My definitions for "Playable systems"

[VLS]

My definitions for the "playable system" category:

- Has a good chance of winning more than it loses.

This is basic. The method should win on the "NORMAL" and "POSITIVE" trams with expected and better-than-expected concentration of hits, while also having measures to avoid being wiped by a single negative dispersion of hits.

Dispersion should always be faced flat betting minimal units, while concentration of hits should be enjoyed with engorged/compounded/inflated-value units.

- It is resolved within three (3) numerical cycles.

37x3 = 111 spins for European Roulette.

38x3 = 114 spins for American Roulette.

In my betting framework, events beyond 3 cycles are definitive sleepers and hence they should not be part of the current game.

Playable means the active/current game gets resolved within a set of spins that a human player can withstand (3 cycles is fine for a human in my book. Even if there are multiple of these games overlapping/in-a-row, it is reassuring to know you have a total maximum of spins left to play for the current game to resolve).

- Limits losses reasonably.

This means defining the initial batch of minimal-unit banks per session to cover most cases for a day.

Example: 10 banks of 100 units for a total of 1000 units from your max-high point.

Having this total back only applies if there are absolutely no wins at all (unlikely); whenever there is a win, there should be units locked.

Every unit won should be used as cushion against the total negative cases.

A plan for inter-session handling is a must. e.g. 75% MM plan.

- No limits on wins / no limits on unit compounding.

You should only care about max table limits when having concatenated wins.

The upper bound for the table should only be a concern when dealing with compounding / raising the base unit with casino-provided money, this way you know when to take your current session bank to the next table with the better/higher limits.

Yes, your system should be able to accommodate the fact you are successfully getting concatenated wins hence you should be able to pause and change table for your current inflated/engorged unit.

This is also part of having a playable system and a necessity for avoiding limiting wins.

You should squeeze the positive tram(s) until the very end, since it is these moments of greatly concentrated units that help you build the averages.


These "playable system" definitions are relevant as a guide the more you see great systems with unrealistic bankroll, table limits or active spins requirements.

Having a playable system is a must for those that aim at winning consistently with current/actual/real-life conditions.

Vic

[winkel]

- No limits on wins / no limits on unit compounding.


Vic

Sorry Vic,

but I can proof, that stop in a win is more successful than to play further spins.

Hit and run is the best.

If you bet and your selection has won, than it is more possible, that all other chances will hit, than yours to hit again and again.

[VLS]

Hello dear Winkel, thanks for participating! You said:

Hit and run is the best.

If you bet and your selection has won, than it is more possible, that all other chances will hit, than yours to hit again and again.

I am not playing the even chances. I've only been doing straight-up betting in a cycle-based approach since a number of years now. This means it does not depend so much on successive hitting spins but on having a hit within a full 37-spin cycle as the winning event, aiming at successive 37-spin-cycle hits. A true "hit and stay", or better-expressed "hit and compound".

The won amount is split with 50% to reinvest in raising the unit, like this:



Currently, I am using a 100-unit bank as the session bankroll. If -for instance- the unit is divisible by 10, when there are 110 units in the bank, the bet unit raises to 1.1 (11 base-unit chips). On a hit, it gives you more units to raise sooner to 1.2 (with 120 initial units) which gives you more net gains to get faster to 1.3 (130 units), 1.4 (140)... 2+ and so forth. This is the core event of this session-based MM.


The importance of not having a win limit is to allow the unit of the main/initial bank to raise as much as the game permits on the good tram(s).

I suggest to only cut the compounding on a cycle-cut/reset-point by bankroll depletion or by session deviation from the normal parameters.

It is a different approach than a single progressive game; under this light it makes sense to only quit after an exhausted session bank rather than imposing a win limit:

- On a negative tram (concatenated losing cycles) you lose the least as you bet with minimal units.

- On a positive tram (concatenated winnings, at least one hit in a 37-spin window) you win the most as the base unit raises, which gives you more base units won per successive hit, for you to continue to re-invest to earn more base units.

When you contrast minimal losses vs maximum wins, you get the averaged totals with the best chance to lean to the net positive side.

You do not want to halt your compounding of successive winning cycles short!

(Not under this inter-session MM plan)