Roulette Ideas

I have saved articles by him.
Post or add them into this topic.
Then Victor can give them separate space and location.

Those calculations were way off. The bet sequence is

5, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192 on each dozen.

On a win, rebet and if that wins then reset. You are looking for a double win.

The idea is to play the progression until you win twice in a row playing two dozens.

On a loss, move to the next step,
on a win rebet the same amount staying on the same step.

Step 0 shows 2(1+1) means bet 1 on each dozen.
Step 4 shows 12(6+6) means bet 6 on each dozen.

It is better than playing the martingale, and covers more numbers,
plus the profit goes up as it is played.

I see where you are coming from, nice insight!

I've claimed in yester years that the best selection for EC is to follow the last result.
This way you will win by streaks which are the foundation of standard deviations.
Whether a deviation is going to decrease or increase you will gain.
Of course there are chops but those don't last for long and personally I prefer to stop betting after every loss till I witness what would be a won bet.

But all that is just me, there are some "gurus" who prefer to bet against the face of reason..."wait for 5 virtual losses and then bet for 5 more times", anything before the 5 virtual losses is a waste of time and everything after is a waste of money, so as you see some self proclaimed betting gurus don't understand that even if you bet against a 17 streak it could become even longer!
When they win is just a temporary luck, but in their mind think that they are smart, how naive and foolish and fortunately for the casinos there will never be a shortage of them!

If some people would like to realize what I'm and you are "TwoUp" are talking about they would theirselves a favor, me and you have nothing to gain from their losses.

I provided a table of optimal stopping which is relevant here.

Also relevant is the arcsine law and things like zero crossings of random walks of a coin flip / even chance outcome.

The reality is that your particular path or history of outcomes on a random walk will be mostly biased on one side or the other with extremely few crossing where outcomes even up. Playing until even is not practical as house edge will erode your bankroll.

The math says that if you flipped a coin 1 million times you will on average see the counts of head and tails being equal less than 6 times! Of course not every 1 million flips will have less than 6, some will have a lot and some will have none, but the point is we can expect an EC to even up less than 6 times in 1 million spins ignoring zero.


However math also shows that you can optimise your expected value by stopping at optimal points on that random walk and you can refer to my post for that which was computed by simulation as published research.

It might sound like Voodoo but it's based on a simple argument. If you win the first coin flip then stop, if you don't then keep flipping until heads and tails is break even to get the "average" which is 1/2. Your expected return is 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 because half the time you win the first time and of the half you lose you keep flipping (potentially forever) until you get the average which is 1/2 and 1/2 of 1/2 is 1/4 and adding those two expected values is 3/4 which is better than 50/50 or 1/2.

Playing forever is not practical, so my table provides the rules for achieving positive EV by stopping in a truncated/practical version.

Roulette 36RB
To run the generator, you must manually enter the last 17 games starting from the end of history.

Let's suppose that House Edge is an insignificant issue, merely a taxation on our profits, thus the major obstacle we have to overcome is variance.
So how could we deal with variance?

For the example's sake I'm going to present you with a hypothesis on which we are gambling in a 50/50 game, such as even chances on Roulette, "banker" VS "player" on Baccarat, "pass" VS "don't pass"...etc.

When there's positive variance we have to do nothing because we are winners, but when we have negative variance we have to wait until variance undone its own manifestation...in other words, if we were trailing by 10 losses more than wins, we would be unable to overcome the negative deficit simply because we can never be 100% sure about when exactly a win is going to occur, with any kind of progression/MM.
Yes. we are going to win eventually, but since we don't know exactly when it's useless, or even harmful to attempt to raise the bets when negative variance still in action.

So by making an assumption that negative variance will eventually anule,offset,negate its own negative with a positive variance the only thing which we would have to be concerned with is the HE in regards with the duration since the negative variance begun till the time negative variance will end.

Let me become more specific;
I've found myself 10 losses in the hole, I kept flat betting for the whole duration till after 3 cycles of 37 spins/bets the positive variance made me win 10 times more, effectively offsetting the negative variance before, but since there were 111 bets I'm still -3 units overall thanks to the House Edge, at exactly this point in time, when there's not any losses left from negative variance, we are going to bet just enough to surpass the negative balance coming from the HE exclusively!
On the specific example 4 units bet in order to come on top with only a single win in the positive side (ours).
In case that eventful moment wouldn't come with a win, then wait again until the losses will become equal to the wins, then bet again to overcome the HE deficit plus any lost units from previous, failed attempts.

I want to be 100% clear, I'm not advocating such betting method, like I said before it's merely based on the assumption that only variance could "beat" itself.
Let's assume that this hypothesis is true, but how long before setting the record straight???
Hours? Day? Weeks?

I would really appreciate your colaboration, I want to know about what do you really think, could be such an approach viable, effective and practical?

Yes sure, although I feel that a small sample will demonstrate these betting principles in a specific way, thus leaving less room for vague inerpretations.

1     This is the first number, oldest in the list.
23   The 2nd number is both different dozen and column, on the same time is 2 out of 3 ECs the same.
      Therefore we are looking for a repeat in dozen and column in combination with 2 different out of 3 EC pairs.
      Finally the revertion principle between column and dozen in this case we have 2nd dozen and 2nd column from the last spun number 23, thus we would check the nubers: 14,17,20,23 if any of them could be combined with 2 different EC pairs out of 3. 14 is qualified, 17 is qualified and 20 is qualified in regards with 23, the last spun number.

34  Bet 14,17,20 and we are losing 3 units. From 23 to 34 there are 2 different ECs and 1 of the same, also 2 different dozens and 2 different columns within 2 last spins. The revertion principle indicates that from 34 which belongs to 3rd dozen and 1st column should become 1st dozen and 3rd column, but since the previous number was 23 which belongs to 2nd dozen and 2nd column, there wouldn't be any repeat for dozens and coluns within the last 3 spins, we wouldn't bet on the next spin.

29  No bet, here there is a change of 2 ECs out of 3, 29 belongs to the 3rd dozen and the 2nd column, different column and same dozen from the previous number, by reverting we have 2nd dozen and 3rd column, but it doesn't match the principle for the columns because it would be 3 different within the 3 last spins. Therefore no bet.

19  2 of the same ECs and 2 different dozens and columns within the last 2 spins. By reverting the number 19 from 2nd dozen/1st column into 1st dozen/2nd column we find out that it would be 3 different dozens in the last 3 spins, thus we would not bet.

18  No bet. There's a repeat of dozen, but not for column, additionally there are 2 different ECs. From 2nd dozen/3rd column we revert to 3rd dozen/2nd column, but we find out that there would be 3 different columns within the last 3 spins. Conclusion, discard.

33  Here we have a repeat for columns and 2 different dozens, we should expect a repeat for a dozen and another column (different). We revert 3rd dozen/3rd column into 3rd dozen/3rd column, there wouldn't be another column, thus discard.

20  2 of the same ECs and different dozen and column within the 2 last spins. From 2nd dozen/2nd column we revert to 2nd dozen/2nd column and this time it satisfies our betting criteria in regards with the dozens & columns.
From 14,17,20,23 we would select the number(s) with 2 different ECs in regards with number 20, in this case all 3, except number 20, are qualified.

1  Bet 14,17,23. We would lose 3 units with an overall balance of -6. Here there are 3 different ECs in combination with different dozen and column. By reverting from 1st dozen/1st column into 1st dozen/1st column we would have a repeaticion for dozen and column, thus it'd satisfy our dozens & columns betting principle.
From the numbers: 1,4,7,10 we should select only those which would be 2 different ECs/1 EC same in comparison with the last spun number, 1. Two numbers are qualified: 4 and 10.

4  Bet 4 and 10. Win 35 units - 6 = 29 units net
27
3
30
17
5
5
32
19
31
10
35
8
15
11
16
29
20
5
7
26
22
10

Thanks for your participation, dear Angelo. I'm carefully reviewing this to begin coding it as a new module.

Quote from: BlueAngel on Dec 03, 2024, 11:03 AMNo progression whatsoever is being used, just flat bets.

We don't see much flat betting threads around the forums, so you've certainly caught my attention (and I'm sure, the community's as well).

In case more clarification is needed, I'll "ping" with a message here.

Cheers!
Vic