Roulette Figure it out

I don't think it might be done in a few days, weeks, perhaps even months ...

Its very important, in my experience, to keep solid fundamental principles set the same, & adding upgrades to tje system one-by-one.

See where a certain setting gets you in terms of game-certainty + bankroll required for that.

Then analyze the hardest-games & apply possible update(s), see if those work on just that game or does it improve the whole. Once you've got the best subversion identified, upgrade to a new version & see where does it get to.

Now, analyze its weakest points agains, the hardest games tell you again where those are ....

Kind of like pimping the car into a racing-track machine ..
added new tyres, cut another half-second from the lap = bought abother 0.5% extra games resolved with the same bankroll .....
added the back spoiler, but now due to the more downward pressure to stabilize the & keep the best grip in the corners, the engine must be shifted 2cm forward to = another 0.5% .....
add better breaks + front spoiler = now you've got the same percentage, but with the reduced bankroll
etc.

Keep your main thing & keep improving it till u made formula1.

Amortization, cost-efficiency, minimized volatility.

Keep it real!

 

Isolate a set of those & apply possible solutions manually, to each, whateve ticks.

See what works on one game, what in another. See if & which of those work on just that game or does it improve on all of them.

Once you've got the best subversions candidates, if needed merge the best aspects of these possible solutions in order to standardize = clear mechanical rules, removing all room for discretions .. & reapply over the other hardest games again.

The best subversion identified, the ohe that works on all them to whatever degree, upgrade to a new version & perform the long-term test again, see where does it get to.

The test, all other games, short mid hard, are easy .. once the upgrade is applied it might change a bit how those resolve, but nothing major.

Always focus on the hardest, most extreme games .. isolate, therein is the solution.

Over & over again, till you perfect the thing.

 

The best is, from the get-go, to lock-in the most parameters possible.
Eg. I used bet-selection -- last-outcome, latest-outcomes for multiple-positions/spin.
Can be whatever, repeats, finales ... just keep it locked. Once you buff-off on the other parameters to the max, you can always revisit this, & see if any improvement can be gained by switching to something else.
But I guess it'll be the same ... so keep in mind the actual execution & keep it simple = minimized tracking, cognitive-load, conversion into the action .. chip(s) on board.

That way, I only needed to focus on MM.
Within MM, in the latest versions, I kept 4-spins at first, universally.
Then I noticed that from a certain exposition onwards, due to landing into prolonged less favorable, wider-distribution & having to apply bet-type of playimg fewer-numbers per spin, the 4 had to turn to 5.
In order so that I have similar effect to previously playing more numbers per spin & include more distribution-cases in my favor after that exposition point→ shave overall a bit more % as game-certainty in my favor.

One example, meanwhile all other parameters were locked & refined previously -- a congruent set of various standardizations.

& further, this only worked, adding in the existing context, if played as 3 separate games & flat/spin .. not 2 (volatility to high), not 4 (cost/spin to high, playing the ≈same amount of numbers).

Moreover, it did not work as starting with one game & expanding to more simultaneously, after a certain exposition cutting the debt into more pieces. Or any other potential scenario of scheduling these.

It also generated & posed another problem, into the previous existing setting, destabilizing an aspect, & won't go into it here, that I had resolve, rebalance the whole thing.

So, it improved the system, & then once 3-games + 4-5 standardized, gave me the clear sign what to work on next, to further shave off.

Work on one thing at a time, giving you the clear results of its effects.

 

OMG! So much craps on this whole thread! It’s easier to build an intergalactic station for traveling to other worlds than what you propose! Chizes...
Maybe just listen to a guy who really knows something?!

 

Platon have you manage to work it out that simple thing?

 

Totally agree!

Rule one you cant win with MM on a system with a negative edge. If you believe otherwise you will get in shit load of trouble eventually...

 

Karl when you find that free time contact me to give your piece of light. .

 

That's what worked for me.

Yesterday I pissed in the plan, & it liked it, all the minerals & that .. purring. Then I saw a leg nearby & as soon as I turned my dick the leg shifted away, & I had to punch the face to shut the nagging voices.

If u prefer other methodology of system-design, you are more than welcome to make your bed there.

But just because you don not comprehend, are unable, or simply ain't compatible with your mind & how you do things .. don't shit on mine.

I know that my language is weird, & rightly so, as it ain't optimized for majority, but my mind, making sense to me & intended result

 

Will do!

 

Besides, my system, although complex .. its actually very simple ... also designed to be very simple, as tracking & execution = number-spun→ chips on the table.

Ever seen an american highway junctions .. everything simply flows.

 

Coding systems is great in terms of quick iteration & speed of tests, but missing the insight of manual-test, actual experience of what is happening & solutions you can come up with only that way.

 

True, not 100% of the games.
But optimized for very, very close to that & with ultra-low bankroll too.

Thereof you have to think & see things unconventionally, multi-level & multi-dimensional & make things work.

& not just ½-assed work, growimg silver bear in a casino (eg. 1 terminated session, 3-7 to recover 1) ... but with great compounding effect.

So again, true, true for you, the truth u experience. For something else, you'll have change your language & challenge the thinngs you believe in.

 

I gave enough info for everyone truly interested to have sufficient ropes & how to design his/her own, steps to take.

I don't debate as it doesn't lead anywhere, unless the purpose is stalling.

 

Its not possible to have servers up all the time 100% either, but somehow ..

.. the global network still seems to work & serve its purpose flawlessly.

Ponder on that!

 

Same with the body, its a self-healing organism.

That thrives anyway.

 

So knowing that bs gives you no ev+ advantage.
= Winning-flat bet, betting-continuously.
Even, as much as I gathered from Denzie, even he using your type of play (SU-based), uses positive-progression is testament to that. @Denzie correct me if wrong ..


& that MM in itself ain't 100% perfect.
it can be, 99.9999% or 0.0001% of fatal-system-error chance (one bankroll), but the bankroll would be really, really high & the hardest games extremely long
its much better to cap + terminate & have several bankrolls→ in order to have high compounding-effect, amplify profits
& latter is only possible with ultra-small bankrolls, that's why I opt for advanced-parachute-type play.


Given that two premises & points of the previous post, why do you still persist on designing, coding & even mentioning 100%.

The universe itself bound in matter, the matter itself ain't 100% .. simply due to entropy.

Even if a system cannot be mathematically 100% possible, design a pracrical solution that works. & not just works, but high-performance.

Get real!

 

There are superior bet selections.
You just need to adjust the manner in which you play.
I've been doing this a long time and believe it or not what I say is the truth.
Can you win with a lesser bet selection? Yes
Can you find a superior one, yes.
Good / superior MM will win either way, but experience teaches us to wait until the path of least resistance arrives.
That is what allows a player to use larger chip denominations with confidence.

 

Shame some don't read

 

Here's the MM with bs = last-outcome + repeat of an area upon hit (as long as press lasts)


Here's the same MM, but with a differen bs-type plugged, as cartridge .. pure last-outcome (same spin-numbers)


About +1500 spins each -- comes to pretty much the same profit or u/spin ratio. The harder games are distributed a bit differently placed across the interval.

Notice the max expositions. Played flat, 2-3u spin (3 individuals-games + global balance too .. starting with EC 1u → 2DZ 1u innuendo), 2-3u as per 4-5 spin dz pause/resume rule. Covering for wider-distribution when all 3 are on (amortizing, onevaspect or implementation of it), & 2u on two-dozens, various bet-types according to the exposition hit, wide→focused play, taking advantage (taking advantage of longer two-dozen runs, 4-5 plus spins of more).

In a much longer interval of spins, some more hard/long games get towards -60, where the reserve-bankroll is capped at.

In even longer interval, on average 1 in 400 games-played gets terminated, or purposefully game-certainty capped at 99.75% -- for the purposes of much greater compounding effect.

Other modules, placed on higher-levels related to the base-system (games to +1), push the total-certainty beyond 99.9999%, or 4.8-sigma.