Roulette Figure it out

No such thing .. as superior bet-selection type per se, & we both know that.

Otherwise, you'd be able to bet flat continuously & result in plus .. as ev+.
...Unless using computer &or some phycho-shit, only some are able to excercise & predict, predict good enough or exactly.

Superior bet-selection is structural-play .. how the bets are structuraly organized & congruently so, to address the particulars of distribution, its inherent nature.

I'd agree with that though, to manually exercise the play on short-runs .. 100-spins, though valid for EC-based play, whée the variance is at its minimum.

 

"don't know with one-position/spin"

& when I say that, that & everythimg else applies in tje context of ultrs-low bankroll ... definitely <100u ... about ±40-60 (or less, ideally).

The rest does not even come into 100 miles of my interest.

 

One number bet , first part is 1-2-4-8, after recovery is just +1

 

I have created a group on telegram , if anyone is up so we exchange some thoughts let me know!

 

Only speak for yourself cause only one of us believes that, apparently you.
I will not go back and forth with you, I have forgotten more about the game of roulette than you currently have in your busy brain, and that's a fact, "and we both know that"....

I typed a long post a bunch of days ago and this site flagged it, so I'm not going to go into a long drawn out repeated post, not worth the time.
The just was that I did not read this topic from page 1 so I reviewed the first couple pages and see that this about straight up numbers, so I don't want to derail or clutter the original thought as many already have.

TRD, if you are winning the way you play, good, but all the charts and graphs in the world mean precislzero

 

5 minute editing time on this site? Christ...
TRD, what I was saying is that graphs and charts mean nothing if you don't actually play and win money, and I'm sure you are not doing that at this point.
You do not know what I do inside of a casino, nor the criteria I use for bet selection.
100 spin blocks are plenty for any method.
Variance is a subjective myth. Talking about it is amateurish.
Flat betting is the waste of precious time and a winning method.
I'm am the biggest proponent of positive progressions you will ever encounter, and you already know that.
If you are using a method, system, or whatever, that is designed around a "ultra low bankroll" and it wins the way your charts and graphs and sigma test say, why the emphasis on the size of the bank?

 

Hi Juice, I agree with you on that but we have to test first (I guess), TRD maybe not as he said he has found the way.
Could you elaborate a bit about that length 100, as there is a lot of information on such sett of numbers.

 

In my view, all patterns lead to one showing whichever, selected as a target. .. & all are equally likely. That pertains to pure bet-selection, where on the felt the actual position-types are placed, irregardless of mm. (Last-outcome, repeats, finales). There's nothing superior about any of them

If you are talking about something structural, how bets are logically structured cohesively, that i do not see as bet-selection anymore .. but how the play is structured to address the
properties of distribution best.

In whichever way, variants contingent on the (range of) payout(s) used, defines that further.

That might & is by definition superior when done properly, compared to other types of attempts that only use the foremost mentioned.

Are the terms used & meanings syncing now?

 

Flat-betting = 1u/spin .... combined with progression in-risk = on hit progressing on deeper payouts while still maintaining the same stake/spin .... is a press, one form of it.

If I bet
2Q 0.5u/position (+3.5) & press for 3-4x spins with let's say DS 1u, the press- or combo-power anywhere between (+8.5) to (+5.5, +4.5) .. with the press lasting & getting a hit on any of those spins, completes the press.

All the while I bet vertically flat throughout th whole sequence = flat-betting.

Although, since the coverage is not fixed (EC-consistent), but having this system-parameter set as variable = coverage predefined as a range of payouts used, I call it fractional-flat betting or fractionally-flat-press.

Moving from wide-bet upon hit to focused-bet, or wide→ focused coverage .. in this example from betting 8 numbers to 6 upon a hit.

This parameter being a variable, in effect constituting degrees of freedom, within which press may formed = design various plays based on the same underlying principle ..... in order to further optimize the coverage, hit-probability or combo-power, dynamically syncing the plays based on exposition & +1 game-target.

Anyway, its still flat. But you decided to hand up on a word, term .. without exploring & identifying its meaning .. & allow for your prescribed meaning associated with it to fill your brain, working out what said based on that.

So, what you said is entirely correct on its own ≈ "press is the best thing", but the error correlated to flat-betting you derived, is also entirely on your side.

Combo, since two or more hits are correlated as a press attempts = combo-hits→ combo-power.

---

If you prefer having that system-parameter = coverage-fixed ...

& betting an EC-press as eg. 3-hits 3u→2u→5u to get (+10), &or 1.5u→1u→2.5u (+5) as a form of divisor as well ....

where, as one poyential form of strategical-application, after breaching exposition of (-10) & proceeding with the divisor-version, a successful-press of (+5) gain brings the game-exposition back into the closing-range to close the game with the former (+10) version ........... or any other strategical-application consiting of 2-hits & 3-hits presses + compiling & adjusting these plays to the exposition accordingly.

irregardless, the press on EC, inevitably, has to make space, or degrees of freedom to even be able to form it, in a vertical-dimension, vertically altering the stake on hi =
system-parameters: coverage • fixed, vertical • variable

while in flat-press, inevitably, the structure has to take degrees of freedom in in-risk or coverage dimension .... a sort of INVERSION, of how the press itself is facilitated =
system-parameters: vertical • fixed (flat), coverage • variable.

This inversion gives a much better granularity to sync the strategicak-application to each exposition point & +1 = flat, but best coverage, probability possible bought at that price.

---

Also, selecting coverage as fixed (EC), by default bs is bound into the EC-patterns & none other ... that's why you, most likely, include the structural-addressing of distribution as & into the bet-selection term inclusively .. as both are mutually-inclusive & inseparable in that perspective, by design. & herein, as well, the third aspect, the application of virtual-losses ... for those even able to comprehend. Basically, its all bundled.

While, jumping payouts, the structural-addressing of distribution (termed & quantified as numbers played, position-types) & bs as actual positioning or locus of these position-types applied is distinct. Any of bs-types may be applied to the mm-structure, without any long-term performance effect.

--

The reason for ultra-low bankroll is in other mm modules, that interplay with the base-system (+1), applicable to the manipulation of or base-unit modulation & ultimately best compounding effect, in yerms of base-system's scalability = amplification of profits that would otherwise be +1s only.

 

No, I don't know what you forgot & we all get rid off the things that are not optimal.

As well, don't attempt to talk down to me, as I am some sort of novice, amateurish shit ... awaitingbin shadows & attempting to charge im from your perceived heights to cut the tips of growimg wings & ostracize the wings, your usual modus operandi, to re-establish & re-inforce your relevance, importance that way ....

What we do ain't that much different anyway.

That's why I said to all you, to set some fundamental underlying principles of your system & work out of there, upgrading & perfecting the thing, aspect by aspect, till its done.

As the dynamic & terms (will) differ based on the application-type, & this i concur with @juice 100% ... the bottom-line, it only has to make sense to you.

The more wacko it is the better, since the fewer have the terminology→ meaning ... * harder to re-engineer.

After all, roulette is a zero-sum game, where winners (casinos & otherwise winners) pot directly proportional to the losers one. Innit!?

 

Something I intended to mention also.

That's why, in my application, in order to amortize the play, playing a lot more numbers/spin & cost effectively so ... while still congruent with my style:

I use the template of 3-separate & individual, but on one level still correlated games ... & amongs many other things, the virtual-loses are in-built herein by default, by structural-design (& not bet-selection) ... as mentioned 4-5-6 pause/resume.

Many ways to build-in + apply many & various aspects, tools ... essential to winning ... contingent on the fundamental principles & how those are set initially, from the get-go.

If none other, coders will comprehend this very quickly ... what advantages & shortcoming effect from the fundamental structure of how to tackle the thing, & the various languages then structured as optimized for various & varying use cases.

 

I'll let @juice answer that in his own way, but the importance of that in general is ....

Provided the game is being played to + combined with restart; at the point of restart, all the house-edge effects has been nullifies, neutered, paid off, & now since in positive→ restart, the system run a new instance anew, afresh.

So-to-say no history. This instance may be run on the very next spin, after a break, or the next visit in the casino. Or by somebody else playing ecactly the same system, for the first time.

Thereof, that 100-spin mention is the playing range. 1.000.000 of such games played, doesn;t change the fact a bit. The very next instance played & in the same way, any & every other -- that range remains the same.

Focusing now, zoomimg in on that range alone, there's only so much & many things that can happen on that peregrination or random walk to +1.

The track is known, it is roulette, the track is different on every lap (pun not intended), but the repertoaire of corners possible is known ... in type & in mumber of those, staked per lap.

The emphasys is on that, studying the corners & how those can get stacked .. within that range -- once your system properly & successfully addresses the possibilities of this repertoire congruently, it does not matter which form/shape the track takes on each lap, as those are all already included congruently so.

The universe gets & is enclosed within, & you control the universe, dynamically.

That's why @juice says that talking about variance is amateurish, in the context of chasing hits.

So what's really important is to study that range & know it intimately, what can & happens within that range + what are the system results, as metrics interacting with the distribution manifested -- one & the same thing -- whichever view the perspective takes place ... one, other, or both eventually & inevitably.

As the system has to address & be designed upon that -- the distribution within the range.

Based on the payout(s) used within & as the system, the lenght of this range differs, accotdingly -- as the variance itself differs, being simply a measure of distribution.

As much as we, juice & me, talked, +100-spins is about a an acceptable daily-play = session .. as a bundle of this ranges→ session-goal.

So, if you wanna play EC, exclusively or at least primarily, that's the range of spins u should study, focus your study on.
_For SU that's obviously more ..

At that point, 10.000.000 spins is irrelevant, as it's a cumulation or block-chain or such ranges, where one range is one block .. whatever the actual lenght manifested for each range, or instance run at +1 (or termination, if opting to use that too).

 

Take first profit and start a new game.
I am for now 46-0 if there is lost 1-2/100 do i keep this?
Looking a bit more right to the table that turbo posted did give a step further.

 

That 100 figure is a variable, contingent on the average units made per game.

If that average is +1 exactly, then 1/100 [→ 99/100= 0.99] is 99% certainty, if 2/100 is 98%.

If that game-average is lower than +1, to get 99% you'd obviously have to play more than 100 to get 99% .... & vice-versa = inversely-correlated.

If & once the system gets to 99.5% with the assigned bankroll, provided that you wanna keep at that bankroll amount, or even improve on it ... then the real work just begins.

 

1 in 100 ... 99/100 ... 0.99 .... 99%
1 in 200 ... 199/200 ... 0.995 .... 100 games difference = doubled the performace effectiveness to gain 0.5 & get to 99.5%
1 in 400 ... 399/400 ... 0.975 ... 200 extra games = quadruple the perfornance to hain another 0.25 & get to 99.75%

To put in perspective, once at 99% .... the system has to become !! 4X better .... to get to 99.75 !!

Now, once you reach 99%, imagine how much work, creativity & imagination you had to put in to establish just that.

& if that's accomplished, all you've done is laid foundation, now you still have to build the whole skyscrapper on top of it.

That's with the same bankroll 99% has been reached.

If improving on that, even more than 4x.

 

But by then, 99.5%, the system is cohesive & the area to work on is much more focused -- you know the system's ins & outs, know all of its constituents, as bundle of best-refined versions, how modifying any &or some those affect each other exactly, you've removed pretty much all inefficiencies too.

The hardest games show you what to work on exactly & the oversight & insight into the dynamics is next to none.

Once refined & pushed to the max on some level, you gotta think of ways to upgrade it further ... either innovating, drawimg from others resources (principles, concepts) that somewhat align with, possiblybeven find new uses in the things previously discarded but giving an advantage combined differently.. or even invent, mm mechanism compatible with it. However many of these till its perfected.

Stay the course.

Till its done.

 

100-0

 

I think you've strayed too far from the main topic being discussed...
I think I had the eureka moment that Turbo talked about so much and found a way to implement the horse race the right way.
I even dare to say that with patience, it can work flat, but I like applying the Turbo progression better, the graphics are more explosive and pleasant.
I will continue to do many tests and when I have it verified I will put it into operation with real money, but in case it was like so many other times that it ended badly, I will also let you know.
By the way, what you are explaining on the first and second page of the advantage of the 3 repetitions helped me a lot.

 

Hi, what posts are you talking about?

 

There indeed it seems that we can play this in different ways , it depends how many units anyone like to win every session . I am combining different ways to see what is the most stable . I guess the matches column is still ahead! As your bank grows it becomes more easy if you play low units.

I am 182-0 for now