Reactive against Predictive

[DRAGEN]

Reactive is acting on what has occurred
Predictive is trying to forcast what will happen next
If it was possible to predict the outcome of a Roulette table spin, then the casino's would be out of business. However what can be predicted is probability

For instance, it is possible for red to come out every single spin for the next 1000 spins, however it is highly improbable that will ever happen
What we can do is predict using experience, knowledge and data gathering

Red or Black have been known to come up 20 times in a row but 50 times in a row would be very rare, so we can work on averages and allow for Red or Black to come up 20 times in a row, but we do not need to allow for it to come up 50 times. The same with numbers, a number may come up twice which is pretty common, three times in a row is not common while four times in a Row would be rare, so in some respects we can use probability to work out a system

The following is purely my opinion which I have formed over the years of playing Roulette. I record every spin of every wheel I have ever played, so I have quite a large amount of data to test my system against.

In my opinion........1..The outcome of a spin cannot be predicted
                            2..Most RNG games use manipulative software, this is to say, they are programmed to cover all eventualities..for example....they keep showing statistics where RED & Black come out around even over a thousand spins.....what they don't show is that RED may have come out 30 times in a row and wiped you out or vice versa.
                          3..If BOTS & predictors worked the casino's would either ban them or alter the betting strategy....ie......reduce the time allowed to make a bet when the wheel is spinning

This brings me back to probability against predictability

I bet using columns and dozens purely because the odds are favourable and they offer a very versatile means of betting

Betting one column gives odds of 2:1 against you........12 numbers win... 25 numbers lose if you include zero as a losinging number
Betting two columns gives odds of 2:1 in your favour.........24 numbers win... 13 numbers lose if you include zero as a losinging number


Betting either of the above will lose you money long term but if we combine columns and dozens with the right progression then it becomes a winning system

Will try to explain :
There are 3 columns and 3 dozens
The initial bet would be

3 1st doz....2 2nd doz....1 3rd doz...........3 1st col...2 2nd col...1 3rd col   1 on zero

the whole of the board is covered.....total bet is 13
if 1st doz &1st col win return is 18....3 + 3 * 3......there are 4 numbers which would return this result......4 in the 1st doz or col which also hit the col or doz
looks confusing so lets put it this way
If we bet on col 1 then there are 12 numbers which hit....
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
But only 4 of thes also hit the 1st doz.....in this case 1.4.7.10....odds of 9:1 against you, but the fact is one of the doz will hit and one of the col will hit
so minimum return is 1+1*3 = 6...or.1+2*3=9..or.1+3*3=12..or.2+2*3=12..or.3+3*3=18..or..1*36=36 if zero hits


Will expand more soon

[Dane]

Reactive is acting on what has occurred
Predictive is trying to forcast what will happen next
If it was possible to predict the outcome of a Roulette table spin, then the casino's would be out of business. However what can be predicted is probability

For instance, it is possible for red to come out every single spin for the next 1000 spins, however it is highly improbable that will ever happen
What we can do is predict using experience, knowledge and data gathering

Red or Black have been known to come up 20 times in a row but 50 times in a row would be very rare, so we can work on averages and allow for Red or Black to come up 20 times in a row, but we do not need to allow for it to come up 50 times. The same with numbers, a number may come up twice which is pretty common, three times in a row is not common while four times in a Row would be rare, so in some respects we can use probability to work out a system

Will expand more soon

Hello DRAGEN. Welcome!
In my language (Danish) DRAGEN means "THE DRAGON"!
It took mathematicians several hundred years to find out, that earlier spins have absolutely no influence on the next spin. Today, however, we know better. Experienced players are not victims of "GAMBLERS FALLACY".

[DRAGEN]

carrying on
If the 1st doz & the first col hit then the next bet would be 1 1st doz..... 3 2nd doz...2 3rd doz
The winning col or doz defaults back to 1 and the losing cols & dozs increase by a half eg....1.2.3.4.6.9.14.21.32
Playing on a table with a 1000 limit and betting in units of 1 this would give you
17 spins to hit the col or doz
I have seen both go over 20 spins without hitting so you have to have a way of avoiding that........when you get to a predertimined point, say 32 on col or doz
then you add upp the 3 rows divide by 2 and place that bet on two of the rows while leaving the 3rd one as 1
eg.. if your col had say   1...4...32  total is 37 so the bet would be  1st col...1...2nd col...18...3rd col..18
this means you have a 2:1 chance in your favour of either col 2 or col 3 getting hit

If col 1 hit then the next bet would be 1st col...1...2nd col...27....3rd col...27
If col 2 hit then the next bet would be 1st col...2....2nd col...1....3rd col....41

more to follow

[insidebet]

It makes no mathematical sense at all to cover the whole board.
This is definitely a non starter.
This is the absolute best way to lose money.
As a matter of fact, there is only one way to be sure to lose money on a single spin of roulette: it is to put one unit on every number.  You lose one unit 100% of the time.

I know, I know. You cover some numbers with more units than others.  Still makes no sense whatsoever.  Check differential betting, if you want to know more.

Insider

[DRAGEN]

it would make perfect sense if you saw the system
it returns a profit of 3 units per spin and I am quite willing to prove it in any way you like

[DRAGEN]

As an example....at the moment I am logged into Supercasino.com and playing on the live wheel with a presenter, as I am in the middle of a game I will continue from here
bets
1st doz..1  2nd doz...3  3rd doz  2   1st col..15  2nd col..15  3rd col..4  2 on zero
num 13 came up..bet was 42..retuen was 54...+12  balance = +12

1d..2    2d..1  3d..3    1c..1    2c..23  3c..6   1 on zero
num 22..bet was 37 return was 6..-31     bal = -19

1d..3   2d..1   3d..4   1c..18  2c..18   3c..9    2 on zero
num 7...bet was 55  return was 63   +8   bal= -11

1d..1  2d..2  3d..6     1c...1   2c..27    3c..14    2 on zero
num 32     bet was 53   return was 99  +46   bal +35


that is a simple example of how it works

[insidebet]

I am so sorry to tell you again.
Covering the entire table does not make any sense at all, I don t care if you increase, decrease, whatever you do.
Google <<Differential Betting>> if you want to know why it makes no sense.

You still dont believe me?
Ok. Take whatever bet you have going right now and take one chip off every number on the layout.  You may have numbers with nothing on it or not.  It does not change anything.
Now check all possible outcomes with the bet you have now compared with the way I suggested.
No matter what the outcome is (whatever number comes up), you will have one more unit playing my way.  One more unit EVERY SPIN!.
If you can take two chips off EVERY  number, you will have two more units every spin.

Indider

[ausguy]

Dragen - What insidebet is telling you is that you can outlay & risk less money but still win the same amount via differential betting. All that you do is make some of the bets on paper & only place the difference between the lower amounts & higher amounts as bets.

This has come up in bet strategy discussions before. Yours is little different apart from the fact that you are making more bet placements.

In fact under certain mathematical circumstances lower bet outlays can net you more profit. (differential betting).

Take your examples given in yesterdays post @ 1 :58pm. I'm deleting the lowest bets & reducing some of the zero cover bet from 2 units to 1 unit so lets now see the outcomes.

Bet One.

Doz 1 nil. Doz 2 - 2, Doz 3 - 1. 13B drops so Doz 2 wins 4 - 1(doz 3 loss) = net +3 win. Same win as your 6 outlay = 6 vs 3 units bet.

1 unit on zero vs your 2 units. My zero 1 unit bet if win will more than cover all the modded outlay losses. As 13B spun up your bet loses 1 more than mine.

On the columns (I always like to have them ID'd as A,B & C rather then 1,2 & 3 to avoid any possible Doz. position errors) we will have 15 - 4 = 11 as the
outlays on Cols. A & B but nil on Col. C. 13B being in Col. A wins 22 - 11(Col. B loss) = + 11 net win. Total wins calc. to +3 on Doz. +11 on Col. = + 14 - 1 zero loss = net balance + 13 vs your +12. My total outlay of 25 would have been covered with the 1 zero bet & 35 won if it spun up.

While 1 unit difference may not seem significant in isolation but it adds up over hundreds or thousands of bets. Why settle for less return when for reduced risk you can have a fatter account balance ?

Bet two - 22B dropped - 1d - 1, 2d - 0, 3d - 2 = -3 loss, same as yours.  A col 0, B col 22, C col 5 & 1 on zero loss. So -3,-22,-5,-1 = -31 loss, same as yours. Running balance +13 - 31 = - 18 (1 less than yours).

Bet three - 7R dropped - 1d - 2, 2d - 0, 3d -3.  1d wins 4 - 3 (3d) = +1. A col 9, B col 9 C col 0. A Col wins 18 - 9 (B col) = +9 +1 (1d win) = +10. Again my lower outlay only requires a 1 unit bet on zero so it's +10 - 1 = +9. Running balance -18 +9 = -9 (& now 2 less than yours).

Bet four - 32R dropped - 1d - 0, 2d - 1, 3d 5. 3d wins 10 -1 = +9 (same as yours). A col 0, B col 26, C col 13. B col wins 52 - 13 (C col) = +39 - 2 zero loss = +37 + 9 = +46 (same as yours). Running balance + 46 - 9 = +37 (+2 better than yours due to less outlays on the zero insurance bets because of the lower outlays on some of the Dozens & Columns differential bets). In 4 bets, 2 were the same as yours & 2 were 1 better each.

Transpose that to 1,000 bet wins & on that ratio, differential betting could see you 500 units better off. Diff. betting Dragen is not just theory but the real deal. Why "DONATE" money to any casino when you don't have to ?     

[DRAGEN]

ausguy
Thank you for your comments

[DRAGEN]

ausguy
How do you determine what bet 5 would be ?

It is a very interesting concept with great potential if I can combine the two

[DRAGEN]

Integrated the differential into my system but it does not make a great deal of difference
Ran it on the live wheel at Supercasino

100 spins.......largest bet I had to make was 271 and the profit was 404

[insidebet]

Yes it makes a great deal of difference.  You save at the very least one unit per spin you play.

insider

[nusantara]

how do you determine the stake progression?

[ausguy]

nusantara - Carefully read Dragens post #2 on this thread. On there he states that the progression increases by 50%. Naturally any fractional numbers are rounded up to the next whole number.

Dragen has told me he is having consistent success with his betting. Spreading the betting to other wheels &/or other casinos so far has not failed for him.

Spreading also allows a hybrid rise in table limits or lowering of the limits by the number of casinos played factor. Divisor betting.

It should also be noted Dragen has modded his play program to utilise differential betting.

I think what Dragen means INSIDEBET is that % wise the differential play does not improve his profits dramatically. Like the original method may have returned 96 units for a session & the differential way may have given 104 units. Yes more but not huge amounts more but still he's been astute enough to see the benefits of diff. betting & adopted that into his plays.

I'll leave other aspects of Dragen's plays to reveal at his discretion. May one & all keep an open mind on new ideas & methods. After all if he's in profit then so can others potentially be ?

[Antibet]

Did I just hear Steve?
How do we address the unfair payout facts

[Antibet]

-