### Author Topic: B17-20 Bomber  (Read 8368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### B17-20 Bomber
« on: December 22, 2015, 04:20:43 AM »

I wouldn't have believed that a 3-chip system could ever possibly do better than a single chip system but as I started to study different systems, the truth of what makes a system strong dawned on me: its the payout.

That's when this absurd monstrosity suggested itself to me.  I affectionately call this behemoth:

The B17-20 Bomber

It has the highest win rate of any system I have tried so far at 99.85%.  It uses a massive factor 9 progression and whenever it hits, it delivers the goods, with each "wing" paying a whopping base of 51 units!

Here is a sample 10 sessions (attached):

Game #1 win max level 1
Game #2 win max level 1
Game #3 win max level 2
Game #4 win max level 1
Game #5 win max level 1
Game #6 win max level 1
Game #7 win max level 1
Game #8 win max level 1
Game #9 win max level 1
Game #10 win max level 1

That's over 2500 units.

Just in case you are not familiar with the method from my other posts:

1) Place one unit straight up on 17 and 20.  Place a third unit as a split between 17 and 20.
2) Set a stop loss of 500 units and a profit target of 250 units.
3) If you lose a bet, raise all 3 piles on the following schedule:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3
4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4
5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5
6,6,6,6,6,6

If you should be so unfortunate to lose level 1 which is a total of 50 bets for a loss of 498 units, begin level 2 by using the same progression but double the amounts.  Also double your win target to 500 units and your loss target to 1000 units.  Level 3 is the same but triple the amounts, level 4 quadruple, all the way out to level 10 for a total of 500 bets in your defense.  If you win a level (by hitting your target for that level) move up a level until you are back at level 1.

The total bankroll is 27,500 units or you can apply a discount of .833 to the risk amount, the profit amount & each progression bet (round down); simply multiply all by .833 and your total bankroll required is 22,994 units.

4) If you win, reduce the chip count to the base amount for the level you are on.

5) Never place a bet that will bring you over your stop loss.

Though very remote, there is a high level of risk with this system as a single loss represents at least 22,994 units.

Check out Bullseye here: https://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=648.msg8589#msg8589
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 10:08:00 PM by 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: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2015, 10:41:48 AM »
Why not bet 26 and 27 instead?
Or any other two combination number?
17 and 20 don't have better chance than the rest, besides the progression doesn't seem realistic and based on actual odds.
All of your systems have the same elements: 1)always same bet selection and 2) unrealistic progressions with astronomical amounts
Perhaps for virtual play it's fun,but nobody would apply such systems with real money.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2015, 11:09:19 AM »
Why not bet 26 and 27 instead?
Or any other two combination number?
17 and 20 don't have better chance than the rest, besides the progression doesn't seem realistic and based on actual odds.
All of your systems have the same elements: 1)always same bet selection and 2) unrealistic progressions with astronomical amounts
Perhaps for virtual play it's fun,but nobody would apply such systems with real money.

Of course any connected numbers will work.

The progression is SPECIFICALLY optimized statistically to provide the best performance.  Neither 8 nor 10 bets perform as well.

The originator of  this class of systems started with 1750 units and now has over 22K units in about a month and a half with real money at an online casino.  At penny tables none of these progressions are unrealistic for anyone.  The earning power of this class of systems can create its own realism but it is not without risk.

What I have worked hard to do is optimize the strongest bet selection I could find which gives the highest possible chances of doubling, tripling up and more.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 11:20:18 AM by 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: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2015, 11:56:01 AM »
Why not bet 26 and 27 instead?
Or any other two combination number?
17 and 20 don't have better chance than the rest, besides the progression doesn't seem realistic and based on actual odds.
All of your systems have the same elements: 1)always same bet selection and 2) unrealistic progressions with astronomical amounts
Perhaps for virtual play it's fun,but nobody would apply such systems with real money.

Of course any connected numbers will work.

The progression is SPECIFICALLY optimized statistically to provide the best performance.  Neither 8 nor 10 bets perform as well.

The originator of  this class of systems started with 1750 units and now has over 22K units in about a month and a half with real money at an online casino.  At penny tables none of these progressions are unrealistic for anyone.  The earning power of this class of systems can create its own realism but it is not without risk.

What I have worked hard to do is optimize the strongest bet selection I could find which gives the highest possible chances of doubling, tripling up and more.

If you think you can make a fortune with this,then good luck!
Also you said that this your own creation which contradicts ''The originator of  this class of systems started with 1750 units and now has over 22K units in about a month...''
Or perhaps you imply that you are the originator,right?
Anyway,this kind of systems don't get you far without luck.
It's obvious your lack of practical experience,what you know is only theory from forums,videos,books,web...
But theory is one thing and applying it is another...!
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 11:57:38 AM by BlueAngel »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2015, 12:32:18 PM »
I'm not the originator of this class of systems which is unique with its approach (D'Alembert, inside bets, loss recovery structure).  What I have done is discover a new branch in this system that performs better than any of the systems the originator advocates (according to my simulations) and optimized a betting schedule for it.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 12:35:03 PM by Reyth »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2015, 06:04:13 PM »
If I understand your betting correctly , reyth your first 10 bets are 55 x 3 which is 165 and not 90 ?
I agree with BA here. Your programming is commendable but it serves no practical purpose.
Admittedly, I am biased here . I think progressions should be used with great care  to avoid a potential  catastrophic loss.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 09:05:07 PM »
Its 9 bets of 1 in each pile (spin the wheel 9 times), 9 bets of 2, 9 bets of 3 etc. for a total of 90 bets for level 1.

Right.  Of course its not practical for everyone but it is designed with solid roulette principles based on statistics.

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 11:03:10 PM »
Its 9 bets of 1 in each pile (spin the wheel 9 times), 9 bets of 2, 9 bets of 3 etc. for a total of 90 bets for level 1.

Right.  Of course its not practical for everyone but it is designed with solid roulette principles based on statistics.

You are betting 3 chips each time 17-20-17/20 so should this not be 9x3 on the first 9 rather than 9 x 1 ?

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2015, 11:18:44 PM »
Yes you are correct.  In examining the spreadsheet (not the simulation, you can check the output) I see that I didn't update the column correctly.  I have just fixed it now thank you. : )

 1 3 51 1 6 48 1 9 45 1 12 42 1 15 39 1 18 36 1 21 33 1 24 30 1 27 27 2 33 75 2 39 69 2 45 63 2 51 57 2 57 51 2 63 45 2 69 39 2 75 33 2 81 27 3 90 72 3 99 63 3 108 54 3 117 45 3 126 36 3 135 27 3 144 18 3 153 9 3 162 0 4 174 42 4 186 30 4 198 18 4 210 6 4 222 -6 4 234 -18 4 246 -30 4 258 -42 4 270 -54 5 285 -15 5 300 -30 5 315 -45 5 330 -60 5 345 -75 5 360 -90 5 375 -105 5 390 -120 5 405 -135 6 423 -99 6 441 -117 6 459 -135 6 477 -153 6 495 -171
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 11:39:47 PM by Reyth »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2015, 11:57:36 PM »
Reyth
How would your simulation fare in 37 spins - adjusting your stakes to show a profit on a win ?
The  usual " Expectation" in 37 spins is unlikely to be fulfilled .

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2015, 11:59:36 PM »
In other words raising as such to lose 500 units within 37 spins?

If this is what you mean, the system definitely does not perform as well with that staking plan.  A 50 spin staking plan achieves the best odds (assuming the D'Alembert model is followed, in this case, delayed).

Expectation is 19 spins, not 37?

The percentage chance of hitting within 37 spins is 86.6%.

I know you are a system designer and so I appreciate your input on these things, even though you may disagree. ; )
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 12:24:37 AM by Reyth »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2015, 01:26:36 AM »
My main point here, Reyth, is that when I bet  to profit   AT  ANY  WIN  so any " formula " should NOT factor in a loss.
If we start at your last profit of 6 units you  have  lost 210 units  at bet number 31 so at
BET 32 we bet 3 @7 =21    =231 lost or 21 gained
Bet 33 we bet 3@8 =24     =255 lost or 33 gained
Bet 34 we bet 3@8 =24     = 279 lost or 9 gained
Bet 35 we bet 3@9 =27     =306 lost or 18 gained
Bet  36  we bet 3@10 =30  = 336 lost or 24 gained
Bet 37 we bet  3@11 =33  =369 lost or 27 gained

I would never even dream of betting this way but I know many do so mine was just a suggestion. I don't think factoring in a loss at any point is a good idea .
I honestly think that Joint Probability  is the way to go but that opinion is not shared by others. As previous posts in the forum have shown  !!!

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2015, 01:42:36 AM »
Right, see I was just thinking one of the strengths of the system is that it is NOT tied to a continuous profit loop!

Instead it just relies upon statistics & equal distribution in combination with a heavy payout.  If there is a loss it is because of a significant deviation so the system resets to catch the hits when they come back.

Same thing with the recovery levels, the only way to enter recovery is if there is a significant deviation and so the stakes are now doubled to catch the recovery.

So its like surfing for a set of waves and just staying afloat until they hit.

I am like so tired of my bets tied to a continuous profit loop getting crushed by variance. : (

I think greater flexibility to deal with variance swings is better than a continuous profit loop.  Part of that flexibility is the large payout to risk ratio; 17-1.

How does joint probability figure into your staking plan?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 01:56:22 AM by Reyth »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2015, 02:23:55 AM »
So you are prepared to bet ,what , over 1,000 chips to win how many  - IF any ? Variance can crush any plan no matter how well constructed . Think of how even professional  poker players talk of" bad beats ". If you should lose  then you have  a long road back to recovery. Are you really prepared  to bet REAL money on this ?

My Joint Probability plans  don't figure  into my staking plans  - it  is the other way round.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: B17-20 Bomber
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2015, 02:25:06 AM »
Wow I just realized this system is exactly the same as simply playing a split.  I've always thought that a split should outperform a street but I couldn't get the statistics to match up and I thought it was some "mystical statistics" that created the difference.  Now I have discovered that its the progression length in combination with the payout that determines the statistics.

So, if I make a single split system and reduce the progression to 3, it should work exactly the same.  If I make single straight up system and make the progression 6 it should do even better.