Superior

Author Topic: ThinkTank Test.  (Read 675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fyodor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 168 times
ThinkTank Test.
« on: January 26, 2018, 11:59:09 PM »
I used to think that I knew Roulette well enough to be competent and consistent in approach and table results.
I have already admitted that I learnt the hard way, in a pay-to-play APPRENTICESHIP that lasted several years, and included long solitary walks away from the glitter strip, into cold, dark avenues of poverty and hungry discomfort.
However, the mind never ceases to function and the results of researchful introspection have provided me with the rewards that I expected.
Each base of "knowledge" inherent in this "simple" game, to allow patrons to play it well, is unique to the individual compiling it, results may vary, but if plan-A works, then plan-B can stay in the pocket.
"Designing" systems or strategies is very easy, making them fit expectations is not.
I was applying the simplest methods of play, when I began, in 1963, and used a combination of highest and lowest returns, to cover the table.
In fact I played one chip, single number straight, and insured it with two (six)line chips, then insured the first three, with three chips on an even money (outside) wager.
So, to recap, 13 numbers on the wheel could beat me outright, 23 numbers gave money back, 6 numbers returned double my outlay, and 1 number returned 36 chips.
Does anyone out there know what staking plan I used, (whoever gets it right, I will "thank" their last 50 posts on the forum!)
Seemed so simple and efficient at the time, that I went looking for "something better" and have rolled through or over, hundreds of system/strategies since.
Nowadays I would not go near an EC wager with a barge-pole.
I accept that my view precludes potential EC considerations but, for those who cling to that ship, here is an EC conundrum.
There are two (2) juxtaposed EC wagers that each incude two (2) extra pockets, giving the player an advantage when applying that wager.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 02:08:27 AM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
  • Thanked: 1178 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2018, 02:11:47 AM »
When you say insured (with the two lanes), you mean by betting nearby numbers on the wheel?
Did you play single or double zero roulette?
 
The following users thanked this post: Fyodor

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1693
  • Thanked: 285 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2018, 02:52:34 AM »
Quote
There are two (2) juxtaposed EC wagers that each incude two (2) extra pockets, giving the player an advantage when applying that wager.

Based on what you've just written, no there's not.  No advantage.  Try rewording what it is that you're attempting to convey.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fyodor

Fyodor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2018, 04:43:18 AM »
Kav, the 1st tier "insurance" is 2×(double streets), and the game for me is always going to be the EU wheel.
Real, there are ten red-odd numbers, and eight red-evens, and (polar opposite) ten black-even, over eight black-odd, (or any other EC (2Place combo)
Any (sole) EC wager has nine for, and ten against (Inc "0")
This (theory/wager) has ten for and nine against, (Inc "0").
Meant as brain food, but it does show an imbalance in "our" favour.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2586
  • Thanked: 578 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2018, 04:45:14 AM »
fyodor
Do you mean
Red / Odd

Black/Even
 ROBES ?

TOO Late !
 
The following users thanked this post: Fyodor

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1693
  • Thanked: 285 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2018, 04:51:58 AM »
Fydor,

There's no imbalance in your favor, only what appears to be a misunderstanding of basic probability.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fyodor

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2586
  • Thanked: 578 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2018, 05:07:37 AM »
The ECs are tricky Fyodor.
THey each have a supposedly EVEN  CHANCE ( apart from the zero ). but not if you combine them.  If you combine Red/ Even ? LOw these don't have the same chance as Red/ Odd/ Low as you are aware but that is in relation to each other.
The chance of any 1 from each of the 3 options is 2x2x2=8 so a 7/1 chance but if you bet the combination
  Red / even / low ...on the layout you get paid 8/1. ( 12-14-16-18.
Real of course would say that is nonsense  4 in 37 is still 4 fin 37. He is incapable of thinking outside the box . 
 
The following users thanked this post: Fyodor

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
  • Thanked: 1178 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2018, 11:15:56 AM »
My question is: What you mean by "insurance".
For example, in my 4 pillars system, I try to secure the nearby numbers on the wheel for the 4 main numbers.
What does "insurance" means in your case? How did you chose those 2 lanes and not 2 others?

Also see this: An observation on Even Chances
This is an interesting observation, but there is no straight "advantage" in any bet. This just offers us an opportunity to thoughtful strategy creation.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 11:17:43 AM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, Fyodor

Fyodor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2018, 12:40:36 PM »
I realize the EC theory, skates along the edge of typical "GF" -But elicited backup response to the challenging part of the post.
Kay, (et al) there are two staking strategies that I used to play on the EU wheel.
The original one was number 7 straight up, 2 chips on the third column, (first tier "insurance") then 3 chips on EC-(black) (second tier "insurance".
Any black number on the table gave me, money -back, any third column hit gave money-back, except for 6, 15, 24 and 33, which doubled my outlay of six chips (to 12), because I also hit on my EC-black wager.
Number 7, when hit, paid 35+1=36-5= 31 (net).
The original 6 piece wager covers the 7 straight up, and also covers the 5 numbers either side of it, plus all the black numbers around the wheel.
Does that make it clearer?
There are two (2) such wagering opportunities on the table/wheel, but the other one, although similar, (same outlay) pays more in return.
Finding it is the think-tank test, but it should be a breeze to consistent "euro" players.

 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Thanked: 1029 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2018, 01:26:17 PM »
Nice to see this type of thinking.... l never had a courage to go beyond splits .
   More whatever numbers player bets, more edge is lowered . You got to predict that 7 very well for such a bet to pay off.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Fyodor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: ThinkTank Test.
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2018, 12:27:55 PM »
This seems to have gone cold, so I will warm it up, one last time.
The "other" (single number target) strategy, is based on the number 27.
27, one unit straight up,
Last Dozen, two units (one on each six-line)
Even Money, (Black) three units.
This wager is focussed on number 27, the five numbers either side of it, I regard as the close neighbour's insurance, and the three units on black, are second tier insurance.
Hitting 27, returns 42 units, minus four, to give a net return of 38 units.
Any black number in the third dozen, returns 12 units, minus 2, to give a net return of 10 units.
Any other black number on the wheel, loses 3, and gains three, so, money back, no loss.
Would definitely put a "Sting" into progression strategies, but I have only played as a flat bet.
I remember two further conditions that were applied to this method.
The "trigger" to cast this six piece wager, when the (next) deciding spin was clockwise, was that the previous result was between 15 and 27 on the (EU) wheel, and between 18 and 24, when the following spin was anti-clockwise.
For those watching, who were unfamiliar with the sequence of the pockets, it seemed that an apparent single number, had been plucked out of the air!
Was hard to maintain discipline though, when both 6 and 13 seemed to "capture" the ball, far more than average.
Obviously, I could have hit the trio (3×1units), but that would have required six units on the last dozen, and then nine units on black, to keep the balance.
Have recently tested it against Bad Homburgs Permanences, and, although still valid, trigger (direction) is unknown, so of limited value.
[size=78%]There are only thirteen numbers on the wheel that can undermine this outlay.[/size]
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth, MickyP