Author Topic: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones  (Read 1682 times)

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« on: April 05, 2016, 09:43:44 AM »
Hello,

I came upon this post: Imbalance/equilibrium.
This post is about following the trend in some way.

But what I found interesting is that it also talks about betting zones. An issue about which Palaistis (and Harry) have talked many times.

It is interesting that while the first posts goes with the trend and Palaistis bets against the trend (see dozens system) , both are only betting for a limited number of spins, in given conditions/triggers.

Now this how I would summarize the underlining concepts of these approaches.

1) After research, observation and testing, we decide on a point of imbalance. 
This can be any bet. Simple chances, dozens, splits...
2)When this specific point is reached this is the trigger, our conditions. Then we start betting
According to our research we can start betting  either that the imbalance will increase or that it will decrease.
3) We bet, only when the conditions are met, for a limited number of spins and with a very light progression

I don't know, maybe the similarities are not obvious to everyone, but I found very interesting the way both systems stop betting either after 4 spins (Palaistis) or when the trend changes (Imbalance system).

It is some sort of hit and run strategy, but more sophisticated.

Furthermore, it is possible that many other systems can be modified with these ideas. You can take a strategy that applies a long progression and change it. You decide that you will stop the progression after 5 or 8 misses and start again when the conditions are met.

It is like a dance in a ballroom. You choose a partner that seems promising hoping this is the one. You touch her hand. When you feel she doesn't like you, in the next song you search for a different partner that seems promising and start over the flirt. Long progression on the other hand is like spending all night flirting the same partner, trying to convince her to like you.

Sometimes changing partners will bring more success. Other times insistence pays off. It is all about your personal attitude and the type of partner you are looking for.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 09:53:21 AM by kav »


 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2016, 11:06:48 AM »
Hello,

I came upon this post: Imbalance/equilibrium.
This post is about following the trend in some way.

But what I found interesting is that it also talks about betting zones. An issue about which Palaistis (and Harry) have talked many times.

It is interesting that while the first posts goes with the trend and Palaistis bets against the trend (see dozens system) , both are only betting for a limited number of spins, in given conditions/triggers.

Now this how I would summarize the underlining concepts of these approaches.

1) After research, observation and testing, we decide on a point of imbalance. 
This can be any bet. Simple chances, dozens, splits...
2)When this specific point is reached this is the trigger, our conditions. Then we start betting
According to our research we can start betting  either that the imbalance will increase or that it will decrease.
3) We bet, only when the conditions are met, for a limited number of spins and with a very light progression

I don't know, maybe the similarities are not obvious to everyone, but I found very interesting the way both systems stop betting either after 4 spins (Palaistis) or when the trend changes (Imbalance system).

It is some sort of hit and run strategy, but more sophisticated.

Furthermore, it is possible that many other systems can be modified with these ideas. You can take a strategy that applies a long progression and change it. You decide that you will stop the progression after 5 or 8 misses and start again when the conditions are met.

<div style="background:#801; padding:8px; border:1px solid #000;border-radius:3px;color:#ddd">It is like a dance in a ballroom. You choose a partner that seems promising hoping this is the one. You touch her hand. When you feel she doesn't like you, in the next song you search for a different partner that seems promising and start over the flirt. Long progression on the other hand is like spending all night flirting the same partner, trying to convince her to like you. <br />
<br />
Sometimes changing partners will bring more success. Other times insistence pays off. It is all about your personal attitude and the type of partner you are looking for.</div>
 

    Kav,
         This is an excellent summery  of how Pales and I play. Not only is it very versatile. It reduces the amount of B/R exposure that you allow. Reyth and BA have shown that long progressions can work, if you have enough spread, but at what cost ??  The loss of a large B/R is very demoralizing. Even if it still leaves the player in profit, the thought that it could have happened sooner, destroys confidence in actual play !

         
I was fortunate in having the example of my Great grand father, who was a "remittance man", and gambled to enhance his remittance. Like most of them he used the "Kitchen Martingale". A mini marty played against an EC that had shown 4 times. I used this in my early play. While it showed a profit. I became annoyed at the constant loses that nibbled away the profit. I invented a recovery technique I called the "Stepped Progression". As always happens with a long progression I experienced a "Monte Carlo Moment", that wiped away the profit of 6 weeks of play.

      I was devastated ! even though I knew it was a very unusual event. It was several weeks before I gathered the courage to play again. I made a vow never to use a progression that required a bet out of preportion to the ODDS.  Which, of course, led to the systems that I use today.

    I recommend  that you all read Kav's post, because, in my book it is the basis of successful play. Without the need for a huge B/R !

      By the way Kav, you analogy of Ballroom dancing is over the heads of the present generation. Most have never known the joy of floating around the floor with a girl in your arms that can perfectly match your steps.

        Harry
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Thanked: 306 times
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2016, 11:30:44 AM »
The outcome of a roulette random sequence is Always in imbalance. The roulette is infinite looking for the equilibrium but shall never find. If the number of red is equal to black, then the next spin shall disturb this balance
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Geoffrey

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2016, 02:53:14 PM »
Interesting and recognisable, because as some know my kind of play is based on what palestis is doing (without knowing at first). the basic strategy i play is exactly what is written in bold letters.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2016, 08:32:37 PM »
The outcome of a roulette random sequence is Always in imbalance. The roulette is infinite looking for the equilibrium but shall never find. If the number of red is equal to black, then the next spin shall disturb this balance

I mainly agree Dobbel .
The only problem ( ? ) is how to take advantage of this and there have been many suggestions in this forum on how to deal with this. Including your own SSB method.
Take your pick ?   Or Pick and Mix ?
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Thanked: 401 times
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2016, 01:29:22 AM »

Now this how I would summarize the underlining concepts of these approaches.

1) After research, observation and testing, we decide on a point of imbalance. 
This can be any bet. Simple chances, dozens, splits...
2)When this specific point is reached this is the trigger, our conditions. Then we start betting
According to our research we can start betting  either that the imbalance will increase or that it will decrease.
3) We bet, only when the conditions are met, for a limited number of spins and with a very light progression


The subject of imbalances is researchable and important conclusions can be made.
There are frequent imbalances in a certain length of spins, but those imbalances obey a statistical average. The most frequent winning range of bets is directly associated with those average imbalances. It is simply a range of bets, where the imbalance has been statistically observed to turn in a known direction AT LEAST ONCE. To continue betting for a total equilibrium is not only wrong, it is very risky too. 
A trigger is a condition where a series of spun numbers is ready to proceed in a known direction at least once and within a specific range of bets. And that's where a wise player should operate.
After success, you simply sit back and wait for a similar condition to form. You do the same in the event of a failure as well. In the long run the higher frequency of wins over failures will make sure that the session will be profitable.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2016, 10:27:58 AM »

Now this how I would summarize the underlining concepts of these approaches.

1) After research, observation and testing, we decide on a point of imbalance. 
This can be any bet. Simple chances, dozens, splits...
2)When this specific point is reached this is the trigger, our conditions. Then we start betting
According to our research we can start betting  either that the imbalance will increase or that it will decrease.
3) We bet, only when the conditions are met, for a limited number of spins and with a very light progression


The subject of imbalances is researchable and important conclusions can be made.
There are frequent imbalances in a certain length of spins, but those imbalances obey a statistical average. The most frequent winning range of bets is directly associated with those average imbalances. It is simply a range of bets, where the imbalance has been statistically observed to turn in a known direction AT LEAST ONCE. To continue betting for a total equilibrium is not only wrong, it is very risky too. 
A trigger is a condition where a series of spun numbers is ready to proceed in a known direction at least once and within a specific range of bets. And that's where a wise player should operate.
After success, you simply sit back and wait for a similar condition to form. You do the same in the event of a failure as well. In the long run the higher frequency of wins over failures will make sure that the session will be profitable.

    As Dobbel said, even if there is a state of equilibrium the next spin will destroy it ! The trick is to find the AVERAGE point at which Chance will allow that imbalance to continue without intervention.
      That does not mean a full correction ! It may only be a hiccup, to restrain the "random row" from becoming a long streak. While the Deviation can continue, that occasional "hiccup" can be exploited.

      Harry
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2016, 03:18:32 AM »
I came across an interesting old post by Bayes at:
betselection.cc/gambling-library/''full-time-gambler''-by-l-g-holloway/
It was about L.G. Holloway and his book "Full time gambler"

I have this book but did not remember his approach exactly. It turns out Holloway was himself a big fan of "betting zones". He was also a fan of hot numbers and gives the following guidelines for roulette:

For single numbers-
  • If it hits twice with the last 10, follow once or twice
  • If it hits 3 times within 20, follow up to 10 times. If it hits within that 10, continue to follow 10 times until the number cools off.
For splits-
  • If it hits 3 times within 10 follow up to 5 times
  • For streets-
  • If it hits 3 times within 8 follow up to 4 times
  • For Sixlines-
  • If it hits 3 times within 5, follow twice
For dozens/columns-
  • If they hit 3 in a row follow twice
For EC's-
  • If 5 or 6 in a row, follow once
All bets that w are continued on any warmed-up cycle.

He also says that his favorite bet is all 3 EC's at the same time, but doesn't give any more detail.

It would be pretty easy to test all this, I haven't.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:29:03 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Sputnik

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Thanked: 366 times
Re: Equilibrium Imbalance and betting zones
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2016, 03:39:52 PM »
I have develop a method where you play with the same odds as dozen 1 in 3 with even money bets.
Been testing different betting and also come up with a march that play the two most recent hits against the sleeping dozen.
The principal is very similiar towards you dozen strategy where you start attack after four hits.
But i start attack after two dozen has hit and i bet they will continue.
Also been testing other variants.

The strike ratio is very high and there is periods where you only flat betting.
But to handle variance and fluctation so did i try D'alambert and my highest bet was 3 units during 300 spins, pretty good.



« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 04:35:30 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth