### Author Topic: The solution to 65 VS 135  (Read 4265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### The solution to 65 VS 135
« on: December 21, 2015, 04:47:36 AM »

I know many of you think that if you could overcome the worst possible scenario in terms of results then you would consider it holy grail.

But ask yourselves, even if there was such solution, would that be something that you likely follow precisely?

I bet 95 % of you wouldn't apply the solution, you see it's in our nature to idealise situations, persons...etc
The way we consider about something is better than how actually is, that's why.

Actually the solution of overcoming 135 loses with just 65 wins regardless of the even chance you select or the distribution of the loses/wins within the 200 results, has been given more than a century ago on the book "10 days at Monte Carlo on the bank's (casino) expense"

Take a look on the following progression:

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1
2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2
3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3
4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4
5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5
6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6
7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7
8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8

A total of 360 units are sufficient to overcome even the session from hell or any black swans you might encounter.
The key is to understand that actually we don't have to overcome 135 loses, but 70.
What really matters is the difference, deduct 65 from 135 and there you are 70, but I'm going to make it "quarters" for you.
By using the progression above, with each and every win we are canceling 1 loss, so whether we experience 10 wins and 10 losses or 1 win and 1 loss it doesn't really matter because are canceling each other, also it doesn't matter in which order are going to occur.
The above progression is quite simple, after 10 MORE losses than wins you add 1 unit to your bet and so on...
I want to repeat the word 10 MORE, because it means that it doesn't have to be 10 losses in a row, it could be 7 wins against 17 losses.
So after 70 more losses, you need 45 more wins in order to come on top.
Since 65/135 is the worst possible scenario,after those 200 spins the things can go only better, in other words regression towards the mean.
How long it could take till you have 45 net wins it's completely another matter, it could a few hours, many hours or even a day!
You may encounter very long results like this: L L W W L W L L L W W W L W W W L L W L...and it goes back and forth, back and forth like a pendulum in a perpetual movement!
For me would be like a torment, I would wish to lose 10 times more in order to raise my bet and get over with it!
It's amazing to me how those people a century ago could actually apply such method!
You could spend the whole day inside the casino, literally!
The aftermath is:
Even if it's valid and completely possible, does it worth your time??
Personally speaking, someone must have nerves of steel, PLENTY of time and PATIENCE must be his middle name!
I have to admit that I'm not that person!

Some VERY valuable feedback provided by the user "UK" on this topic
He said:

"Quote:
what is the most negative expectation we can encounter in 200 spins?

Quote:
It is always possible to get the permanence of horror right from the start.

The program so far will answer the first question and also address the 2nd point in that it will tell you what % of sessions will start of with a loss and never get to a  ve balance throughout the session. The program simulates even money roulette (betting on red) and the le partage rule (1.35% edge) with 100,000 sessions of length 200 spins.
For flat betting:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 6553 (6.55%)
average peak gain within a round = 9.44
average peak loss within a round = -12.11
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 58.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -62.50

So 93.45% of the time you can expect to quit at some point within the session with a profit - even if it's only 1 unit.
The second figure (average peak gain within a round) would suggest that if you get a profit of 9 or 10 units in the session and continue to play on you are making a bad bet, statistically speaking.
The final figure (actual peak loss within a round) suggests that a bankroll of 60 - 70 units is sufficient.
The program is work in progress and I intend to add more analysis including the number of "reversals" within a session, a reversal being a swing from  ve to -ve balance or vice versa within a session. In theory by knowing the average number of reversal for a system you can then keep track of them and quit on a  ve balance if you have "used up" your reversals in a session.
I've experimented with various systems and the best so far in terms of being able to make a profit at some point (ie; the lowest % of sessions without making any profit at all throughout the session) is the Maxim principle. Note that according to the author this is only meant to be used for craps and also I haven't simulated any of the exit points.

Using a maximum stake of 50u:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 261 (0.26%)
average peak gain within a round = 63.98
average peak loss within a round = -156.53
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 122.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -1692.50

A 99.74% chance of quitting with a profit, but of course this is offset by the hugely increased bankroll necessary and attendant risk involved.
For a maximum stake of 10u (ie; the progression is 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and start over when you get to the end.

the results are:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 1131 (1.13%)
average peak gain within a round = 43.46
average peak loss within a round = -64.63
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 121.50
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -412.00

From my testing so far it seems that most volatile systems (those that offer more "reversals") are those that incorporate both -ve and  ve progressions (like the Maxim principle)."

Very valuable information from user "UK" and I'd like to thank him for sharing with us, but someone named obviously Max or Maxim or Maximilian stole that progression from the book "Monte Carlo anecdotes", see the "Fitzroy" system on page 141.
"Maxim principle" has been (e)mailed across US as sure win method several years back, someone stole the intellectual property, rename it and tried to sell it as holy grail.
But the most disappointing is that this progression rather than system, has been made MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO like the first on the beginning of this topic!

My conclusion is that we are recycling VERY old knowledge/information and my question is:
Is there any progress to our practical knowledge and methods since a CENTURY ago??
Or we just recycling the same as "new"??
The game and its rules have not changed, have we?!

« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 10:48:02 AM by BlueAngel »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1576
• Thanked: 559 times
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2015, 10:06:41 AM »
BA  I have no idea how they did this analyses 100 years ago without a computer.
100000 sessions of a 200 spins sample means you need 100000X 200 spins.
I think the players are not interested in what happens on the very long run.
For mathematicions such studies are a challenge to find the solution.
I am a player and only interested in the results of  small events

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2015, 10:50:43 AM »
BA  I have no idea how they did this analyses 100 years ago without a computer.
100000 sessions of a 200 spins sample means you need 100000X 200 spins.
I think the players are not interested in what happens on the very long run.
For mathematicions such studies are a challenge to find the solution.
I am a player and only interested in the results of  small events

Neither do I!

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### weird

• New
• Posts: 109
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2015, 01:19:44 PM »
Hi BlueAngel.
Can you please show us how that progression, win???

Actually , the worst is 69wins, in 200spins, NOT 65.
Below I post the actual data.
============================

Hamburg, 25_10_1999, Francese 1 — laRoulette_files
69red appear in  worst roulette 200 spins ever recorded.

X=RED,
ZERO at 14,105,153,186,190,199.

3x

5x
6
7x

9
10x
11
12x
13
14  ZERO
15
16x
17
18
19
20
21x
22
23x
24
25
26
27
28
29x
30
31x
32x
33
34
35x
36x
37x
38x
39
40
41
42x
43
44
45x
46 x
47
48
49
50
51
52x
53
54
55 x
56
57
58x
59
60
61
62x
63
64
65x
66
67
68x
69x
70
71x
72
73
74
75x
76
77x
78
79
80x
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90x
91
92x
93
94
95 x
96
97x
98
99
100
101x
102 x
103
104 x
105   ZERO
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114x
115
116
117x
118
119 x
120
121
122 x
123
124
125
126
127
128 x
129 x
130x
131 x
132
133
134x
135
136
137
138 x
139
140x
141
142
143 x
144
145x
146 x
147 x
148
149 x
150x
151
152
153 ZERO
154 x
155 x
156
157
158x
159
160
161
162
163x
164 x
165
166
167
168 x
169
170
171x
172x
173
174 x
175x
176
177
178
179
180x
181
182
183
184 x
185
186 ZERO
187 x
188
189
190ZERO
191
192x
193 x
194
195
196 x
197
198
199 ZERO
200
=================

========================

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2015, 10:41:38 PM »
S=Spin R=Result T=Total    FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S           R           T

1          -1          -1
2          -1          -2
3x        +1         -1
4          -1          -2
5x        +1         -1
6          -1          -2
7x        +1         -1
8          -1          -2
9          -1          -3
10x       +1         -2
11         -1          -3
12x       +1         -2
13         -1          -3
14/ZERO -0.5      -3.5
15          -1        -4.5
16x        +1       -3.5
17         -1        -4.5
18         -1        -5.5
19         -1        -6.5
20         -1        -7.5
21x       +1       -6.5
22         -1        -7.5
23x       +1       -6.5
24         -1        -7.5
25         -1        -8.5
26         -1        -9.5
27         -1        -10.5   BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
28         -2        -12.5
29x       +2       -10.5
30         -2        -12.5
31x       +2       -10.5
32x       +2       -8.5
33         -2        -10.5
34         -2        -12.5
35x       +2       -10.5
36x       +2       -8.5
37x       +2       -6.5
38x       +2       -4.5
39         -2        -6.5
40         -2        -8.5
41         -2        -10.5
42x       +2       -8.5
43         -2        -10.5
44         -2        -12.5
45x       +2       -10.5
46x       +2       -8.5
47         -2        -10.5
48         -2        -12.5
49         -2        -14.5
50         -2        -16.5
51         -2        -18.5
52x       +2       -16.5
53         -2        -18.5
54         -2        -20.5
55x       +2       -18.5
56         -2        -20.5
57         -2        -22.5
58x       +2       -20.5
59         -2        -22.5
60         -2        -24.5
61         -2        -26.5
62x       +2       -24.5
63         -2        -26.5
64         -2        -28.5
65x       +2       -26.5
66         -2        -28.5
67         -2        -30.5   BET RAISES TO 3 UNITS
68x       +3       -27.5
69x       +3       -24.5
70         -3        -27.5
71x       +3       -24.5
72         -3        -27.5
73         -3        -30.5
74         -3        -33.5
75x       +3       -30.5
76         -3        -33.5
77x       +3       -30.5
78         -3        -33.5
79         -3        -36.5
80x       +3       -33.5
81         -3        -36.5
82         -3        -39.5
83         -3        -42.5
84         -3        -45.5
85         -3        -48.5
86         -3        -51.5
87         -3        -54.5
88         -3        -57.5
89         -3        -60.5   BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
90x       +4       -56.5
91         -4        -60.5
92x       +4       -56.5
93         -4        -60.5
94         -4        -64.5
95x      +4        -60.5
96        -4         -64.5
97x      +4        -60.5
98        -4         -64.5
99        -4         -68.5
100      -4         -72.5
101x    +4        -68.5
102x    +4        -64.5
103      -4         -68.5
104x    +4        -64.5
105/ZERO -2     -66.5
106       -4        -70.5
107       -4        -74.5
108       -4        -78.5
109       -4        -82.5
110       -4        -86.5
111       -4        -90.5
112       -4        -94.5
113       -4        -98.5
114x     +4       -94.5
115       -4        -98.5
116       -4        -102.5   BET RAISES TO 5 UNITS
117x     +5       -97.5
118       -5        -102.5
119x     +5       -97.5
120       -5        -102.5
121       -5        -107.5
122x     +5       -102.5
123       -5        -107.5
124       -5        -112.5
125       -5        -117.5
126       -5        -122.5
127       -5        -127.5
128x     +5       -122.5
129x     +5       -117.5
130x     +5       -112.5
131x     +5       -107.5
132       -5        -112.5
133       -5        -117.5
134x     +5       -112.5
135       -5        -117.5
136       -5        -122.5
137       -5        -127.5
138x     +5       -122.5
139       -5        -127.5
140x     +5       -122.5
141       -5        -127.5
142       -5        -132.5
143x     +5       -127.5
144       -5        -132.5
145x     +5       -127.5
146x     +5       -122.5
147x     +5       -117.5
148       -5        -122.5
149x     +5       -117.5
150x     +5       -112.5
151       -5        -117.5
152       -5        -122.5
153/ZERO -2.5  -125
154x     +5       -120
155x     +5       -115
156       -5       -120
157       -5       -125
158x     +5      -120
159       -5       -125
160       -5       -130
161       -5       -135
162       -5       -140
163x     +5      -135
164x     +5      -130
165       -5       -135
166       -5       -140
167       -5       -145
168x     +5      -140
169       -5       -145
170       -5       -150   BET RAISES TO 6 UNITS
171x     +6      -144
172x     +6      -138
173       -6       -144
174x     +6      -138
175x     +6      -132
176       -6       -138
177       -6       -144
178       -6       -150
179       -6       -156
180x     +6      -150
181       -6       -156
182       -6       -162
183       -6       -168
184x     +6      -162
185       -6       -168
186/ZERO -3    -171
187x     +6      -165
188       -6       -171
189       -6       -178
190/ZERO -3    -181
191       -6       -187
192x     +6      -181
193x     +6      -175
194       -6       -181
195       -6       -187
196x     +6      -181
197       -6       -187
198       -6       -193
199/ZERO -3    -196
200       -6       -202   BANKROLL REMAINING 158 UNITS

Since those 200 spins were the worst in history and we are still alive in the battle with the initial bankroll of 360 units, the next 200 spins could only be better, therefore gradually recovering all loss plus profit.
If you would post the next 200 spins we could confirm the regression towards the mean.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 10:45:08 PM by BlueAngel »

#### weird

• New
• Posts: 109
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2015, 01:56:36 AM »

Thanks BlueAngel,
One pertinent question!

How this apply on single dozen bet?

==========================

below the remaining , I went to the website and copied them, but they only published, to next 133spin.
================

the 200worst start from 36th, and,
end at 236th spin.
thus the 201st spin, start from 237th spin

x=red
spin-  result-number-

237     10
238     6
239     14     x
240     21     x
241     30     x
242     11
243     12     x
244     10
245     22
246     34     x
247     10
248     16     x
249     0
250     14     x
251     8
252     34     x
253     18     x
254     19     x
255     25     x
256     35
257     34     x
258     29
259     16     x
260     21     x
261     12     x
262     30     x
263     9     x
264     34     x
265     32     x
266     15
267     0
268     17
269     2
270     3     x
271     0
272     1     x
273     36     x
274     22
275     34     x
276     11
277     20
278     1     x
279     28
280     11
281     21     x
282     29
283     15
284     15
285     34     x
286     10
287     16     x
288     4
289     35
290     17
291     4
292     19     x
293     25     x
294     11
295     0
296     5     x
297     22
298     31
299     0
300     2
301     10
302     6
303     28
304     27     x
305     4
306     1     x
307     3     x
308     11
309     11
310     9     x
311     5     x
312     1     x
313     19     x
314     11
315     28
316     10
317     15
318     27     x
319     23     x
320     13
321     7     x
322     17
323     35
324     27     x
325     14     x
326     21     x
327     14     x
328     34     x
329     11
330     10
331     36     x
332     24
333     36     x
334     34     x
335     7     x
336     5     x
337     6
338     16     x
339     34     x
340     34     x
341     33
342     26
343     1     x
344     5     x
345     0
346     33
347     0
348     9     x
349     0
350     21     x
351     23     x
352     13
353     3     x
354     20
355     34     x
356     28
357     28
358     14     x
359     20
360     30     x
361     25     x
362     36     x
363     1     x
364     31
365     35
366     36     x
367     5     x
368     29
369     28

67w/133=66lose
thus 69+67/333=40.8%
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 02:22:29 AM by weird »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 03:00:46 AM »
I also have a solution to win within those 200 spins, without any xtra spins.
However the bankroll must be something less than 1000 units and the betting limit must be 320 times the minimum.
I think bankroll is not so much of a problem as is the betting limit, it's really hard to find 320 times more the minimum.
The highest negative balance reaches 638 and at that time the bet must be 320 units, thus 638 + 320 = 958 units bankroll, but better round it up on 1000 total.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 05:10:40 AM »
WOW!
So this is how it's like holding a Holy Grail!

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2015, 06:34:13 AM »

SECOND PART
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED

spin-number-result-total

237     10      -6     -208
238     6        -6     -214  BET INCREASES TO 7 UNITS

239     14      +7    -207
240     21      +7    -200
241     30      +7    -193
242     11      -7    -200
243     12      +7   -193
244     10      -7     -210
245     22      -7     -217
246     34      +7    -210
247     10      -7     -217
248     16      +7    -210
249     0       -3.5   -213.5
250     14      +7    -206.5
251     8        -7     -213.5
252     34      +7    -206.5
253     18      +7    -199.5
254     19      +7    -192.5
255     25      +7    -185.5
256     35      -7     -192.5
257     34      +7    -185.5
258     29      -7     -192.5
259     16      +7    -185.5
260     21      +7    -178.5
261     12      +7    -171.5
262     30      +7    -164.5
263     9        +7    -157.5
264     34      +7    -150.5
265     32      +7    -143.5
266     15      -7     -150.5
267     0       -3.5   -154
268     17     -7      -161
269     2       -7     -168
270     3      +7     -161
271     0      -3.5   -164.5
272     1      +7    -157.5
273     36    +7    -150.5
274     22    -7     -157.5
275     34    +7    -150.5
276     11    -7     -157.5
277     20    -7     -164.5
278     1     +7    -157.5
279     28    -7    -164.5
280     11    -7    -171.5
281     21    +7   -164.5
282     29    -7    -171.5
283     15    -7    -178.5
284     15    -7    -185.5
285     34    +7   -178.5
286     10    -7    -185.5
287     16    +7   -178.5
288     4      -7    -185.5
289     35    -7    -192.5
290     17    -7    -199.5
291     4      -7    -206.5
292     19    +7   -199.5
293     25    +7   -192.5
294     11    -7    -199.5
295     0     -3.5  -203
296     5     +7   -196
297     22    -7   -203
298     31    -7   -210
299     0    -3.5  -213.5
300     2    -7     -220.5
301     10   -7    -227.5
302     6     -7    -234.5
303     28   -7    -241.5
304     27   +7   -234.5
305     4     -7    -241.5
306     1     +7   -234.5
307     3     +7   -227.5
308     11   -7    -234.5
309     11   -7    -241.5
310     9    +7   -234.5
311     5    +7   -227.5
312     1    +7   -220.5
313     19  +7   -213.5
314     11   -7   -220.5
315     28   -7   -227.5
316     10   -7   -234.5
317     15   -7   -241.5
318     27  +7   -234.5
319     23  +7   -227.5
320     13  -7    -234.5
321     7   +7   -227.5
322     17  -7   -234.5
323     35  -7   -241.5
324     27  +7  -234.5
325     14  +7  -227.5
326     21  +7  -220.5
327     14  +7  -213.5
328     34  +7  -206.5
329     11  -7   -213.5
330     10  -7   -220.5
331     36  +7  -213.5
332     24  -7   -220.5
333     36  +7  -213.5
334     34  +7  -206.5
335     7    +7  -199.5
336     5    +7  -192.5
337     6    -7   -199.5
338     16  +7  -192.5
339     34  +7  -185.5
340     34  +7  -178.5
341     33  -7   -185.5
342     26  -7   -192.5
343     1   +7  -185.5
344     5   +7  -178.5
345     0  -3.5   -182
346     33  -7   -189
347     0   -3.5 -192.5
348     9   +7  -185.5
349     0   -3.5  -189
350     21  +7   -182
351     23  +7   -175
352     13  -7    -182
353     3   +7   -175
354     20  -7   -182
355     34  +7  -175
356     28  -7   -182
357     28  -7   -189
358     14  +7  -182
359     20  -7   -189
360     30  +7  -182
361     25  +7  -175
362     36  +7  -168
363     1   +7   -161
364     31  -7   -168
365     35  -7   -175
366     36 +7   -168
367     5   +7   -161
368     29  -7   -168
369     28  -7   -175

As you see the negative balanced dropped gradually but still needs more time in order to fully recover.
In my point of view is only a matter of time before turns the table upside down, it's mostly matter of time and not money.
How long are you willing to wait??
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 06:46:48 AM by BlueAngel »

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1576
• Thanked: 559 times
##### Re: The solution to 65 VS 135
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2015, 09:22:16 AM »
I have no idea what you all will prove.
If you had played this sample with the SSB principle on all the three even chances you had become a beautiful profit

The following users thanked this post: Reyth