Started by Patrik, Mar 27, 2024, 12:05 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Patrik

The problem is not winning - you can have a moving and winning target that averages in many situations and then you will have a pendulum effect where you will profit more than less due to the strike ratio of the more common events than the rare occasions.

I test an Ecart play with success 70+ units flat betting with even money for around 900 PLACED BETS, not spins.
The Van Kelen Test dictate a 100+ profit after 1000 placed bets is a superior system/strategy.

The problem is that you can win around 40 sessions where you targeting +1 unit or a TIE, flat betting.
But correction works like small, medium and large chunks and comes at average 3 times every 100 trials.
Reversals work like the big whole of the Bell Curve pendulum, where you can get one session with a minus for 300 trails where one side opposite towards what you do stays ahead at all times.
That is an 8-hour limit session.

So my discovery and question is how and what happens when you get one scenario where the opposite stays ahead for 8 hours or 300 trails and there is never a TIE situation and option to restart.
Yes, one progression solves that issue.

Both Holloway and Gr8player progression.
But to what extent?

I don't believe a random sample of 300 trails can have a 2,5 or 3+ STD sequence being ahead for the whole 8 hours, at some point, the drawback will be lower and at some times larger.
With my test, I won 39 sessions where 1 ended up with a -1 unit from a TIE situation.
Any progression would have solved that situation.

The holloway progression us 10% increments so I assume a -10 would be beatable.

1111111
2222222
3333333
4444444

The Gr8player progression might also tackle a -10 with no problem.
But how large can the pendulum effect be when one opposite stays ahead for the whole 300 sample.
-20 or above, I have no clue.

This is the new territory I am exploring.

Cheers

#### Patrik

Van Keelen test or the mathematical approach of roulette systems evaluation

Every roulette player wants to know which roulette betting system can ensure them profits and which one cannot. The gamblers need an objective method which really will show them some results. And Van Keelen test appears to be a principal method which can help to evaluate the success and efficiency of this or that roulette system. Van Keelen system was developed long time ago and it is rather simple in its application.

The basics
Van Keelen test requires from the roulette player checking the system through the placed bets. It should be done before the beginning of the game. The described test implies the interrelation between the system's net gain and the number of made stakes. The amount of placed bets must be no less than 1000 and the sum of bet must be equal (no progression). The important thing to understand and remember that while using Van Keelen test we speak about the actual bets and not the wheel spins.

One of the advantages of Van Keelen test is that possible losses can be on the paper and not in real game (as at first the bets should not be placed in reality at the roulette table).

The invaluable advantage of this test is that a roulette betting system must be tested no less that over hundred placed bets. On this ground the prognosis about the efficiency of the system could be made.

Results
While using Van Keelen test (with 100 000 tested bets) even an unfavorable result can be a characteristic of a good betting system. When system shows a true superiority over "0" - there is a possibility that with a progression it is possible to obtain continuous gains.

Examples
Let's examine few examples of using Van Keelen test on some roulette betting systems.

The betting system has superiority in the next cases:

Even money bets (high-low, red-black, odd-even)

After 1 000 bets - the gain is more than 100 units;
After 8 000 bets - the gain is more than 60 units;
After 100 000 bets - the gain is more than 1 000 units.
Six number bets (lines)

After 1 000 bets - the gain is more than 100 units;
After 8 000 bets - the gain is more than 200 units;
After 100 000 bets - the gain is more than 600 units.
Twelve number bets (dozens, columns)

After 1 000 bets - the gain is more than 50 units;
After 8 000 bets - the gain is more than 50 units;
After 100 000 bets - the gain is more than 2000 units.
So, Van Keelen test is proven to be an effective one among other methods of roulette betting system evaluation such as the reality test and the millions spin test.

#### Patrik

Today I tested a 3+ STD with Holloway and it works like clockwork.
That was around -20 the opposite towards my Ecart play.
And the reversal and Holloway tackle things smoothly.

#### 5pinn

what the Holloway progression ?

#### HardMan

@Patrik, in regard to the Van Keelen test, do you think it is possible to adapt its requirements somewhat & still get correct measurements.

You stated it has to be flat bet, no progressions.

1.
A parachute is a progression in-risk, although flat-bet on each spin.
Another thing, you specified metrics contingent on numbers bet, standard-payout-positions based.

2.
Also, we may be playing a few parachutes simultaneously, all flat, eg. one per each dozen area & restarting the system when all combined in positive. To prevent playing a quiescent dozen, we may pause after a few non-appeared spins & resume on its next appearance.

That basically means that we are not playing flat purely, not in the terms of a static amount of numbers bet, nor in the terms of units (2-3u/spin).

But, most importantly, we never increase the amount of units, which is virtually tlat.

So, given that a test requires 'a lot of spins' (ie. 100, 1000 .. btw, is that number or trials EC-based, or ..?), using a parachute(s) & flat, we can get how many numbers we bet on spin on average, & 8n terms of units (2-3) we can get an averageof that as well, if necessary ... let's say over 1000 continuously placed spins.

Thereof we may be able to convert those results you posted based on the stadard payouts = numbers played, & get the scale proper.

What do you think, how would you tackle 1. & 2. within the Van Keelen metrics?