Author Topic: Betting against a sequence of spins  (Read 9709 times)

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
  • Thanked: 297 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2016, 10:20:46 PM »
Rourke in my blog I have explained the triangle of Blaise Pascal.This triangle is a very useful tool for anallyzing small even chances sequeences.
From my point of view there is no difference in a RNG and a real roulette sequence.
The excel SSB system is still free available.
A roulette player does not wager on the next spin but on the next spins with a betting selection.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2016, 10:24:16 PM »
Well Blue Angel! I've tried your Holy Grail and so far it works amazing :-) I've done 200 spins on RNG and 400 spins from Random.org and it's all profit. I used both Labouchere and Martingale.

The Labouchere is most steady, but the Martingale is the most profitable, though there are a few high bets sometimes.

This system is actually something I would consider using live!

Thanks - James

If you mean the ''fallacious holy grail'' it doesn't surprise me,but if you mean the old topic and the betting against last decisions from ''rmirror'', I no longer recommended it because there ARE safer options.

Labouchere doesn't guarantee profit on the toughest sessions, also depends from what kind of kinky underwear you are wearing tonight!;-) Just kidding!haha!

A few of the several things I agree with Kavouras.

Once said: "even if the holy grail was here on this forum, still everyone would keep on saying and doing the same...''
I'm not commending on this one because it's pretty obvious.

Also said about his strategy: ''I'm keeping my eyes and mind open to everything roulette can give me'' (per session)

If this is not the definition of flexibility, then I don't know what it is!
He also made several other comments from time to time which make me think we are likeminded, at least 90%.

Of course John if you believe otherwise you may let us know.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Thanked: 373 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2016, 11:53:51 PM »

As I wrote earlier, I've been doing some initial testing. My test results however, is not that impressive. For a 100 spin session I managed to bet on a sequence of 4 RED/BLACK and I've lost 2 out of 4 times. This doesn’t quite fit with my expectation, that a sequence of 4 RED/BLACK will only repeat 1 every 16th. spin.

My testing has been done on RNG wheels and numbers from random.org. So no live betting yet.

The above bet can be played with all evens, dozens and columns and even streets and six’s. The range of spins can also vary from 4 to 6 or down to 3, depending on how much patience you have.

For instance, betting against dozens in a 5 sequence spin could look like: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st. So we bet against this combination and if the ball lands on the following sequence in the next 4 spins - 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd - We bet against the 5th spin - 1st - And place our bets on 2nd and 3rd.

I think this is a very interesting approach to roulette, since you are betting against a sequence of spins and not on a single spin, like betting just on BLACK or 2 Dozen. However, one could also argue that betting on the same 2 Dozen is also betting on a sequence of spins, since it would be very rare if a dozen was hit more than 6 times in a row.

But despite this, I would very much like to hear your constructive criticism and your ideas on how to further develop this approach and make it into a working system.

Thank you - James
What you describe here is a "pattern breaker", where the pattern consists of 4 numbers.
And you employ 3 virtual losses. (meaning that if you played against the pattern from the start one number at a time you would've lost all three spins). So you only bet the 4th spin, hoping that this is  the one that is going to  break the pattern. I am sure that waiting for that scenario to form, you lose many WO's (winning opportunities). At the same time you save the cost of the potential losses that you would've incurred. There is a trade off in this process.
I prefer the way you described (betting the 4th spin).
But to find out if this system is worth anything, you have to look out for instances of the 4 numbers pattern repeating in consecutive triggers. ( meaning in every new pattern that forms).
It makes a difference if  you have negative results sporadically (here and there)even frequent, as opposed to having negative results consecutively. And if so what is the maximum number of consecutive failures? (meaning back to back or in a row). You really have to determine the max. number of consecutive failures. If it is 3 or more then the system should be rejected.
If it goes to two (but somewhat rarely), then it is worth pursuing it.
I am against this system with dozens, because you have to bet 2 dozens. And to make a profit, you have to triple each progression. And it climbs very fast if you ever run into this situation. which will happen by the way.
With dozens I prefer the "pattern repeater", because you only bet on one dozen.
If 32-24-5 came you have a 3-2-1 dozen pattern. You bet on the premise that one dozen will repeat in that order. So bet dozen 3, then 2, then 1 (or stop if you hit it). Usually within 6 spins the dozen you bet will repeat the pattern. And the most frequent range that this happens is between spin 3 and 6.
If you prefer to wait for 2 spins to lose(to save money and increase certainty in the spins that follow),  then you can bet spin 3 to spin 6. (4 bets). And you will be within the hot range.
Of course it can go out of range, (meaning before or after the hot range). More frequently before the range, and more rarely after the range
In that case wait for more virtual losses, but you can bet heavier to make up for the waiting time, and exploit the increased certainty.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 09:26:24 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2016, 06:16:32 AM »
Hi Dobbelsteen

I've read your post in regards to the Blaise Pascal triangle and it's the same I'm going for, with the 16 different possibilities for EC's.

However... I don't quite understand the statement: There are needed at least 64 spin, to create these 16 even. Could you elaborate on that?

http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,75.msg261.html#msg261 [nofollow]
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2016, 06:31:15 AM »
I actually mean the "Possible Holy Grail" Blue Angel :-) I've think it's an interesting approach and with the a stable progression and money management, I think it's worth a lot. I'll be doing some more testing though.

I've read up on your "Fallacious Holy Grail" and took it for a quick 1000 spins with numbers from random.org. It came out on top even though I had to wager 64 units at some point.

However... There is something I don't quite understand. When should I lower my bet?

Take this sequence for example where I bet on EVEN - Am I doing it the right way?

Spin #  Number  Result
1          23          -1
2          4            1
3          9            -1
...
37        36           1     After 37 spins I've lost 3 units so I raise my bet to 2

1         22            2
2         8              2    I'm ahead one unit and I now lower my bet to 1 - Is that correct?
3         18            2
....
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2016, 06:56:49 AM »
Well not to butt in or anything but, since Blue is gone and everything, I have understood him to say that you want to lower back down to 1 once you have reached your highest balance before recovery UNLESS you want to bail out of the sequence which you can do at any point actually, like 1 or above.
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2016, 07:31:23 AM »
Thanks for your thoughts Palestis.

I think you make some very valid point. For instance, the one about WO's. You actually miss out on a lot of winning opportunities. Normally you'll get a hit within the first or second bet, after your 4th betting sequence.

Your point in regards to number of consecutive failures is also worth taking a look at. I've actually experienced quite a few consecutive losses, when betting against a 4 spin sequence.
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2016, 07:35:21 AM »
Your more than welcome to butt in Reyth. It would make perfect sense to lower your bet, after you reached your highest balance. This will make sure, you bet the lowest amount possible and still get ahead.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2016, 08:04:26 AM »

Ya think!?  Ok fine.  You are the only one that is ANALYZING only the next spin.

Actually Reyth, you are correct. It doesn't matter whether you analyze the next spin or series of spins -- the principle still applies (past spins don't indicate future spins).
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2016, 08:08:32 AM »
I must agree with you Mike! I’ve been so caught up in low probability of betting against a certain pattern, that I missed the obvious part, where previous spins doesn’t influence future spins

The same can be said about just betting on either RED or BLACK. The chance of hitting red is 18/36. So we must assume that RED will at least appear 4 times in 10 spins.

However, this is not the case. I read somewhere, that you can expect RED to hit at least 35 times in 200 spins. So much for the probability of 18/36 :-)

Rourke,

Why do you assume that red will appear at least 4 times in 10 spins? Probability doesn't say that at all. In fact, the probability of at least 4 reds in 10 spins is 80%. Quite high, but certainly not a sure thing.
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2016, 08:17:25 AM »
Hi Mike

Assuming RED will appear 4 times in 10 spins, was just an example of how our assumptions are wrong when it comes to chance and probability. So like you say - Just because there is a high probability, doesn't mean it will stick when playing roulette.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1210
  • Thanked: 128 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2016, 08:49:55 AM »
Rourke,

How could past spins have an effect on future spins?  What physical force do you believe is changing the odds?
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Thanked: 373 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2016, 09:03:52 AM »
Rourke,

How could past spins have an effect on future spins?  What physical force do you believe is changing the odds?
Is that lesson included in your roulette school?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 09:05:55 AM by palestis »
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2016, 09:14:46 AM »
It can't Real. Everytime you spin the (European) wheel, there is ALWAYS an 18/37 chance that the ball will land on RED.

I started this post on the assumption that the probability of getting the same 4 RED/BLACK sequence 2 times in a row was 1/16.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Thanked: 373 times
Re: Betting against a sequence of spins
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2016, 09:37:39 AM »
It can't Real. Everytime you spin the (European) wheel, there is ALWAYS an 18/37 chance that the ball will land on RED.

I started this post on the assumption that the probability of getting the same 4 RED/BLACK sequence 2 times in a row was 1/16.
Rourke
The reason you find frequent failures in this system, (including consecutive failures), is because you only use a 4 number pattern. A 4 number EC pattern is not that hard to repeat, especially after you allow the first 3 to repeat as a condition (trigger) to bet the 4th.
To improve the performance you  have to take at least a 6 number pattern, And it can include all EC's.
B-R-O-E-H-L or a combination of them. But to have better results you have to bet 2 or 3 spins. Not just the last one. (provided all the previous ones repeated in the same pattern).
Then you will have much better chances and of course a higher risk.
The more the numbers in the pattern the more rare it becomes to repeat in the same exact order.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 09:39:54 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth