Author Topic: Simple, maybe too simple...  (Read 483 times)

Jake007

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 246 times
  • "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
Simple, maybe too simple...
« on: February 18, 2017, 08:53:41 PM »
I look at all systems and all systems give me ideas which I like to test. A simple plan of picking one dozen and continually betting on it with a progression of 1,2,3,4,6,9 for 100 spins (after 9, bring bet back down to beginning) gives me results like this often:

session
1: +125
2: +44
3: -70
4: +63
5: -28
6: +149
7: +15
8: -116
9: +9
10: +134

In 1,000 spins Im up +325. I stop each session after 100 spins no matter how I am doing. This was a good batch of 1,000 spins. ive seen higher and lower. If I were to do 100 spins in the morning & 100 at night, I would be up +325 after a week. Im definitely not a rocket scientist like Kav or Reyth who most certainly put far more thought into their efforts (which amazes me).

This is only one simple plan I run. Is simple, maybe too simple. I dont have to worry much about bet amounts, signals, debt management, gigantic bankrolls, enormous martingale bets, etc.

What are your thoughts on such simplicity and the potential for failure?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 08:55:18 PM by Jake007 »


 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 715 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2017, 09:47:47 PM »
Some stats might help study this method deeper.
12-number bet (dozen)
Spins		Probability % to...
		...hit at least once	...hit exactly once	...hit more than once	...sleep all spins

1		32.432432432432435	32.432432432432435	0	             67.56756756756756
2		54.346238130021916	43.82761139517896	10.518626734842954	45.653761869978084
3		69.15286360136616	44.41987641403273	24.732987187333435	30.84713639863384
4		79.15734027119336	40.017906679308766	39.1394335918846	20.842659728806645
5		85.91712180486037	33.798907668335104	52.11821413652527	14.082878195139624
6		90.4845417600408	27.404519731082516	63.08002202895828	9.515458239959205
7		93.5706363243519	21.602661950177655	71.96797437417425	6.429363675648111
8		95.65583535429181	16.681592239519425	78.97424311477238	4.344164645708183
9		97.06475361776474	12.680264371256317	84.38448924650842	2.935246382235259
10		98.01672541740861	9.519717996438677	88.49700742096994	1.9832745825913909
11		98.65994960635717	7.075466078434152	91.58448352792303	1.3400503936428318
12		99.09456054483593	5.215331261745076	93.87922928309085	0.9054394551640754
13		99.3882165843486	3.8175285136647505	95.57068807068384	0.6117834156514023
14		99.58663282726256	2.777827400795556	96.808805426467	         0.41336717273743395
15		99.7206978562585	2.010975434938868	97.70972242131963	0.2793021437415094
16		99.8112823353098	1.4493516648208056	98.36193067048899	0.18871766469020904
17		99.87248806439851	1.0404973945081795	98.83199066989033	0.1275119356014926
18		99.91384328675575	0.7443940024303353	99.16944928432541	0.08615671324425175
19		99.94178600456469	0.5309116383699838	99.4108743661947	0.05821399543530524
20		99.96066621930046	0.37760429471549345	99.58306192458497	0.03933378069953056
21		99.97342312114897	0.26789493881842436	99.70552818233054	0.026576878851034158
22		99.98204264942498	0.1896296220722437	99.79241302735274	0.017957350575023078
23		99.98786665501687	0.13395212861368566	99.85391452640319	0.012133344983123703
24		99.99180179393032	0.09444333392269261	99.89735846000762	0.008198206069678176
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2017, 10:53:48 PM »
I think the key to your system will be in the recovery method used.

What did you just call me!?  A rocket scientist??  Hmmm, if you only knew how intellectually challenged and uneducated I am in maths!  I use programming as strong(?) arm to compensate for my maths challenges...

I guess the best I have seen is Roulette Extreme and learn its programming language and much better would be to learn ANY programming language and then program your own roulette simulations because it would give you more freedom to explore even though the analysis tools in Roulette Extreme are quite helpful and are difficult to replicate.

Roulette has limits!  Roulette can be beaten!!  We just need to discover how best approach these limits; all those that have beaten roulette have done so!!!

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Jake007

Jake007

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 246 times
  • "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2017, 11:47:16 PM »
 :o  I'm just terrible at math and thats why I think I gravitate to the more simple ideas. I did not know about Roulette Xtreme! Thanks! I use linux as my OS and so far the software doesnt seem to work using a Windows emulator. Will have to contact the company to see if they have had any success with installing it on linux. For not I use loothog website which is probably very limited.
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j, Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 12:16:35 AM »
Well, when you are able to program your own complex simulations, it really helps to understand how difficult it is to consistently beat true random.

If you can get Roulette Extreme to work & actually learn its programming language, you can use that as a bridge to learning an independent programming language that will give you virtually limitless freedom to explore roulette outcomes.
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 549 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2017, 06:40:52 AM »
Simple methods are not bad, I have seen many very complicated which is just complicated not better at all.

In any progression system, we can get a heavy loss, no one can make a method stopping the risk for such an outcome.

The variance is just there, and will  be against us.  One problem with negative progressions is we bet sometimes
very low on a winning streak, and climb when we are losing. 
on a dozen a negative progression can be 3 times a fib.

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 13 13 13 21 21 21.....

If we try to win 100 units it is near sure we are up in 21 or 34 bets during the way.

 

slpcorner

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 25 times
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2017, 12:18:08 PM »
Jake007:  What's your recommended bankroll when using this ?
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM »
I agree with Reyth that maths are useless for the short run events. Simulationwith simple computer programs will broadan your knowledge faster. I only use the very simple Excel program which gives you very fast results.
I have analysed this system and the graphs are the results.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth