1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette "Farthest Back 4 number system"

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by TurboGenius, Jan 28, 2015.

  1. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I plan on posting all of my systems from the 'now closed' Freewebs site I once made.
    After looking at them all - I decided to start with a simple one that I actually just used
    and won with.
    On my site I had called it "Farthest Back".
    The only tracking involved is keeping track of your bankroll / chips you have on the table - and the
    history board. (yes, I know - past spins don't impact future ones...)
    =======
    What I'm looking for is the dozen that has gone the longest without showing, and the column that has
    done the same - then betting on the four number that make up the cross-section of those two locations.
    For example... Dozen 1 and 3-36 Column - the bets will go on 3,6,7,12.
    These numbers are played until a win happens.
    On a win, if a new high balance is reached - the unit we bet with on each number stays/returns to 1 unit.
    If we are below the balance after the last win - we increase the bet on the next set of numbers 1 unit.
    [ For AC's $10.00 table minimum I used $2.00 per number and the remaining $2.00 on the 0/00 split ]

    Below is the listing of actuals from my visit and result : (initial spins tracked before buying in)

    Spin / Bet per # / Winning # / Balance
    1 / none / 33 / ---
    2 / none / 0 / ---
    3 / none / 12 / ---
    4 / none / 9 / ---
    5 / none / 33 / ---
    6 / none / 11 / ---
    7 / none / 36 / ---
    8 / none / 32 / ---
    9 / none / 25 / ---
    10 / none / 33 / ---
    The farthest back dozen was 2nd - the farthest back column was 2-35
    so my bets were on #s 14,17,20,23 (and 0/00 split at $4.00 to make the table min.)
    11 / $2 / 0 / +$26 (have to love a first spin win - played numbers stay the same)
    12 / $2 / 11 / +$16
    13 / $2 / 17 / +$78
    a win - rechart to find the new numbers to play. New high balance so bet stays at the min $2
    The farthest back dozen was 3rd - the farthest back column was 1-34
    so my bets were on #s 25,28,31,34
    14 / $2 / 19 / +$68
    15 / $2 / 6 / +$58
    16 / $2 / 19 / +$48
    17 / $2 / 00 / +$74
    a win - no recharting, same numbers - bet increases $1.00 due to the $4 drawdown
    after this win. I no longer need to play the 0/00 split to make the table min.
    18 / $3 / 32 / +$62
    19 / $3 / 20 / +$50
    20 / $3 / 30 / +$38
    21 / $3 / 5 / +$26
    22 / $3 / 19 / +$14
    23 / $3 / 25 / +$110
    a win - rechart to find new numbers to play. New high balance so bet returns to $2 as in
    the beginning.
    The farthest back dozen was 1st - the farthest back column was 3-36
    so my bets were on #s 3,6,9,12
    24 / $2 / 3 / +$172
    a win - rechart. no bet increase on new high balance. #s bet will be 14,17,20,23
    25 / $2 / 34 / +$162
    26 / $2 / 6 / +$152
    27 / $2 / 9 / +$142
    28 / $2 / 29 / +$132
    29 / $2 / 20 / +$194
    a win - rechart. no bet increase on new high balance. #s bet will be 1,4,7,10
    30 / $2 / 7 / +$256
    a win - rechart. no bet increase on new high balance. #s bet will be 27,30,33,36
    31 / $2 / 36 / +$318 (yes, wins on the first try are common)
    a win - rechart. no bet increase on new high balance. #s bet will be 14,17,20,23
    32 / $2 / 24 / +$308
    33 / $2 / 7 / +$298
    34 / $2 / 31 / +$288
    35 / $2 / 10 / +$278
    36 / $2 / 34 / +$268
    37 / $2 / 11 / +$258
    38 / $2 / 25 / +$248
    39 / $2 / 28 / +$238
    40 / $2 / 2 / +$228
    41 / $2 / 15 / +$218
    42 / $2 / 35 / +$208
    43 / $2 / 34 / +$198
    44 / $2 / 1 / +$188
    45 / $2 / 15 / +$178
    46 / $2 / 27 / +$168
    47 / $2 / 17 / +$230
    a win - rechart - bet increases $1.00 due to the $88 drawdown
    after this win. I no longer need to play the 0/00 split to make the table min.
    the new numbers to be played are 1,4,7,10
    48 / $3 / 26 / +$218
    49 / $3 / 33 / +$206
    50 / $3 / 15 / +$194
    51 / $3 / 36 / +$182
    52 / $3 / 17 / +$170
    53 / $3 / 17 / +$158
    54 / $3 / 16 / +$146
    55 / $3 / 2 / +$134
    56 / $3 / 5 / +$122
    57 / $3 / 0 / +$110
    58 / $3 / 10 / +$206
    a win - rechart - bet increases $1.00 due to the $112 drawdown
    after this win. The new numbers to be played are 27,30,33,36
    59 / $4 / 27 / +$334
    a win - rechart - bet drops to minimum since new high is reached. 0/00 back in play.
    The new numbers to be played are 14,17,20,23
    60 / $2 / 31 / +$324
    61 / $2 / 14 / +$386
    (win - rechart - min bet) played #s are 3,6,9,12
    62 / $2 / 30 / +$376
    63 / $2 / 7 / +$366
    64 / $2 / 5 / +$356
    65 / $2 / 34 / +$346
    66 / $2 / 21 / +$336
    67 / $2 / 19 / +$326
    68 / $2 / 6 / +$388
    (win - rechart - min bet) played #s are 26,29,32,35
    69 / $2 / 32 / +$450
    (win - rechart - min bet) played #s are 13,16,19,22
    70 / $2 / 0 / +$476
    (win - no rechart - min bet) same numbers
    71 / $2 / 5 / +$466
    72 / $2 / 34 / +$456
    73 / $2 / 4 / +$446
    74 / $2 / 6 / +$436
    75 / $2 / 28 / +$426
    76 / $2 / 17 / +$416
    77 / $2 / 8 / +$406
    78 / $2 / 27 / +$396
    79 / $2 / 00 / +$422
    (win - no rechart - +1 bet) same numbers
    80 / $3 / 20 / +$410
    81 / $3 / 11 / +$398
    82 / $3 / 11 / +$386
    83 / $3 / 19 / +$482
    End

    I would have stayed for more spins but was with a guest.
    Any questions, feel free to ask.
    This is not a holy grail, it is risky but easy to play when you don't want to chart
    spins and figure out complicated things - I was there to 'relax' with a friend so used this.

    83 spins (73 played) +$482.00 profit (minus tips)
    54c802de.jpg
     
  2. albalaha

    albalaha Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Likes:
    122
    Occupation:
    player
    Location:
    India
    @TG,
    Do you have any method in your compilation that can pass Van-Klein test or can better if someone bets one fixed EC with 1 unit always?
     
  3. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Pretty damn smart TG. I especially like the up after a win until the new high is reached. I'm working with hot numbers, four of them at a time. I'm seeing waits up to 30 spins occasionally in the hot numbers. Your method on up until a new high might be brilliant. Thanks
     
  4. mightymike

    mightymike Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Likes:
    47
    i really like this system. it's easy and simply to use. thanks for posting it! i also like how you included a graph of how your bankroll trended, that's very helpful to visualize how it can affect it as you progress.

    i've only seen this one so far. do you have any others? would love to see more from you as you seem to know what you are doing and roulette has always been a tantalizing mystery to me. anything that can help me organize my play so that i'm not just putting random chips all over the board is a huge plus! i think it's also more fun to follow a structured system rather than just betting randomly (more like aimlessly!).
     
  5. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Using this again last night - wasn't as nice a win - but a win none-the-less.
    54d60991.jpg
     
  6. mightymike

    mightymike Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Likes:
    47
    a win is a win is a win in my book! awesome job! do you have a website, tg? (not sure if we're allowed to ask...)
     
  7. Elijah Marks

    Elijah Marks Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    8
    Occupation:
    Risk Manager
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    Thats pretty nice TG, how long did it take you to play the 83 spins in your actual example of the play?
     

  8. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Roughly 2 hours
     
  9. Elijah Marks

    Elijah Marks Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    8
    Occupation:
    Risk Manager
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    sadly I lost in my last trip to the casino :( I didnt try the fathest back system though, seems as though this may require a larger amount of money buying in, as I suspect initial drawdown could be a factor
     
  10. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Spin / Bet per # / Winning # / Balance
    1 / none / 33 / ---
    2 / none / 0 / ---
    3 / none / 12 / ---
    4 / none / 9 / ---
    5 / none / 33 / ---
    6 / none / 11 / ---
    7 / none / 36 / ---
    8 / none / 32 / ---
    9 / none / 25 / ---
    10 / none / 33 / ---
    The farthest back dozen was 2nd - the farthest back column was 2-35
    so my bets were on #s 14,17,20,23 (and 0/00 split at $4.00 to make the table min.)
    11 / $2 / 0 / +$26 (have to love a first spin win - played numbers stay the same)

    Turbo (and anyone who can answer)

    I have read this numerous times. (Please note the red.) If you have $2 on the zero and it comes, your win is a net of $70. Yet you show $26 as your net win after deducting the other $6 in losses. My figures show 70-6=64. Even if you had $1 on the zero, it would be 35-3=32.

    Would someone show me where I'm going wrong?

    TwoCat
     
  11. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    WOW This format gives a bloke no time to edit!! Please disregard the above post and this one as soon as you read it. I seem to always find my mistake as soon as I post, but I usually have time to take it down. I'll use Word next time and let it age for a day or two!!

    Mod: Delete this one, too, please.

    Sam
     
  12. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    It happens
     
  13. Elijah Marks

    Elijah Marks Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    8
    Occupation:
    Risk Manager
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    I have not tried this method, not even in a demo simulation, because it seems to me that the intial drawdown can be a little bit too much than I am willing to risk, and with each roll, no matter what we thoink the probability is, the wheel really has no memory, so thinking that going father back increases the likelyhood of a certaoin number coming up is just a vivid imagination of something that just isnt entirely accurate. Now dice for eample, there certainly is a case for stating that a 7 is more likely than any other number to come up, just because of all the combinations that are possible on both dice to make a 7. But with the wheel well, its all seemingly random, but not even really random, as just because we dont understand nor can we see what causes certain numnbers to come up doesnt mean that it is really truly random. I am not even going to state what I do, but suffice to say out of the last 3 trips to the roulette table 2 times I doubled my money in a few hours and once I lost it all, so 2 out of 3 isnt bad, and for now I am taking a break on the casino, which to me is more a form of entertainment than a momney making venture. Sure its nice to win, but for sure the odds are stacked against you no matter what you play. The casino is there to make money, its a business for them, nothing personal of course, they dont care whose money they get.
     
  14. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Played again live this evening - Flat bet, no progression. $10.00 minimum, $1.00 chips
    5553dc3f.jpg
     

  15. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Good show!
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  16. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Indeed. It's always been a good money maker for me, and simple to play.
    at $10.00 chips it would have been a $4,020.00 profit. Laughs.
    "would have been" means nothing after-the-fact.
     
  17. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Question for anyone and everyone: How many spins would a dozen have to sleep before you considered it "due", if ever?

    I'll flip open the Zuma tester...wait....

    Here are the stats for the 10th thousand.

    1st=317
    2nd=309
    3rd=318

    That was a random "open-the-book" pick and not chosen to make my point.

    Why is no dozen 217 and another 418? You can't just fluff off that question; it is valid. For some reason everything tends to "want" to even out in the end. Statistical pressure? The "will" to catch up with the pack?

    By that token, a dozen and a column could "decide" to get off their butts at the same time.

    TwoCat
     
  18. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I like to think of it as a repeating rare event - by rare I don't mean one in a million, etc. lol.
    In this case I'll consider a rare event as 1 in 9 (in math I can do this - however 'rare' something is.. is up to me).
    It's all about math - not so much predicting what's going to hit, the roulette wizards would say that the past spins have no impact on the future ones so this could never work. And in that aspect they would be right. However - betting that a rare event won't repeat means that 8 out of 9 times on average I'll be right.
    So in this method I have 3 dozens and 3 columns - I play the cross section of those two, so there are 9 betting locations.
    Dozen 1 / Column A (1,4,7,10) Dozen 2 / Column B (2,5,8,11) etc.
    The cross section that hasn't shown in the longest amount of time will of course show up - at some point. Since each 4 number section has a roughly 1 in 9 chance of showing up - the section that hasn't shown up for the longest is my "rare event". I am betting that this "rare event" (1 in 9 in this case) Won't repeat as a rare event. One of the other sections will take over that title (8 out of 9 times).
    The math is sound - it argues with Gambler's Fallacy (fair enough). For me it works and is very reliable.
    If I say that 2,5,8,11 haven't shown up in the last 9 spins - expecting them not to show up in the next 9 spins would be a rare event repeating itself. (yes, those are my words - they can be argued as nonsense, I won't complain.)
    I believe (and from experience) that "random is predictable" - not because random is somehow flawed - but much like you said TwoCatSam - even random has the constant "urge" to balance out (or else it wouldn't be random. When there is no balance we have a bias - therefore for random to work, it has to follow rules that can be exploited) I like to think that most of my systems do their best to exploit this.
     
  19. Alan Yasutovich

    Alan Yasutovich Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Likes:
    0
    These numbers make no sense. What do they correlate to? 217? 418?
    Are you drunk?
     
  20. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Yes, I'm drunk! And you are stupid. But tomorrow, I shall be sober.

    (Apologies to Winston Churchill)
     

Share This Page