop 1-3-1-3-1-3-1-3 without any repeats, followed by an immediate win, you do end with a negative return.  What is just as likely as that is the 1-1-1-1-3-3-3-1-1-1-3-3-3-1-2 where you make quite a few repeats in a series, despite a number of actual failures.  There will be times where you lose the progression but end up with positive units because of heavy repeats at the 8-16-32-64 levels.  When you have a repeat at, for instance, level 8, that covers the losses you would have incurred from 1-2-4 and gives you a +1 profit to boot.  If you have no repeats at all, you will have the losses.  However, don't forget we are covering 2/3 of the board, meaning it is less likely that you will have the straight failures that will lead to the ultimate losses.

Another thing. 

It also would make more sense to me if you repeat on the new dozen.
If I bet on M and H and L drops. . . then in my next bet the L is my 'repeatdozen'. . . but since that dozen already dropped wouldn't it be better to take the new dozen as a repeat?. . . . and see the L as the win?. . . . . otherwise to me it seems that you alway's walk 1 step behind winnings on the repeat. 

See my comments to Birdhands above:  Your way is just as good as mine, and if you prefer that way, by all means, go for it.  I can just randomly pick 2nd as my repeat, 1st as my win, and 3rd as my loss and have the same odds.  Random means that the previous spins don't directly impact the next spins, so they are all equal.  I just like sticking with the same rules every session, so I am not swayed by emotion or short-term trends.  Pick a method and stick with it.


And I know random is random but Colbster said:
"I stick with the stats that suggest that there are three times as many doubles as triples and three times as many triples as quads. "

So I would say theres 3 times as many singles as doubles. . . . so 3 times more change the new dozen will drop instead of the same (double) dozen.

That is factually correct.  You can just as well play the opposite of the last spin as you can the repeat of the last spin.  If you do that, though, you are betting on a dozen continuing to sleep.  If you go M-L, that is a move to the left.  Opposite would be right, therefore, you would bet on L-M, betting that H would not appear.  If you win with that right movement to the M, you would bet back to the left, again betting M-L.  H will inevitably appear, with each of your bets becoming less and less likely of success statistically.

[treborg]

Hello Colbster,

I'm giving this a test but I'm not clear how you are using the progression.

If you are going up the progression and win on say 16 do you reset to 1 or what. I get the bit about running separate progressions for left and right. I guess this makes your method of bet choice work so well.

One other thing, you say

"You might feel more comfortable stopping with a loss of 32 to reduce damage to your bankroll, but my experience is that this is actually revenue-neutral in the long run."

But surely if the maths negate the edge as you say it will make no difference.

Robert

[colbster]

Yes, reset to 1 on your progression with any win

[birdhands]

Am I right in thinking that "any win" does not include a repeat.  For instance, I have been continuing to bet 8 while the current dozen repeats, and only reset when I hit the winning dozen.  So if I'm betting M and H (last spun was M) on the 4th progression level ( and I hit M, then I bet 8 again, if I hit M again then I bet 8 again, if the next number is H then I stop and reset to 1 next time I bet to the Right; if the next number is L then I bet Left at whatever progression level the left bets are on, and bet 16 next time I bet to the right.  Is this correct?

Sam

[treborg]

OK, I asked the question because of this statement,

"When you have a repeat at, for instance, level 8, that covers the losses you would have incurred from 1-2-4 and gives you a +1 profit to boot.  If you have no repeats at all, you will have the losses.  However, don't forget we are covering 2/3 of the board, meaning it is less likely that you will have the straight failures that will lead to the ultimate losses."

I agree with Harald,

"If you lose your first 3 bets then you lose 1x2= 2, 2x2=4, 4x2=8 total of 14 lost.  Your next bet would be 8x2. . . if you win then you win 24 minus your 8x2 bet so total win is 8. . . but your lost of the previous 3 bets is 14. . . so although you win you still lose 14-8=6"


If I'm wrong I can't see where.

Robert

[colbster]

Am I right in thinking that "any win" does not include a repeat.  For instance, I have been continuing to bet 8 while the current dozen repeats, and only reset when I hit the winning dozen.  So if I'm betting M and H (last spun was M) on the 4th progression level ( and I hit M, then I bet 8 again, if I hit M again then I bet 8 again, if the next number is H then I stop and reset to 1 next time I bet to the Right; if the next number is L then I bet Left at whatever progression level the left bets are on, and bet 16 next time I bet to the right.  Is this correct?

Sam

Correct - repeats are not wins, although they pay like they are 

[birdhands]

@ Colbster,
     Thanks for your reply about the zeros.  I just realized that my results have been skewed because I'm practicing on an American RNG which doesn't allow free spins, so every time the zero hit I lost 2 units (because I have to bet red/black to spin).  Most of the zeros did hit on tracking spins like you said.

Sam

[treborg]

After seeing post 54 I see my mistake. I was interpreting a "win" as any winning bet, whereas you carry on at the same progression level if it is a repeat "win" and only reset on a win win.

I'll carry on with this with renewed hope.

Robert

[harald]

I was lying in my bed last night thinking about this. . . and suddenly. . . . ping. . . . . . . I've got a golden ticket. . . . . . 
i was to focused on the progressive side. . . . i (also) calculated a repeat only as a win in the first step (1$). . . forgot that if you go progressive after a loss your 'repeatdozen' also goes progressive.  That's why i said i have to get 7 repeats to recover from a 6$ lost. . . . and like i said that just can't be right.

For now I only like to have an answer to this question just to be shure:
Let's say after a win on right my first trigger is right again.   .   .   do I just keep on spinning till I have a trigger for left?.   .   .   or do I follow the first trigger that comes up.   .   .   .   so in this case bet on right again?
If i keep spinning for that left trigger maby a zero comes so i didn't lost money on that. . . but if i go directly to the trigger that comes up i can do more spins in an hour.

Btw.
With what info i had i started playing with this 'system' at a rng roulette in a playtech casino. . . just to see if i play then maby gaps fill in. . . . i played 10c per bet because they don't have 1c. . . . i think i played a total of 6 hours so far. . . and ofcourse i did a lot of things wrong but only lost 2 euro. . . . i only lost so little because i played with a maximum of 3 step (1,3,9) progression. . . after that i wrote down what happend but only bet 10c again. . . . i wanted to play with money and not just free spins because i'm sure rng reacts different if you play for free. . . . (if i played without the maximum of 3 steps i would have lost my complete bankroll in 30 minutes). . . . most of the time the rng acts funny again after i win 2 times or after a couple of steps in the progression. . . . . i also saw that the (L)dozen drops way more then the others. . . . . . . but the really strange thing was in those 6 hours zero didn't drop once. . . . . . i play for 3 weeks every day for hours and i never had less then 4 zero's in 1 hour before at any rng.

Anyhow again i must warn colbster and others for rng. . . be carefull.  If you win to much or raise your bets then the rng kicks in and says 'ok my turn'. . . again (most) rng are not random. . . it doesn't look at your numbers/dozens/color etc. . . . it looks at your bankroll and winnings. . . . in about 3 weeks i think i tried about 15 'systems'. . . no matter what 'system' i used, or how bad i used them, i always win in the beginning. . . . always. . . . but there comes a time when you hit the wall no matter what you bet next. . . . . play 10 minutes, quit and go back the next day doesn't change a thing. . . it just goes on were it left. . . . . you have the same odds of winning/losing if you play rock,paper,scissors or flip a coin with it. . . . ofcourse i hope i'm wrong. . . therefore i hope someone is playing some higher bets (0,5/1$) with this system on a rng in realmode soon and post their findings.

Also with this rng i got more repeatwins if i choose my new dozen as a repeat.

Thanks again for all that took the time to help.

[schoenpoetser]

So far I can see it is more a strategy than a system.In my opinion you can never say you can beat the house edge (2,7  ER or 5,4 AR).Every mathematician can proof for every spin the edge is equal to the house edge.If you play the game as a strategy , it is possible to use the statistic features of nano rows. With a good skill it should be successful.
There are EUR RNG roulette with en prison.I never play American roulette.There are also RNG roulette where you can spin without a bet!!

On the European wheel there is a quarter without a number of dozen 2!! Sector players can use this feature

[colbster]

In my opinion you can never say you can beat the house edge (2,7  ER or 5,4 AR).Every mathematician can proof for every spin the edge is equal to the house edge.

Let us be more open in our vocabulary regarding the math.  For every spin, the house advantage is 2.7 or 5.4%.  Instead, let us speak of the "indications of a single spin" - maybe ramifications is the better term, not sure.  If we take the single spin in a vacuum, we will always lose.  My strategy overcomes the house advantage because 12/37 of the spins "indicate" another spin is necessary, with 12/37 of those spins "indicating" another spin, and so on.  When we consider the spins resulting from the first spin as part of that spin, which I explained in great detail in the first post, the house advantage is absolutely overcome. 

[colbster]

-