Roulette Figure it out

In my experience, a so-called superior-bs is how the positioning is addressed structurally, in my case as MM.

Whereas, the bs-type used & plugged as last-outcome, repeats, etc. makes no difference whatsoever.

Can be more to it, perhaps .. I ain't all knowing.

Neither I wanna be, I don't know how to lose, I've forgotten that. & it remains so.

 

↑

 

-60?, Units?
That's not an option.
Under any circumstances.
To each their own I suppose.

 

TRD everything looks ok, as you said that did work for you. I start running spins and play as you said last decision as bet selection don't matter. First sett like the one I posted around 3k spin went well, second sett same amount of spins same MM a disaster.
I know you said it may take months to achieve that, but I may already be months on that and I can't see how you can't lose.
Also where I can't see a difference is on stop and start, what is the point! Am I still on the same game or not? Even that doesn't matter, what I mean is if you are on the negative part of the game you are nothing changes that.(Yes how mucho you will expose the bankroll)
After 5 or 6 stop I am still on negative hole and I decide to raise a unit now so to start recovery and loses continue how the heck do I recover from that.!
Your graphs are looking like there is not such thing and I can't see how MM rather the accuracy could keep it like that.

 

Who knows, in a few years I might get experienced enough to come up with smth even better.

However, the bankroll / exposition size is also contingent on the payouts played.

If playing only EC, that might get lower .. but frankly, I have no idea how to solve that, yet ... & currently, I don't see how can it capped at -20 .. one can easily encounter 20x spins EC no-hits, or 15x + 5, or 11x + 9x at the more extreme.

If playing up till street payout, EC→ST range .. various combinations, -60 to resolve the vast majority is quiet good. Comparing that to the graphs of most parachute-based plays, even my previous' versions ones, its bordering amazing.

If playing SU-exclusively, the bankroll would be much higher .. & frankly, I do not know how to resolve that either .. mostly, coz I am focused on my thing & that alone takes a lot of time working on + since the greater bankroll-size, by default would make the compounding lower .. so adapting it to that, would be a step backwards.

The only improvement would be to further amortize the thing, using fewer payouts range, or getting to EC exclusively.
But then, due to having lesser range as progression in-risk, I'd probably have to re-introduce the negative progression at some point.
Which regarding eg. 10x + 9x ... or even 7x +5x .., would bring it beyond -20, even further.
Unless -20, -30 is where the cap is .. & with such-based play still get overall upward trend.
How to resolve every game 100% with -20, -30 ... is beyond even my comprehension, at this point .... if its even possible?!?

 

What do you refer to as stop-start?

balances, restart
Every one of dz-games, after the attack EC→ 2DZ batched in front of that, runs its own balance, when that gets to + (not all local have to be resolved to get to this point) → restart local- game, if global-balance in + restart the whole thing, attack onwards.

pause-resume
after 4-5 spins no dz-show, that local-game gets hybernated, the spin after that dz-show the game resumes, reactivates with the same local-game exposition onwards.

Also, think of other mm-mechanism u made clad upon this, so in combination u might deal with local-balances better = upgrade it
• can smth be done when one of the locals resolves
• in what manner & degree, of all the possibilities, coupled with ur existing setting works in ur favor, & best

 

How much to expose?

Check this image, array on the left, based on +1u/game average.

Left column are the number of games, different to the previous value in the right column. Right column is the game-certainty, median.

The difference basically tells you how many extra consecutively won games would have to be won, to secure the next percentile-level.
As you can see, at some point the price in number of extra games starts to rise very quickly. Meaning, in my experience, ain't worth funding any further.

Why?
Because each extra game results in lower session-probability ... or game-certainty^number-of-games. & most importantly, much higher bankroll, to cover for the additional, more extreme to ranges of bell-curve, ever more rarer outliers.

To make sense, to secure 99.9999% game-certainty, you'd have to win whooping 5000x +1s in a row.
This in as a session to the base-unit (bu) doubled is 0.999999^5000= 0.9950124767. So, still 0.5% chance to bust a session & the bankroll.
This bankroll would be rather enormous & with a single-bankroll, you'd risk wiping-off all the profits & ruin, if you would not be putting extra bankrolls aside at bu-doubling points instead, on some frequency, to prevent wiping everything off.
So why not introduce a bit lower performance threshold on a +1 level, at a much lower cost to sustain it, & start with extra reserve-bankroll at the get-go ... & enjoy all the benefits of that.

How much to expose .. that's entirely up to you. How you decide to manage the risk ..
What compounding-rate do u wanna have.
What's the number of reserve-bankrolls & what's the session-length?
What's the game-certainty you wanna work with?

Combine all this factors & you will get to the rough answer. Then you have to optimize all of these, fine-tune the car to the track. Roulette is your track & corners are standard-deviations, appearing randomly = the track is always anew, but the corner-types are known,

 

Also, the charts posted are not from my current version, just displayed as an example comparing various bs-types .. some upgrades has been added.

 

*Number of extra games cpnsecitivelybwon to secure each additional 0.01% game-certainty extra.

 

correction

 

TRD i am trying to get what you are saying but for sure there is more behind it so there is not a chance we get what you do as every other system posted here. Now i send you a pm on the other forum but either you dont have time to see it or you dont answer pm's.

Now help me out here if you will with a practical example: Here is my data it doesn't matter what the bet selection is ,the only thing i need is i will go always for that 99 witch is on a 500 spin data one position(event) only , so if i go 500/99 i get 5.050/event avg. I can't win with this witch to me i have an advantage as it is a bit better then random, from the perspective that happened more than the others..

1: 99
2: 54
3: 37
4: 14
5: 6
6: 3
7: 4
8: 3
11: 1

 

I don't know the meaning of these metrics represented here, how these make sense in the bigger picture.

Explain this event/avg.

I see the game (to +) differently --
exposition, hit, hits-to-finish ..
or if more than 2-3 hits, presses to finish.
Wide→ focused coverage, or wide→ mid→ focused.

That's the logic, the trajectory .. charting & executing a few steps in advance (kind of like chess), dynamically updating.

The game opens, what's the exposition at first-hit, what pathway leads to + .. that's the most cost-efficient & related to the exposition the highest-probability that still makes sense + minimum-cost, in case long dry spell continues or another appears directly after the hit = balance(d) either way.

 

We said the best selection doesn't matter, but I will go with number 1 on that table witch we can call it r/b , or h/l, one position bet not parachute. I am trying to understand how to control this simple game with only one position. I can't manage to win either positive progression either negative wil eat my bank either double after a loss. .

 

Perhaps you should try and win at another game.
All due respect.
The game of even money is not a difficult one.
Good luck to you in your quest. I hope you get there.
A word of advice if I may...
Stop running tests that are larger than 100 spins.
Run a 1000 of them if you want, but do it manually, and no more than 100 results at a time. Try and Learn Something from it.

 

Thank you for your advice buddy, I will. Why you don't elaborate a bit more!

 

I don't know how, with one position.
Wide-coverage, 2-3 positions→ on hit, single-position, press

 

Ok guys i post this as a lot of members have read i general a lot of what turbo had posted on that site! Here i have just high and low streams.
I did continue the new cycle with the previous winner.

 

What was the best prog to apply , can someone confirm that. There seems to be reason why y raise the bet taking the advantage of what is happening. I did use 1,5,9,13,17 no reason at all ! The hard session where when there was not a 3x after 37 and not 4x after 72 ragne !

 

Are these 2x positions moving to 3x?

If so I've tested this in the past, 1x-6x. The 2x winning position over a thousand cycles end up in the last 3 positions added >75%. As you move close to 6x winning position the average was >90%. Makes sense, you have less contenders.

 

Hi Timothy , the Xs are involved but the way i see it is what also is known a number to go to 2x has to be first 1x.
In the above table as you see on the low side 17 is a repeat as it did win two cycles, on the fourth cycle did hit the 2x, i start betting only that number on cycle 5 as it is the only that can go to 3x. Now on cycle 6 there is no bet but also 14 is at 2x so cycle 7 begin with 14 only etc , on cycle 10,11 we have two wins with only one number! If that make sense. Same goes for the other side !