Hurried Splits Test – Part 2 (Dynamic)

[Number Six]

Hurried Splits Test – Part 2 (Dynamic)

In this test we're using the same Apex Theory as outlined in the part one thread, only this time we're applying a dynamic formula.  The formula again is hunting for opportunities to bet on splits that have already arrived once in the given interval, but you'll quickly see how it performs differently to the single primitive formula we deployed before.  The configuration of the dynamic formula has to be modified a bit for this exercise because we're betting the splits and not straight up – this alters the length of the interval and shortens the attack phase.  Usually the dynamic formula can catch multiple winners, but here it will just catch one per interval.  With that in mind, the formula will conduct attacks across the core blocks and the first two sub-streams...often the attacks will overlap, creating an advanced attack model and exposing the purple patches.  For more on intervals, core blocks and sub-streams, see the intervals thread.  But a brief recap...look on the core blocks as sequences of numbers that make up a surface.  Below the surface are the very same numbers, but arranged in different sequences (the sub-streams).  When the sequences are stood up vertically, they resemble a staircase structure.  We'll never know beforehand what the duration of the sequences (intervals) will be, so we can expect overlapping.  There is no problem if multiple intervals end on the same spin, but if two or more are started on the same spin it destroys the staircase.  This is easily solvable by causing delays and starting all the overlapping intervals on different spins.  Occasionally the staircase will lose its shape, but as long as it isn't destroyed we can carry on the session.

Onwards...

So it's basically the same rules as part one: track the results until six different splits have hit in a row, then bet them!  On a win, stop and track again.  On a loss, rebet and add the winning split.  So the first bet will be 6 splits, the second bet 7 splits, the third bet 8 splits and so on until a winner is hit.  A traditional negative progression of 1, 1, 2, 4, 9 is required.  The zero is discounted (or is it???)

As we're looking for favourable conditions in the core blocks and two sub-streams, it will mean tracking three different sequences of results.  This is difficult to do in a B&M situation, but not impossible as all it requires is a bit of quick thinking and an effective paper tracking method.  It is feasible to target more sub-streams but manual tracking then starts to become impractical.  Two sub-streams are more than adequate.  It's worth noting that the single primitive formula used in part one of the test only targeted the core blocks, and so only one set of results. 

The spin outcomes are the same as in part one, so we can compare the formulas' performance.  They were taken one at a time from random.org.

(CB) = core block tracking
(SS1) = sub-stream 1 tracking
(SS2) = sub-stream 2 tracking
t = tracking
a = attacking
(b-nn) = bet
~ = tracking delayed to recreate staircase
nn = end of attack/interval
Red # = betting opportunity
Green # = intersection of failed tracking phase and fresh one
Blue # = new interval
Purple # = tracking failure, new tracking begins on next or second spin

[table=&]
Spin&Out&Split&CB&SS1&SS2&Bet&Res&Net
1&23&20:23 &t&~&~&&-&-
2&27&27:30&t&t&~&&-&-
3&2&2:5&t&t&t&&-&-
4&28&25:28&t&t&t&&-&-
5&21&21:24&t&t&t&&-&-
6&0&-&t&t&t&&-&-
7&26&26:29&t&t&t&&-&-
8&30&27:30&a&t&t&(b-cb) 2:5, 20:23, 21:24, 25:28, 26:29, 27:30&W(cb)&+12
9&22&19:22&t&t&t&&-&-
10&21&21:24&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 2:5, 19:22, 21:24, 25:28, 26:29, 27:30&W(ss2)&+24   
11&3&3:6& t&t&t&&-&-
12&2&2:5&t&t&t&&-&-
13&36&33:36&t&t&t&&-&-
14&7&7:10&t&a&t&(b-ss1) 2:5, 3:6, 19:22, 21:24, 27:30, 33:36&L(ss1)&+18   
15&3&3:6&a&a&t&(b-cb) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 21:24, 33:36&W(cb)&+30
&&&&&&(b-ss1) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 21:24, 27:30, 33:36&W(ss1)&+41
16&30&27:30&t&~&t&&-&-
17&22&19:22&t&t&t&&-&-
18&13&13:16&t&t&t&&-&-
19&0&-&t&t&t&&-&-
20&10&7:10&t&t&t&&-&-
21&31&31:34& t&t&t&&-&-
22&26&26:29&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 3:6, 7:10, 13:16, 19:22, 27:30, 31:34&L(ss2)&+35
23&13&13:16&a&t&a&(b-cb) 7:10, 13:16, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 31:34&W(cb)&+47
&&&&&&(b-ss2) 3:6, 7:10, 13:16, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 31:34&W(ss2)&+58
24&0&-&t&t&~&&-&-
25&27&27:30& t&t&t&&-&-
26&18&15:18&t&t&t&&-&-
27&0&-&t&t&t&&-&-
28&15&15:18&t&t&t&&-&-
29&2&2:5& t&t&~&&-&-
30&10&7:10& t&t&t&&-&-
31&0&-&t&t&t&&-&-
32&27&27:30&t&t&t&&-&-
33&22&19:22&t&t&t&&-&-
34&11&8:11&t&t&t&&-&-
35&5&2:5&a&t&t&(b-cb) 2:5, 7:10, 8:11, 15:18, 19:22, 27:30&W(cb)&+70
36&3&3:6&t&t&t&&-&-
37&29&26:29& t&t&a&(b-ss2) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 8:11, 19:22, 27:30&L(ss2)&+64
38&7&7:10&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 8:11, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30&W(ss2)&+75
39&19&19:22& t&t&t&&-&-
40&25&25:28& t&t&t&&-&-
41&0&-&t&a&t&(b-ss1) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29&L(ss1)&+69
42&4&1:4&t&a&t&(b-ss1) 0, 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29&L(ss1)&+62
43&6&3:6&a&a&t&(b-cb) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29&W(cb)&+74
&&&&&&(b-ss1) 0, 1:4, 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29&W(ss1)&+94
44&18&15:18&t&~&t&&-&-
45&7&7:10&t&t&t&&-&-
46&20&20:23&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 15:18, 19:22, 25:28&L(ss2)&+88
47&14&14:17&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 15:18, 19:22, 20:23, 25:28&L(ss2)&+81
48&32&32:35&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 14:17, 15:18, 19:22, 20:23, 25:28&L(ss2)&+65
49&9&9:12&t&t&a&(b-ss2) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 14:17, 15:18, 19:22, 20:23, 25:28, 32:35&L(ss2)&+29
50&20&20:23&a&t&a&(b-cb) 7:10, 9:12, 14:17, 15:18, 20:23, 32:35&W(cb)&+41
&&&&&&(b-ss2)1:4,3:6,7:10,9:12,14:17,15:18,19:22,20:23,25:28,32:25&W(ss2)&+113
51&9&9:12&t&t&~&&-&-
52&36&33:36& t&t&t&&-&-
53&3&3:6&t&t&t&&-&-
54&36&33:36&t&t&t&&-&-
55&33&33:36&t&~&~&&-&-
56&27&27:30&t&t&~&&-&-
57&0&-&t&t&t&&-&-
58&12&9:12&t&t&t&&-&-
59&32&32:35&t&t&t&&-&-
60&22&19:22&t&t&t&&-&-
61&26&26:29&t&t&t&&-&-
62&9&9:12&a&t&t&(b-cb) 9:12, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 32:35, 33:36&W(cb)&+125
[/table]

[table=>]
Dynamic Summary
Spins>62
Outlay>-271 units
Gain>396 units
Net>+125 units
Opportunities exposed>13
Bets placed>22
1st spin hit rate>61%
2nd spin hit rate>23%
3rd spin hit rate>8%
4th spin hit rate>-
5th spin hit rate>8%
Apexes missed>8
[/table]

So the dynamic formula, by analysing the core blocks along with the two sub-streams, revealed six more betting opportunities than the primitive used in the first part of the test, which gained us an extra 41 units.  The first thing you'll notice is that when two separate attacks overlap we are betting more or less the same splits, bar one difference.  These are the purple patches of numbers and are the most vulnerable on the table (or wheel!) at that particular moment in time.  As they are the numbers most likely to produce winners (according to the Law), the dynamic formula directs us to double our bets on them.       

There was a touch and go moment between spins 46 and 50 where one of our attacks went to the last stage of the progression, but other than that it was fairly plain sailing.  Tracking failed eight times, and where three failures collided – on spins 28, 54 and 55 – we had to delay starting new tracking phases in the sub-streams for a couple of spins so we could recreate the staircase and get the hunting back online.  There were also four instances when we completed two overlapping attacks on the same spin – on spins 15, 23, 43 and 50 – so two separate tracking phases should have begun on the next spin.  Again, to avoid throwing the staircase into disarray, we had to delay.

Our outlay was much heavier in this test than the primitive, due to two progressions reaching the third and fifth stages.  We lost once on the zero, on spin 41, so I decided to cover it straight up to keep the progression tight (should have chosen a 0 split...the 0:1 was a winner on spin 42 and the 0:3 on spin 43).  We lost 3 units on the zero straight up, but that is acceptable.

Regarding the fifth-stage progression: note that it was eating into our profits from previous wins – we never had to use our starting bankroll to support the that particular bet.  The progression might have busted out for a drawdown of 155 units, but we'd still have been 41 units up and could've recovered.

A few other things to mention: the negative progression used in the test compensated for ten different splits occurring consecutively.  Eleven on the trot is by no means off the probability scale.  If that were to happen twice in a session, a recovery would be impossible.  Perhaps an aggressive divisor plan may be more suitable.  Also, the formula can be made more belligerent by waiting for five splits instead of six, and more conservative by waiting for seven.  But no one wants to stand at the table for hours on the off chance of getting an opportunity to bet.

The table might look complicated but it's really very simple.  Any questions, shoot.

[Number Six]

-