Roulette Figure it out

Then i did got my answer on that part at least from my own question, not the solution but at least i did excluded out that hing: Just for six losses!

Ec 1
Ec 1
Ec 1
Ec 1
Ec 1
Ec 1 -6

Ec 1
Ec 1
Doz 1
Doz 2
Lin 6
Lin 8 -19

Ec 1
Ec 2
Ec 4
Ec 8
Ec 16
Ec 32 -63

 

At somd point I still believed, delusionally, that repeats offer an advantage.
I even had a document I created as an investigation into this proving my delusion, but suffive to say, although quite a number of spins it was simply too low of a number.
The only ways bs offers an advantage are two -- roulette-computers, psycho-prediction (for those capable) = ev+ flat-bet.

Everything else are just various patterns, can be any & any combination of them. Basically, those constitute a sieve. Sometimes, inevitably, the distribution comes in sync with the sieve, others not. Due to the variance, congesting at times & dispersing on others, alike probability being 1/100 averaged, you might have 0/200 & then three of those events congested as 3/100, in total 3/300.
So you might get a sense of smth working in your favor, but its really must congested patch working in your favor ... & playing in exactly the same way for long enough, the more dispersed patches balancing the former out are encountered.
You might start testing a system & get straight in the dispersed ones relative to the setting's sieve designed, thinking 'this setting' doesn't work, dismissing it. Other times you may get in more favorable at first, & then get slapped a bit later, perhaps thinking 'oh this was better' .. it may even work a bit longer due the the negative progression ... & try to make further tweaks & this & that.

The point I am making is this -- no matter which bs you opt for .. these are all the same.

You are always opting for a sieve/pattern (static) & the distribution dancing on it (dynamic). Imagine a plate with a pattern & another plate with all possible patterns randomly sliding on it. There's s light source shining 90° onto them & sometimes the plates' patterns get synced, casting a perfect pattern of your initial determination of the first plate casted on the floor or ceiling.

Even if the pattern is just about semi-dynamic, like tracking top repeats in any way you wish, it doesn't change the fact -- its all still the same.

If you gonna bet continuosly, none of the patterns are ev+ ... any of them identical to each other in the aspect just like every straight-number is 1/37. No matter which you opt for, betting on it for long enough is 1/37, just like any other. Or as some guy said, point me to a pattern & I'll get you a distribution-pattern that it would lose against.

The only exception is using a purelg random bs versus last-outcome &or repeats ... at least with latter the betting in the longest-quiescent numbers is avoided, meanwhile with random you might, but then again since it is random, its fairly unreasonable to except the string generated would be bettin long-quiescent for very long.

Which only proves my point again, all bs are the same.

& the reason RRBB pointed to the derived stream, in my opinion, is to bring forward the fact that most appearances come from the so-called low-derived (about ≈90+ on any payout), which id basically last-outcomes stream = numbers arranged in the order of appearance (pushing numbers in front, so excluding repeats).
Maybe 6th-sense can add smth on this, smth I did not uncover &or address other aspects of how to use advantageously.


Thus, for this reason, it is my stanpoint, that the only way to address the roulette is with money-management -- the two things that are in control, how much money & where its placed (payout type)→ coverage.
So how much money is put on the table & what probability is bought for it .. & this differs from payout to payout, default & derived ones (eg. Q= default 8:1, derived 2Q= 7:1).

Bet-selection is of no importance, where its placed is great to have defined, so where the money goes in terms of quick execution is resolved & on automatic.

All other patterns lead to the one picked, whichever ....... read that again.

The only thing that matters is money.

 

Martingale is +1, on each & every spin hit .. correct?

Now look at the classic-parachute, its pretty much a ≈martingale, giving a nominal-profit on hit ... so still a bit over-bet, a monetary inefficiency to get +1 on each spin .. isn't it?

•

Pure-marti is doubling the units on each spin on EC, so the progression is in the vertical-dimension. EC 1u 18ⁿ (+1, -1)→ EC 2u→36ⁿ (+1, -3)→ EC 4u 54ⁿ (+1, -7)→ EC 8u 72ⁿ→ (+1,-15)→ you know the drill ...

With parachute, progressing in payouts, the progression is in-risk dimension. (ⁿ = number-played).
EC 1u 18ⁿ (+1, -1) → DZ 1u 30ⁿ (+1, -2)→ DS 1u 36ⁿ (+3, -3)→ DS 1u 42ⁿ (+2, -4)→ DS 48ⁿ (+1, -5)→ Q 1u 52ⁿ (+3, -6)→ Q 1u 56ⁿ (+2, -7)→ Q 1u 60ⁿ (+1, -8)→ ST 1u 63ⁿ (+3, -9)→ etc.

•

If you would devise pure-marti on DZ, you'd less than double, due to combining vertical + in-risk dimensions.
DZ 1u 12ⁿ (+2, -1)→ DZ 1u 24ⁿ (+1, -2)→ 36ⁿ DZ 1.5u (+1,-3.5)→ DZ 2u 48ⁿ (+1,-5.5)→DZ 2.5u 60ⁿ (+1, -8)→ DZ 3u 72ⁿ (+1, -11)→ etc.

Since classic-parachute is +1-accordingly produces monetary inefficiencies (+3 to +1), to cut these out & generate minimal-debt/spin, you may design custom-payouts .. by exapanding/contracting horizontally with adjusting the number of positions on payouts or horizontal-dimension. Combining all these 3 is what I addressed previously as coverage,
EC 1u 18ⁿ (+1, -1) 1:1
DZ 1u 30ⁿ (+1, -2) 2:1
3ST 0.33/each, 1u/total 39ⁿ (+1, -3) 3:1
2DS 1u/each, 2u total 51ⁿ (+1, -5) 4:1
3Q 1u/each, 3u total 63ⁿ (+1, -9) 6:1
2ST 1u/each, 2u total 75ⁿ (+1, -11) 10:1

This is ≈marti ↑ all spins +1 ... isn't it?

•

Now, let's examine the above bet-sequences in terms of number-played & exposition, see how these compare.

Pure-marti ... 4th-spin ... EC 8u 72ⁿ→ (+1,-15) ... 72/15=
DZ-marti ... 6th-spin ... DZ 3u 72ⁿ (+1, -11)
Parachute-marti ... 6th-spin ... 2ST 1u/each, 2u total 75ⁿ (+1, -11)

With EC-marti played 72ⁿ & generated exposition of -15.
With DZ-marti played 72ⁿ as well, but generated less of a hole of (-11).
with Parachute-marti same debt generated (-11), but played 3ⁿ extra.

What was the cost per number
72/15= 0.2083u
72/11= 0.1527u
75/11= 0.1466u

•

Now, you tell me which marti-version is the most cost-effective ..
& which version bought you the most numbers-played overall?

 

I don't play like ↑ that .. but its an example giving you an insight, an alternative way on how to see & approach the game of roulette.

See this also https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,3630.msg79363.html#msg79363

 

Thank you again TRD , everything you said about repeats did cover my conclusion and my results.
No matter how hard you try there is a hole waiting for you at the corner and that is the reason I do sound like I am complaining..
Indeed what rrbb pointed was that, repeats happening on low derived witch means on least numbers rather than old, around 3000 cycles there will be a repeat on high but isn't enough to get an edge. He also on everything was saying numbers can not be predicted.
The one thing I was messing with was playing with the created splits (two first unique) or streets etc as the results came but why complicate things when the table helps as it is!
At the end everything fails and yes after so many years I still feel dumb loosing so much time to find something that doesn't exist, even they was saying that repeats is not the way, waiting for an event is not the way, maybe that then that.

So we keep how much and where.
The reason I left this back was ( obviously I had no the solution) bcs every time I did a full cycle of 36 spin and there was one cycle that didn't win I didn't know how to recover from that so my mind said is not the way, when you in plus is ok but a full cycle gets you back on the BR .

 

All of these Martingale systems, including the classic and the “parachute” variation, have their pros and cons, depending on the strategy the player is focused on. Classic Martingale often results in high losses over a short period of time, while Parachute allows you to play more spins, but also reduces losses.

 

We are not looking just a system but consistency, it seems that TRD has that.

 

I understand your feelings, many people face the same problems. You can spend a lot of time and effort looking for a system that will work consistently and eventually come to disappointment, because all strategies tend to have their weaknesses. As TRD correctly pointed out, repetitions and cycles are an important part of the game, but they do not guarantee long-term profits because in the end the outcome will always depend on chance.

 

OK .. now that we got that onboard (bs), let's analyze something else.
No matter the system design & applied we can label/sort the game by difficulty &or length. Easy, mid, long/hard, extreme.

We can say easy & mid are simple irregardless of system & progressions, simlly due to the inherent nature of distribution or bdll-curve.

The trouble starts with with mid-hard threshold, hard & extreme.

I already said that negative progression is like squeezing a baloon in the middle, the effect of it. Yes, more games in this range of towards hard will be closed & sooner, pushing that threshold further a bit. But that advantage gained is paid by the (much) higher expositio base to recover from in the hard games & extreme, if the escalatation rate is too high the extreme, perhaps even hard-range, woulc already result in bankroll-bust.

So you have to devise the way of digging the least hole or generating the least debt traversing towards the hard & extreme range, keeping the drawdown recoverable. Yes, the easy+mid games are on average longer & the average profit in tdrms of units/spin is lower, however the exposition-base, the debt to be recovered in such instances is on average lower & (still) manageable.

Once you succeed for the system to successfully do the whole easy-hard range pretty smoothly .. & come facing the extreme games with still manageable debt, then hou are the verge of actually having a working-system.

But know that having 99% of the games resolved, or game-certainfy at 99% you are just-just entering that hard-area. That 99% is nothing really but a bit solid foundation.

Even 99.5% ain't enough, though a bit better, decent. That's when the work actually begins, the real work.

That's when you might see how steep the requirements become to gain each additional 0.01%, let alone each extra 0.1%. & how much is that quanfified in additional units added to thd bankroll to be able to sustain additional stress to the system. What do I mean?
Let's say you exposes a certain structure to extreme levels of vibration vibration, it will easily sustain most of the intensity, but once the structure starts to deform, suddenly everything start falling apart. Imagine a plane crash movie scene, sure everyone has seen plenty of those. Once it gets to a point of one plate deforming & being ripped of, the structural congruency gets compromised & breached, passing the threshold of no return where havoc is wreaked & all falls apart very quickly suddenly.
Same goes with phones, tablets, elecronic devices in general, any sort of structures, buildings, even server being online (check the operating %s for the servers being up) ... that's why you have for example military-standards (MIL) & rugged tablets for industrial & outdoor environments with extreme ranges of shock (westher, temperature- & vibration-range, dust- & water-proof .. IPxx)
Just ask any structural or software enginner how much extra effort & cost goes in securing expanding that range, that operating threshold just a little bit further .. & how that grows exponentially harder, ensuring consistency for each additional notch into the extreme.
Same goes for roulette-system. In that context I presented tensegrity-structure. Its inherent nature is that the shock on any point gets distributed over all other structural-points ≈equally. Specifically per roulette-system this would be various fail-points. You don't want the exposure to shock being one fail-point with other covered, or a single-point-failure-design, but rely distributed on multiple of those, ≈equally.

 

Let's say you have 1 termination, or reserve-bankroll bust, in X games to plus = 1/X.

Make a table how many extra successive games played successfuly it requires to get or secure each another 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% extra. See up to where its worth playing or financing it, & at which point the costs do not viably entertaing thd extra risk any longer.

game-certainty, 1/X
1 termination in 50 games played, median = (50-1)/50 = 49/50 = 0.98
1/50= 0.98
1/100= 0.99 1 % .. 50-games extra
1/150= 0.993 0.3% .. 50-games extra
1/200= 0.995 0.2% .. 50-games extra
1/250= 0.996 0.1% .. 50-games extra
etc.

Is the bankroll 100u & making +1u/game? Then to double the base-unit you'd have to win 100-games in row, as a gamechain = session.

What's the session-certainty.

Is the game-certainty (median!) 1/50 or 0.98 ... so expected terminations per 100 games are 2? Then its expected you'd very, very, very rarely win a session (1/10), at extreme variance in your favor, & never double the base-unit twice. In other words, 0.98 you can chuck in the bin.
To win two games in row, the chance is 0.98x0.98 = 0.98^2 = 0.9604 or 96.04% chance.
To win 100x games in a row = 0.98^100 = 0.13261955589 or 13.26%.
At 50% you'd be breaking even ... BUT we probably all know the variance of an EC-bet, you could have 10x, 15x, 20x, 25x sessions, or more at highest extremes terminated in a row !!!!!!!!

Is it 1/100 or 0.99 ... then you might have a chance to get a bit further.
0.99^100= 0.36603234127 or 36.6%.
That's about a DZ-bet probability, or about 40x sessions terminated in a row.

Is it 1/150 or 0.995 ... 0.995^100= 0.60577043649 or 60%.
That's about a 2DZ-bet.

Etc.


How much do you need ??
How many reserve-bankrolls do you have/need?


There's more things that can be said, but I won't. I said more than enough.

I'll add only this ... if you play single-SU/spin ... the profit range/game is between 1 & 35, so long-term average is not +1 but +17.5. & the bankroll is not definitely not 100u.

 

TRD if we say that the bet selection doesn't matter but i prefer to keep a template to follow as saying bet the last decision.
I did run some test all the way flat to see how it will do on different games first stage flat as we are dealing with MM.
My results are those:



So i was betting every bet 6 units, total bets placed 245 , now i have to apply one of the ways to achieve something better on sessions like the third one correct?
Also is there a cup we put ap per loss so we restart?

 

Positive prog. Not perfect

 

I am trying what is posted and (combine it ) .
I am struggling yet with the MM!
Less spins more gain.. multiple sessions

 

Spin 162,163 ...why did you bet so much?
The most important thing is to keep drawdowns low?

If you base-unit is 6 -- how can you redistribute those 6 chips of 1u on various payouts while keeping overall bet/spin flat eg. EC 6u ... 6ST 1u ... etc.

& also, cost-efficient .. versus exposition.
What do you really need at any point gained, to form a press & with what ... to get you where you want .. +1, or previous recovery-level→s another press.

 

This was on two position TRD , when i was losing i was still at 1 unit per position but when that position did hit i was doing +1 until recover ..

 

TRD a question , If i decided to bet only two consecutive spins then stop and enter again at some point how should i approach this MM on this situation ? As this is kind a flat but that recovery is the whole point !

 

Same thing as continuous, why would it make any diffrence .. ultimately u have to get to +1 & keep your drawdowns at minimum.

The question here is why bet only for 2x-spins .. what's the premise, what's the advantage?

 

I am trying to apply it to a bias bet that is created from kind of dependence to have a better edge with positive prog. . Still I can't see the way.

 

This thread turned into a one man quest it seems, scaring everyone else away.
Anyway that tip, while it can frustrate ie. when after spin 6 you drop numbers from sleeping dozen and they hit right next spin, I think it makes a positive impact on ROI eventually. Maybe a coincidence too, after all in the grand scheme of things what is playing few thousands spins, one can simply just be lucky.

 

If that goes to me Gigi you are wrong.