Roulette Ideas

This address skips bs, irregardless of you bs (which finale you determine to play).


As an intro drawing context -- as perhaps already you know, in my play I have abolished stop-loss & kept it as that for a long time. Each game was played till nominal,+, & sessions were a chain of games till the predetermined session goal.

Till my recent system versions this resulted,,due to persisting till +1, in some 'extreme' games having relatively high exposition compared to most others, & also these were extremely long stretching over +200-300.. spins.

---

For a long time, I battled to come up with a solution that would reduce bankroll to 100u or less, & having the extreme games going to ≈100 spin utmost.

I came to this in two different ways, one pertaining to the system itself & one that might be useful to you.

In short, I tried to somehow 'create the ground' in the otherwise bottomless,something self-generated (for the system) to bounce off.

---

When I look at your intention & request, my stand is that at least to my current knowledge it is not possible to 'time the market' ≈ which is something you intend to achieve with your 'max point' -- as one of the forms your intentions can take, meaning intention is valid, the form not feasible.

The closes you can come to it in such a form, as Profs said & you've most likely tried it already -- is to set the stop-win at some statistical average, the exact amount, of course, contingent on you/the system itself & its (long-term) performance;

as you pointed out the disadvantage of this is that with cutting off the depletion of profits, the potential of maximized profits gets by cut off too by default.

---

Now, to the point.

For me the change happened when I started to think differently
-- I asked myself, what actually brings the maximized profits .. & the answer is the compounding interest (mage, king, chessboard tikes, a grain doubled on each fable).

Well, what is compounding interest in essence -- its press, the increase of a unit proportional to the gains.

Then I thought, what if took a few sessions only (not infinitely raising, as one loss would wipe out all the profits) -- a treat them as a group, a betting block, at the end of which the profits would be locked in ..

..& at another, higher level I'd increase the base unit according to the original compounding idea, except now the frequency of its increase is every 3 sessions instead (rather than on each), & thereof its maximized potential of eg. doubling the base unit on each session, would be a bit lowered as traded for the better reliability & steady raise -- effectively the base unit increase would be almost maximized overall for the benefit of locking of profits in.

---

As you see, I had the same intention, but I tackled the problem from the other side -- I created a bottom to bounce off, meanwhile ensuring pretty much maximized increase of profits overall.

For ease of comprehension; imagine playing EC pressed for 3x spins, risking only 1u throughout the whole press; either ±0 on 2nd or 3rd spin no-hit, +8 on the completed press, or -1  --

except here you replace the spin with the session basis; risking only one bankroll throughout the whole press &
a) potentially meeting your stop-loss threshold one of your reserve bankrolls is gone --

on meeting the press-step success the base unit within the next session het's increased, obviously & ..  b) or if the threshold was meet on the 2nd or 3rd session return to the same total bankroll amount with another attempt,  c) otherwise is a high gain completed press ..

.. which in turn allows you to increase the overall base uni, & with a few to several successful presses in a row, having even higher = more magnified gains.

Here's the bridge you were looking for.

---

As a prerequisite, you'll have to first standardize the session goal & stop-loss .. meeting either of those points, then determine if reattempt the press anew .. or move to the 2nd session.

Note that the press does not have to be [1→2→4], can be less .. making the acceleration through the press steps quicker, as well as locking of the profits in on its completion;

& as well on another level, the compounding base unit gets thus increased, in turn being the first 3x-step press value.

Quote from: HardMan on Jan 09, 2023, 04:19 PMThis address skips bs, irregardless of you bs (which finale you determine to play).

Don´t talk to me in this way.

bs = bet selection

Quote from: winkel on Jan 09, 2023, 12:12 AMIt is horrible, if you have a typing-error or an wrong formula or a error witth copy+paste, you automatically ruin hundreds of sheets of datas and an immens load of work to mend it.

That's the problem with spreadsheets and a major reason why I only use them for testing quick "what-if" scenarios. For a lot of calculations they're error prone and not user friendly.

QuoteThis shows the results of betting finals...

Could you explain what "finals" are?

I thought they were groups of numbers having a common final number, but there are only 7 of these (ending in 0 through 6). You have 10? (0 to 9)

Quote from: HardMan on Jan 09, 2023, 04:49 PMbs = bet selection

lol, it's unfortunate that BS = Bullsh*t = Bet Selection. For some there's no difference.

Finales -- you're correct; 3 of those have only 3 per group, you may add 0 when current, & others include 4 numbers per.

Yes, but including all the finals means mixing 3 & 4 number groups which is confusing statistically. There's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.

Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 05:49 PMI thought they were groups of numbers having a common final number, but there are only 7 of these (ending in 0 through 6). You have 10? (0 to 9)

I calculated them correct.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 bet 4 units win 31
7 8 9 bet 3 units win 32

Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 06:21 PMYes, but including all the finals means mixing 3 & 4 number groups which is confusing statistically. There's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.

The 4-number groups follow statistically quads and prog is like quads
The 3-number groups follow statistically streets and prog is like streets

This is only about how results react to different bet strategies.

As Betselection we simply bet only 1 finals-group.

Just a reminder:

It doesn´t matter if we win or have a decent betselection.

There is theoretical a big winning, if we stopp at the max.
But we cannot judge if it is the Max or not yet.

Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 06:21 PMThere's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.

& why not ..

it gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;

there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.

The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result, innit?

Or as McLaren Automotive amongst others would say, form follows functions.

Quote from: winkel on Jan 10, 2023, 12:58 PMBut we cannot judge if it is the Max or not yet.

& what parameter, including quantified in what, will make you know that?

To the best of my current knowledge -- none.

The whole point of my above post (press) .. you have to have something quantifiable & measurable; otherwise, you are back at hippy mumbo-jumbo, with magical wishes & hope.

But .. as nothing is impossible, with persistence you might just find a way to quantify that as well; at least to an operable & favorable degree, that is.

Quote from: winkel on Dec 09, 2022, 04:26 PMThese following results.

But the problem is: How can we see that the current result ist the "maximum" possible?
Any ideas?

This question appears to be a variant of the two envelope problem.

Quote from: HardMan on Jan 10, 2023, 04:30 PMit gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;
there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.
The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result

would you care to provide a visual example of this statement ..a very simple one..I think it could really be of help to winkel..