Roulette Outside the BOX

I decided to play my variant differently from Frodo's or yours because I figured you two would test each of your own and thus there wasn't a need to do redundant testing that showed the same results. So instead I took one of your core concepts, which is that out of the first say 8 repeats that arrive in a cycle, one (or more) of those specific #s typically winds up having the first or second most hits after 111, 148, or 185 spins. Even if it's hitting beyond expectation and should be removed by the third or fourth hit...it will keep right on going.

Instead of doing the sessions on a cycle by cycle basis of adding and subtracting the numbers that hit at a higher than expected rate or went to sleep after each cycle, I just stay on the original group of unhits from the first 37 spin tracking cycle all the way through.

I only begin betting on them when they appear at spin 38 or later, and I use a positive progression of 1-2-4-8-16-8-4-2-1 on each number independently (yes surprisingly some #s that didn't hit in the original 37 tracking spins go on to hit 9 more times by say spin 148...pretty crazy how often it happens, which is why I chose to test this way).

I stop the session if in significant profit by the time the first bet # has a 16u hit (usually around +500u if using 1u bets). I never end a session early if it's losing as I want to see how "bad" it can get before enough 8u and 16u hits happen in a short span to get you back to even or profit.

I've only completed 1582 spins, so there's no conclusion that can be reached yet, but to this point I've done 16 sessions (average of 3.35 cycles per session), with the average session going 124 spins (includes the 37 spin tracking cycle), generating an average of +524u of profit per session (includes two loss sessions of -260u and -68u where I ended the sessions as there weren't enough 16u bets left on the table to recover or make a profit), and the average largest drawdown per session being -566u prior to profit or loss.

The net for the whole experiment thus far is 1582 spins, +8437u.

I'm doing approximately 500 spins worth of testing per day, I would assume that profit number is going to change over time as I expect to log some losing sessions eventually (a losing session being say a -1500u draw down which would be a red line for me, you can't make it up with 16u bets no matter how fast they hit) but even the -1500u number isn't set yet because I've never seen it go anywhere near that.

Attached is an example of an "average" vanilla session, where things went kind of how they each time. This one I stopped a spin after the second 8u hit however, because that "just one more" spin lost, and you need to commit to potentially 100+ more spins past this point (along with a massive draw down) in order to go past the +413u profit.

In a real life condition I wouldn't do that, I'd either reset and start over with a new 37 spins if I wanted to stay and play, or I'd walk at that point, done for the day.

So I'm trying to perform tests that find the extremes of highs and lows, but still conform to how I'd actually play if it were live.

 

Frodo, Jerome, Eddy, Jacob, definitely keep going with your individual versions as I'm curious to see how they do and which one winds up being most efficient in the end. And thanks to Jerome for the programming, appreciated for sure.

 

You guys can curve fit your systems a gazillion different ways, but in the end they're all going to lose at the same house edge.
After all, why shouldn't they? Where's the proof of concept that states WHY the system should work?

And why are you running simulations with a progression instead of flat betting??? If the method doesn't work flat betting, then the progression isn't going to make it work in the long term.

Everything that is in this thread has been seen tested and tried countless times. Why people can't learn from the past and the mistakes of others amazes me.

 

That’s what “amazes” you? Come on. Post the schedule ...

 

Wally,

I'm in LV for another week (also attending a gaming conference) and then California. Better catch your flight tomorrow.
Let me know your flight number/arrival time and I'll pick you up at the airport.

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone.

 

Totally agree with this!!! If I believed everything that was said here was nonsense and only believed in VB... why on earth would I spend so muccccchhh time demoting everyone else who disagrees??? That would be so tiresome.

But yet Dr.Sir keeps popping up left and right month after month after month...spending all his precious time posting funny pictures and quoting everyone who is wrong. (Also not in a particularly pleasant way, so you can take that Sir. out of your name that's for sure.)

The only 2 conclussions that are left is that:

A. Dr.Sir is joined to the hip with dear Steve. And is hoping to persuase people to get into VB and maybe get them to buy Steve nicknacks's.

B. He is not 100% sure VB is the only way, and someone might give something else he can use...

 

Maybe simply to not make another forum full of sh*t nonsense.

Yeah bro, we're waiting you to show us how you make million with parondo paradox at roulette, that's it !

 

By the way, here's something funny i noticed about system players that are testing on a paper... They're looking for something that works, right... Obviously they don't understand they're looking for a system that is under positive variance for the moment... And after observing for a moment, when they're going to the casino they lose quickly coz they actually observed a lot of positive variance system, while unfortunetely they won # money at home on their paper.

At that moment, they use to look for a variant and repeat the process and so on and so on...

 

I agree with Sharptracker. A lot of us probably go through the different phases looking for what we hope will work.

The rookie: Martingale on the EC's

Intermediate: Variance avoidance! How difficult can it be right?

Advanced: AP/VB etc:

Don't get me wrong because I am not saying that all types of AP are practical/feasible nowadays and this isn't a 'bash the system guys' post. But how many more years are some of you 'intermediate' guys going to bash your head against the wall with all this LOTT crap. Not to mention either that most of the 'non-random' garbage was just that, garbage. GIGO.

To my mind at least, you don't want extreme variance because it cuts both ways. Better to have something nice and steady with regular gains. You can always increase your chip size in relation to your bankroll.

Maybe some of you who are struggling chasing your tail with hot/cold numbers should go 'back to the future' and look at the EC's again or even Baccarat. Just leave out the martingale because you don't need it or anything like it.

 

I know what you're saying, and up to a point you're right, but you can't say it always works out neatly like that because it would be gambler's fallacy. If you could rely on it then instead of waiting until your tests at home showed positive variance you could wait until they showed negative variance - then head for the casino because positive variance is "due".

 

@eugene

i guess now a genius will look for a system that is loosing for the moment

 

Hey Jerome! Lol you anticipate me !

 

By the way on the market, some people are using the max drawdown known to bet, but of course roulette is not the market.

 

So one of the key questions anyone should be asking themselves if they are a strategic player IMO is how do they intend to dampen the variance to achieve smooth consistent results because you are not living in reality if you say that you can continually use the variance factor in your favour to avoid what's not going to appear. It's a nice thought but completely unrealistic. This is what the LOTT guys try to imply that by avoiding cold numbers, they will always be on the winners. Sounds a bit fanciful really and you then have to question why a progression would be needed if it was so easy to avoid what wasn't going to show up. Hardly surprising then when it was recently revealed that it could really be done flat betting as well!

 

Perfect!!! I’m in LA next week. What casino in CA? I can meet you there.

 

Here's a short demo of 2 sessions playing Frodo's system (an example of how it works is given by Frodo in post #104) :



In the first session a profit was made in the first cycle, and the second session ended on a loss (all 4 cycles were played). As in the previous program, the results of random selections for comparison are shown in the two columns to the right.

I'll upload the program here sometime tomorrow; I have to add more code to create the data file and have run out of time right now.

 

Update: Through 3985 spins of testing, am now at +12,502u net. 1u bets, positive progression 1-2-4-8-16, spins from single tables/wheels.

Have done enough sessions now to see loss sessions, so far 26 sessions have won, 4 sessions have lost.

Average units won in a winning session = +516u
Average units lost in a losing session = -390u
Average session length = 132 spins, with the first 37 of those being non-bet tracking to identify the unhits.

The stop point I've been using per session is any significant profit, meaning anything above a BR gain of say +400u, which is usually linked to either the first 16u number hitting, or the second. The walk away point is based on the drawdown versus the win potential of a 16u hit, if it doesn't make sense to continue from an MM point, I just eat the loss and restart.

You do get a feel for it though as you play so many sessions, occasionally I've stopped at +250u in a session because the total being bet on the table is up to say 79u per spin, and the amount of numbers that are live at 8u or 16u bets isn't high enough to make sense to chase them. If there are 3x 16u numbers active and 3x 8u numbers active, then I would continue, etc.

It's surprising to me how often the bet selection identifies either the number that winds up being the most hit by the end of the session, or the second place horse, despite those numbers having zero hits for the first 37 spins of the session. They not only wind up appearing quickly, one or two of them wind up hitting 5+ times within the next 100 spins.

When it misses those top two or three horses is when the losses occur, though often it still manages to get to a win point because you'll have enough slower horses all hitting at smaller bet levels in the progression in a short span to get you to your win target.

It's enjoyable to test, watching how the 16u numbers always seem to come in is a thrill. After I get to say 10k spins worth of results I'll re-evaluate and see if it's possible to reduce the amount of numbers being bet. Would like to stick between 4-8, right now it's typically 10-14 numbers that are live by spin 74 or so. Hard to reduce though, because even the slow horses that are hitting at lower rates wind up "paying" for you to chase the multiple 16u bets that are live. You're getting free spins towards the bigger goal basically.

 

Your post deserves 1000 "likes".
Cheers

 

That's the only reason. They'll lie and say it's for "contacts", etc.. which is nonsense.
They are here for the only reason - which is to learn how to win in a way that is easier than
what they do now - but that's ok.. They'll bash and insult contributors but they know why they are here.