Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

Joe, you say that's what TwoUp and Doc are warning against, including you. That makes three of the most intelligent guys on this forum agreeing that one must heed the mathematical facts and probabilities of encountering loss no matter what the strategy applied. I agree totally. However, your warnings do not apply to me. The reason for that is I am just testing a strategy and playing for fun. What warning should I heed? I have nothing to lose, I am not playing for real money. I wish I had been though, I would be a millionaire by now. It is those on this thread who play for real money, they are the ones who should pay real close attention to your warnings if they don't want to suffer real monitary loss somewhere down the line. In the mean time, I will continue to test my very successful strategy for play money. If and when the time comes my strategy crashes and I lose big time, I will send you three a personal note that says, I should have heeded your warnings, you were right, the probabilities finally caught up with me and I lost all of that play money I worked so hard to earn.

 

Conway's leading numbers apply to binary sequences only, so EC outcomes.

https://penneyante.weebly.com/conways-algorithm.html

 

My point is simply to understand the regression to mean is simply expecting an average outcome ALWAYS.

Essentially in my example of the coin flips we are doing that anyway as the results after a 4iar outlier are also simultaneously the outcomes leading up to next streak, so in essence outside of streaks always expecting an average mixed result both before and after

 

I think I understand essentially everything. Maybe not a mathematical formula as demonstrared, but I understand its teachings very well. If you examine all the mathematical formulas and probabilities that exist, then create a strategy that stays within those parameters using a Martingale progression to make up the difference, you just might have something.

It seems that those with the understanding of how all of this works based on statistics after statistics, constantly confront me with the preaching of data and probabilites of why my strategy just cannot work. It does work, at least so far. You need to focus on those who are actually gamblers, those who play for real money. You have a lot to offer them. If you want to help me with my strategy approach just for the fun of it, offer me something possitive, if that's even possible.

 

You're right, there's a 80% chance it will be right on the 1st bet. I stand corrected

 

Why do you constantly insist on spoiling the fun. Let them believe what they believe that's where I get my schadenfreude from.

 

It took me a long time to get over this even though I knew patterns are a fantasy of your brain they look like they're connected. When it finally dawned on me that they aren't really there my game improved immensely and I started looking at everything in a true spin to spin fashion.

 

Why, what do I get out of it. I'll tell you what would happen I would be accused faking it somehow. I guarantee they would not believe it and would want more proof that's how this works. Never even start on that trail because it never ends.

 

Makes no difference or surplus to me.

 

Makes no difference.. or surplus to me.

 

.. then put more, till sufficient to shut 'em up. In this case, replication is the key.

 

That makes two of us..

 

Minimum posts per month ? with ot without bullshit ?

 

Actually in all reality, you're not really there.

 

There's an enormous void alright. Below is a graph that is very typical of the sessions I play using a 6-step Marty.
The other graph is using a D'alembert progression with the same strategy.

 

By the way. The session I used the D'alembert was recovered in the end by switching back to the Marty.

 

All this means is you still don't get it and I'm not going to explain it to you because you won't even get it then. It will take getting your ass whipped in the casino for real money before you catch on.

 

There are some people who believe that, Elon Musk believes we live in a simulation, a form of computer simulation that we cannot understand because we're part of it. And we aren't really here, we are just a projection of the simulation. Apparently lots of people believe this. Makes more sense than some God in heaven worrying about every word we say and every thought we have. That's just ridiculous paranoia.

 

True.

 

If you're testing progressions try the Masaneillo (file attached) apparently it was developed by some Italian mathematicians and used very successfully for sports betting.

It makes a lot more than flat and martingale for the risk. You have from 9 to up to 20 bets and are guaranteed to either win at least 20 units or lose 100 units. Apparently the only way you lose is when there are exactly even EC results in 20 spins, the order of results is not important. So 10 reds and 10 blacks in 20 spins, but you can complete your game before 20 spins if you get some wins.

I have not used this in anger but I think it's interesting and different to any other progressions I have seen.

There are many variations and adaptions.

Some drop the bottom row and rightmost column, just swallow the loss, avoid bigger bets and start over.

You can also play 3 EC's at the same time and play 3 separate games consecutively (not against each other), reset on new bankroll high and also reset any game that gets to say 10 units. The idea being that you keep bets small and with so many games something will be winning and getting profit.

Have fun with it, and remember there is no magic progression that can save anyone from the corrosive house edge. Any game of negative expectation without a positive edge means the more you bet the more you lose. That said variance shines on some.