Well ya I do because this is the same guy that made the A vs. B approach that we discussed in the 1812 thread
. This is the same thing but he is only betting A.
I however tend to believe that GROUP B is a liability and will tend to under-perform GROUP A. It could be that just betting GROUP A is the way to go...?
I think he is pressing for a small correction at some point(s) in the 37 spins that will make a profit. My question is how reliable that approach is going to be; I mean of course we know it fails but can we manage those failures?
In examining this guy's systems, I have found him to be a studied scalper; he seems to understand statistical rarity.
I just had a "blank" session where the repeats dominated and not a single bet was generated. I think this is an advantage that keeps out of sequences that are likely to over-favor uniques.
UPDATE: Just had my first loss. Data below.
During the recovery process, the balance was as high as -91 units. The actual bankroll required to handle this loss sequence is 400 units. This means that taking recovery into account a balance of 800 units should be necessary to recoup the debt; this is because we are starting the new session +2 to the chip levels.
Strategic concerns revolve around the diminishing returns of a larger and larger bet selection with a larger and larger debt; when successive wins (2-3) don't appear, the debt keeps growing larger with every loss.
The 37th spin is pretty much an automatic stop loss.
A massive second loss before I could recoup the first, brings the total balance required to 1100 units with no ceiling in sight.
That't about all she wrote for this one...