Deposit Bonus 200% up to $1000

Author Topic: Beating roulette with math...  (Read 51483 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hann

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2010, 10:17:21 PM »
Are you willing to disclose the meat and potatoes of this system, Belgian?

So far I haven't been able to understand much.

Many thanks
« Last Edit: December 19, 2010, 09:41:13 AM by kav »
 

ttt

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2010, 12:46:14 AM »
Not making one unit a day is more of an impossibility than the impossibility
of making one single unit a day.

If we were talking making 100 units...then that would/could be a hard row to hoe.

I suppose that even 10 units on a day where nothing is going your way
could be a very tough grind.

Hell, you probably could get that one unit just by scouring the slot machine
trays for an unretrieved coin or two.  :-\
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2010, 09:40:30 PM »
Hi all,

I am still there but after my last post in this thread the discussion was continued in The Johnson progression thread.

One can make fun about the "1 unit every day" but if you find a way to come out ahead full proof consistently you beat the game. This 1 unit thing was only meant to avoid losing not being the win goal. When the streaks are very bad, you have to be prepared that 1 unit all there is for the bad day's, after all winning in roulette is not hard, avoiding losing is.

May way of play is explained in The Johnson thread, I start with the aggressive way averaging about 1 unit/ 2.5 spin on 90% of the runs. My win goal is 15 units/ game, 2 sessions /day. 1 game is average around 35 spins. BUT as soon as things get a little bit though I already stretch the Labby to keep the bets low, as i know i will always reach EOS, and YES on a very, very bad day this can be a session of max 200 spins. (off course till now I never went that far, maximal for the moment is 92 spins)

The moment stretching of the labby is something that is subjective but the critical part, there are no fixed rules, depends also on the bankroll (with 1000 U one could play aggressive for a long time) and the "risks" one wants to take in order to end the session. My advice start with it as soon as you getting to feel uncomfortable.

In general if someone wants to win consistently there are 2 conditions to be met:

1 Play on an event you know it is 100% sure to happen ( or maybe better said which chance is lower then 1 in a billion of spins)
2 How many spins does it take this event to occur maximum and base your progression on it.

There is more then 1 way to achieve this, and I know now, there are more people out there finding solutions based on these principles, but I don't know of any who wants to explain in detail their way of play.

regards,
Belgian
Perkin
 

doc

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2010, 08:15:30 PM »
Hi Belgian:
Think in terms of playing in a live casino and test your method this way:  first qualify the table. Find a section of data with 20-40 spins with a heavy imbalance of one of the even chances. My suggestion is to be more conservative, and use numbers that you know are routinely seen every hour. (Example: 16/4, 25/8 etc.) Better still, would be to extract a section of 20-40 spins out of an actual 200 spin Hamburg data sample.
Essentially, I suggest that you simulate qualifying your table at a live casino by not beginning to make bets until one of these 20-40 spin sections has just finished. Begin playing your Labby method on the opposite chance that has dominated the last 20-40 spins.
In playing this way you will remove 10%-25% of the worst sections of data from the 200-spin sample.
It can turn a 133/67 2 to 1 “nightmare” into a much safer 90/60 3 to 2 game. I think you will find this is an easy test for your Labby and you will not need to bet over 300 units even if you play aggressively. (Please pardon my numbers. I am trying to give a fast easy example to make a point.)
Doc
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2010, 09:01:22 PM »
Hi Doc ,

You suggestions are fine, and could help shortening the games. I agree that you probably don't need a huge bankroll for almost any session then, but encountering a very long session (and thus a large bankroll) will be met on a bad day for sure.

Also interesting is the differential betting principle to combine with as proposed lately in the Johnson thread and playing 3 even chances at the same time, so you can transfer larger losing bets to an "empty" labby, to keep the bets even lower and lessen the ecards, but this also makes the recording a lot more complicated and one will need a lot of concentration.

For me, I do not chart tables anymore, because I know I have the answer to every permanence of all Hamburg years, all tables, every day.

I started playing 2 and a half weeks ago for real , starting with 2 Euro chips (mechanical roulette table) with a Bankroll of 2000 units (4000 Euro). Target for every day 2 times 15 units (2 sessions). I play 3 day's/week. After playing the first week I won 3 times 30 u= 90 u (180 Euro). Second week I increased my unit to 3 Euro. I did win that week 3 times 30= 90 u (270 Euro). This week I play with 6 Euro units. Played 2 days, 2 times 30 u= 60 units (360 Euro). Total now 810 Eur. Tomorrow I will play last 2 games with 6 Euro chips (exactly 12 times 0.50 Euro chips)and then next week I will start with 3 sessions of 10 Euro chips on a table with a live dealer.

I like to build up my bankroll, not only to avoid losing (although I am confident a permanence for this is needed which such horrible runs, not found on Hamburg tables so far), but also at the mechanical roulette table I don't get attention from the pit bosses , I like being unnoticed as long as possible.

I keep my sessions short with 15 unit goal per game, to lessen the influence of the zero (on the mechanical roulette there is no "en prison rule") and also to lower the probability of encountering a bad streak.

One day, I needed 126 spins to end the first game and 121 spins to end the second (largest bet needed 52 units) playing for more then 6 hours, so the sessions are not always that short unfortunately. The best day did end the 2 sessions after 2hours and 15 minutes, including a short break between the sessions.

When everything is going according to schedule then I will have after 10 weeks playing a win of 24.000 Euro. That is my target for the moment.
Higher then 40 Euro/unit is not advisable for me because then I danger reaching table limits on a very bad day.

regards,
Belgian
 

Hann

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2010, 07:39:41 PM »
Hi Belgian, I understand if you don't want to reveal the details. I think I got it wrong when I played a 64 zero plus one one labby. I crossed out only one, (instead of two, in this case you would need 129 zeros and one one).

Am I falling behind? Are these characteristics similar to what your playing?
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2010, 07:42:30 PM »
Hi Hann,

I am sure that with all the information I posted in this and the Johnson thread one can develop his own safe strategy. Also information posted by others like Doc and Lazarous is very valuable.

The 64 zero +1 labby was for me just a stage in the development of the current strategy, which always starts with 0,1. The imaginary zero's are still employed, used to stretch the Labby during bad runs, and to be on the safe side, I start using it very quick: better winning after 50 spins, then taking the risk seeing your bets raised like a Martingale which dangers your bankroll and approaching table limits.

Also, I am still trying to finetune the strategy in order to reach EOS more fast, i am convinced it can be done, I have still many idea's left to investigate due to the flexibility of the Labby, it has hundreds of hidden possibilities,

Regards,
Belgian
 

john

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2010, 09:42:09 AM »
Excuse my ignorance, a gave up playing Roulette a long time ago.

A term that is being branded about a lot is 'permanence'. What does it mean.

Thanks
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Thanked: 923 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2010, 09:47:03 AM »
Permanence is a series of roulette outcomes.
For example, it can refer to the chart of spins of a specific day on a specific table.

("Personal Permanence" is the chart of the roulette spins a player has bet on.)
 

random

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2010, 09:48:42 AM »
Hi Belgian, I have a question... In your method your reference for analysis is 200 spins... But according to Muck data, there are many others groups of spins where you can get the analysis of minimum hits of any even chance... So, why 200 spins and not 50, or 25, or just 100? Thanks for your reply...
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 09:49:50 AM »
Hi Random,

The 200 spins were taken because then the worst case scenario according the statistics is within the 1:2 range (B versus R) so it fits the Labby.

Of course, if you want to, you can look at 50 spin or 100 spin cuts, but then it will be very hard (if not impossible) to find a progression that overcome the worst ecarts within these spin numbers, without reaching table limits.

regards,
Belgian
 

random

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2010, 09:51:07 AM »
OK, I understand. Thanks for the fast reply... By the way, how is the method working as time goes by (in paper or real)? I mean, do you know how many spins have you played or tested since you began thinking this way, and the final profit in chips since then? Regards, Random
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2010, 09:52:22 AM »
Hi Random,

Maybe it sounds a bit strange but the final strategy as I play it now, I didn't test a lot: I tested it against the worst permanences of Hamburg, given by Muck, and for the rest I tested it against the month of May T9, taking all even chances and played the ones that showed up the least (you can find them in the stats under the permanence numbers).

As I mentioned in a former post I started playing the strategy for real 3 weeks ago. Till now I won 270 units total (9day's, 30 units a day) but the units are not of the same size, because I increase them every week.

regards,
Belgian
 

val

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2010, 09:55:43 AM »
Hi everybody,
I admit that this thread and also "Johnson progression" gave me great expectations...
Idea of 130 Losses and 65 Wins for a sure 1 unit seems to be genial. But... in fact, is just an illusion, because the distribution of L or W. Always will be a problem of decision. Will be a session with large streaks of L (and IF I'll use plenty of 0's) or will be a session who alternate W with L (in this case I'll use just a few terms in my Labby)? We never know...
In the other hand, after we reduce the terms in our Labby to 2, we are in front of a Martingale. I know, if another L occur we could split it again, but
always this game with you and Marty in a same dark place will be actual. Till when? Till our 130L/65W will be 200/135? But this report don't help me!
Anyway, idea to use Labby with many 0's is JUST a Labby preceded by a flat betting.
I hope I'm wrong, but my test make me a skeptic...
 

john

  • Guest
Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2010, 09:57:40 AM »
I admit that this thread and also "Johnson progression" gave me great expectations...

Me too, The Johnson thread that is, until I played a modifed version of it. Sad

Thought I was so close to the grail, and was probably as close as I'm ever likely to get. However at the end of the day, there is no edge anybody can get in terms of bet selection. Mathematically OLD (Dragon System) or a wait and capped anti-streak method has merit, but even these are not enough.

Of course I'm referring to Baccarat.