### Author Topic: Martingrail FINAL  (Read 1316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2027
• Thanked: 417 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2017, 11:59:32 PM »
Aren't  you implying that the single number WILL win more often than the two other numbers combined ?

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1570
• Thanked: 234 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2017, 12:03:03 AM »

Not any single VS any 2 singles, but the top against the 2 bottom.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 12:14:17 AM by kav »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2027
• Thanked: 417 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2017, 12:05:26 AM »

Explain please .

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1570
• Thanked: 234 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2017, 12:13:06 AM »
What exactly you don't get?

The fact that the top number in appearances will always eclipse the hits of the two longest sleepers??
Don't you know that 2 numbers could be absent for more than 4,5, or even more cycles??
Don't you know that the top performing number could generate from 8 up to 15 hits during those cycles?

Get it?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM by kav »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2027
• Thanked: 417 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2017, 01:10:27 AM »

It depends BA, on WHEN your top number repeats and WHEN the two sleepers awake. You are indulging in maths theory - not in reality. I can profit when betting sleepers - not a single number but a group of numbers.
Like me, you base your bets on an assumption, but, unlike you , I don't assume that it is bulletproof.
Anyway, I think we have hijacked this thread for too long so I'll end this discussion here .

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1570
• Thanked: 234 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2017, 01:37:31 AM »
Speak for yourself Scepticus because I never use guesses and assumptions like you do, I'd rather use rock solid facts such as:

A number always does 1 hit before 2, 2 before 3, 3 before 4, 4 before 5...and so on.
2 to 4 numbers will always sleep more than 111 spins (3 cycles)
More than 1 numbers may be under the same category but as the game progress those options are becoming fewer and fewer.
Therefore the only question is more numbers for less time or less numbers for more time??

If you analyze these facts you'd conclude that you can't lose not even a single session if you'd make proper decisions.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 12:38:41 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MrPerfect.

#### MrPerfect.

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 966
• Thanked: 538 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2017, 08:32:15 AM »
Interesting. ...
This kind of math l find atractive.  Especially when numbers in qwestion are positive in their overall expectation.  In fact this is what l work on closely at the moment. Did you do some deep studies ? If yes, ld like to see results.

#### ignatus

• Mature Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 241 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2017, 04:47:33 PM »
I'm going back to test this system more, see if I can get a higher winrate than 80% (that's the best i can get, obviously?) Anyway i think a tight stoploss should be used, i try +100/-100 with 1u bets, +500/-500 with 5u bets...

I need help testing,...

(First test was played with 5u bets)

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### ignatus

• Mature Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 241 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2017, 05:40:18 PM »
Someone gave advice to play with D'Alembert-progression (+1/-1) and it worked very good from a first test.

Played with random numbers in RX, (1u bets)

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### ptzelepis

• New
• Posts: 7
• Thanked: 6 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2017, 08:11:25 AM »
Can you give an example with Dalembert progression please ?

1st bet....2nd bet.....3rd bet....etc

#### ignatus

• Mature Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 241 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2017, 08:27:51 AM »
It's +1u on loss, and -1u at win.

I don't know if this system preforms better than any other 50/50 bet? I had my good runs i had my bad runs, if you like it, test it more, (but you have been warned!).
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 12:38:24 PM by kav »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3511
• Thanked: 1081 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2017, 08:32:04 AM »
If you want to modify the unit reduction on a win, it can have a significant impact upon the odds of getting a hit.

For instance, if we are betting 2 DS, we might want to go down 2 or 3 units on a win?

#### ignatus

• Mature Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 241 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2017, 08:58:38 AM »
Yes, that can be useful playing with Fibonacci-like progression, more agressive than Dâ€™Alembert, less agressive than Martingale.

But then again, what really matters is Stoploss and wingoal, as always. (we will have losses whatever progression is used) so, the point is to WIN more than lose, and that's the question of betselection.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 12:38:11 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### MrPerfect.

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 966
• Thanked: 538 times
##### Re: Martingrail FINAL
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2017, 11:50:53 AM »
Less numbers you bet is better. Martingales hit top of table limit very qweak if you bet half wheel... but what happens when you bet 3-5 numbers and martingale moderate?
It's always about bet selection, money management is essential but not top priority.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth