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

You are absolutely right, with the Martingale there will always be losses. I have plenty of them, but my betting selection and strategy always recoups them easily. Like I've said, I have no visions grandeur. I am just testing this strategy, it's been just a little over a year. If the results continue to show the same success over the next year, I will figure out what to do at that point.

 

It's already been tested.

But rather than wasting the time and energy testing you can easily test it via math and find the long term results.

 

I don't care who you are and how long your win streak is. You can't avoid the sequence of death.

 

You really need to strip away all of the progression stuff and focus soley on the bet selection. Only after you've mastered bet selection should you focus on the money management part. If you have the edge, the best progression involves one that bets a percentage of your bankroll. Mathematically, up as you lose progressions aren't very efficient.

 

You see what you're doing don't you? You are postponing the inevitable where you are going to have to play this for real money and you don't want to do that because you know what is probably going to happen. We've all been there, you're wasting your time living in a fantasy world that continuous testing puts you in. One of the biggest problems you face is the huge amount of time it takes to recover from a loss, just to get back to where you started. Martingale loses a huge amount of money very quickly and wins it back very slowly. In testing you don't notice this because it's playing very very fast. Even if you play online it's going to feel like you're swimming in molasses trying to recover from losses. Find an online casino that has a really low minimum bet and start testing it with real money. This will get you into the real world and you will see what you're up against.

 

Progressions that are up as you win or up as you lose, when they are working they seem magical. They seem delightful. Flat betting if you have the edge is the only thing that is almost stress-free and can never get you into a huge amount of trouble. I have a good edge but that doesn't mean I'm bulletproof. Just last week my first bet was a zero. It happens, so what. I wait a few spins and bet again and get another zero. Screw this, I go to another casino and my first bet is a zero. I kid you not. I wait a few spins and make a losing bet. I'm now down four units flat betting. No big deal I recovered from it easily but not happily. If I had been using a progression recovery would have been a much longer process. Why would I do that to myself if I don't have to. If you have an edge progressions are all about greed. And if you do not have an edge progressions are all about Band-Aids to cover up your lack of bet election. In either case who needs them.

 

Win rate can be used to find your edge, which is just the profit/loss divided by total outlay. So an 80% win rate on the ECs means out of 100 bets, on average you win 80u and lose 20u, giving 60/100 = 60% edge. That's twice the edge Warren Buffet achieved in his best years of investing.

 

It's just another way of saying that there is a connection between spins, otherwise how could the outcomes coincide with your game? And how do you know which "games" work and which don't? There are an endless number of possible games. You must know when the outcomes fit your game so you know when to bet, which means that given some pattern on the wheel there is another pattern which will follow it more often than not. If this is the case, outcomes are not independent, contrary to what you claim. Either way, it's not remotely plausible.

 

How do you know I haven't mastered bet selection? Maybe the Marty is what gives me the edge. Everybody keeps telling me it's just a matter of time and the strategy will fail. Of course, I know that. What is a realistic amount of spins? It has been tested for over 39,500 spins. What is ironic is Spike says you cannot prove a strategy until it is actually used in a real casino situation but yet it seem every strategy is proven a failure through computer testing. Which is it? Why do any of you test strategies through coding when you already know it will fail based on pure math. I know why, because you are not really sure of yourselves.

 

To test RR with a computer you must write the ability to make selections based on situational awareness in the bet selection, timing, and amount. It can't be a mindless progression. You must make the software look for conditional opportunities and to also keep track of its current state of effectiveness, giving it a second more important layer of defense. I know this because I did it in my double dozen charting program years and years ago.

 

Boy you said it all. Guessing at the right moment. It all comes down to nothing but guess work, but at least we would like to believe that our guess work is based on something. A one unit win then run is nothing to accomplish, my grandchildren could do that. Try a 64 unit win then run. If I were doing a 1 unit win a day, I would be at 8,000 plus days I won 1 unit. If he is claiming an 80% win rate at guessing, what would mine be? The Marty is my edge, it gives me 7 chances to guess it right rather than 1 chance. Evidentially, my bet selection isn't to shabby either. Don't even say it will fail in the long because the same applies to everyone else, not just me.

 

Because you can't.

Look, I know the evolution of the players that discover the Martingale. These players look forwards and backwards in their data, and attempt to curve fit their betting to fit the desired results. You probably started off right away betting the Marty. Then you likely progressed to waiting for five misses. Now you're probably at the point where you're waiting for 10 or 15 misses provided the last number wasn't odd or in the third column, ignoring the zeros, wasn't this or that while wearing one black sock, and one white sock turned inside out.

The method is "almost there," right?

The next step is you'll start setting win goals. Each time you lose, you'll lower your win goal. In the end, your win goal will be just one unit, before you realize that the method just doesn't work. Free modes enable infinite bankroll resets and encourage amnesia.

 

My win goal is 64 units per session or a 7 step Marty failure which would be 127 units lost, Usually when the Marty fails I am up a substantial amount of units. Now pay real close attention here because you keep ignoring this. I win 64 unit sessions 5 to 6 times to1 Marty failure. When this strategy fails we will have something to talk about, but not now. I have heard you repeat the same thing over and over again to the point I could write your replies to me for you. How many more games do you require me to play to prove your point, 1,000, 10,000 a million? So far I have proven my strategy to be a success. I can't lose at this point because I am at a 8,419 unit win. My rules say game over when I lose my initial bankroll of 381 units. If I lose that tomorrow, I have profited 8,038 units. That's what I call successful. I don't care what you call it.

 

Where you that proved ?

 

Comment on what I said. That picture with the quote means nothing but you are in denial to answering my statements. If you answer just one question, answer this one. Is my strategy successful thus far? I am not asking if it is going to continue to be successful. If the question is too difficult for you, maybe I could rephrase it for you.

 

I proved it to me. That's all I need.

 

ok ...

 

And if this were all done in a real casino with real money this would be the year what, 2027? Or later? One of the first things that will happen when you start playing for real money is you will say to yourself, gosh, what the heck, that never happened in practice. This casino must be cheating. Just wait, you'll see.

 

You are one amazing guy, not only can you guess at what you're doing, you can also guess what I will be doing and thinking. If this, if that, if, if, if. The Marty is my edge. No if's about that.