Author Topic: Splitfire  (Read 1893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


« on: July 28, 2016, 03:21:59 PM »
First of all, apologies to everyone for being away for the past few days, been having vocational/life issues but I thought I would mention here what I have been tinkering with, now that I am back. ;)

I have worked very hard on various approaches to the D'Alembert betting method applied to inside bets and there is no doubt that it will be difficult to find a more reliable system that will produce as much money as quickly. 

However, the problem is that eventually, variance will cause the bet selection to hit late and the method will require a less than total chip reduction which actually INCREASES RISK/EXPOSURE because we are closer to exhausting our balance/hitting our stop LOSS but without the buffering spins to directly increase our odds of hitting. 

In theory, this situation is acceptable because the bet selection has hit outside of expectation and normally this will result in a cluster of hits inside expectation, except when it doesn't.  It is this vulnerability that causes these systems to lose.  Its when expectation fails to deeper variance which knocks out the theoretical underpinnings of the D'Alembert method.

What I have realized is that the larger that gap, the greater the chance of getting destroyed and it is the D'Alembert method itself that contributes to this gap!  The D'Alembert method is inefficient and wasteful; yes it racks up massive profits quickly but it does so at an unacceptable level of risk.  I have discovered that a traditional progression is far more efficient and drastically reduces the risk.

Other problems are a static bet selection is traditionally used and any sort of trigger is neglected. 

(UPDATE: The author of this class of systems has just recently implemented a randomized bet selection feature into his latest system!  His account is now up well over $100K...

A further consideration is the relation between the stop loss amount and the ability of the bet selection to recover the stop loss once it is breached.  This is the ratio of payout:odds to hit

The best bet selection would normally be a straight up bet because it pays the most but what I have discovered is that too many spins are involved in order to create the acceptable and desired odds to hit; I personally prefer a 99%+ odds to hit figure.

No bet selection on its own can have a 99%+ odds to hit; to get odds that good, you need a trigger to create that range for your progression.  I have found a split to be the best vehicle to foster the maximum recovery which still has an acceptable trigger (60% fail-40% success).

The trigger is 20 spins where your desired split misses.  It can be played with 500 units which will lose all if the initial progression fails (less than 1% chance) or with 1500 units which will withstand anything except a second failure consecutively or with 3500 units which will withstand even the very worst the wheel can be expected to bring.  Successive misses at 99% hit odds are quite rare but they can happen.


Here is the full method:

1) Choose a split at random (split selector attached).  Spin 20 times.  If your chosen split hits, reset the spin counter & repeat.

2) Bet the split with the following progression:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28

3) If you win, repeat step #1.

4) Double the unit size and continue betting the same split until it hits twice in a row and then randomize a new split, repeating step #1-#3 until back in profit.  It cannot be expected to fail 3 full times consecutively.

NOTE: Once the initial progression fails, first remove your bet and spin 20 times.  Even though this seems counter-intuitive, we are in no massive hurry to recover nor are we in need of unique expectation conditions to foster that recovery.  It is necessary to apply the trigger after a loss to protect against the worst sequence.  If during the trigger spins, the split should hit, attempt to bet that split once more applying the trigger spins, before moving to a new random split.

The orange is the regular progression and the green is the improvement gained by the trigger.  That increase of just under 2% makes a MASSIVE difference towards a successful recovery and the risk of hitting the worst possible expected sequence; i.e. 97% consecutively fails much more easily than 99%.

This method is far, far, far safer than the D'Alembert method which bets large regardless of risk in order to quickly gain large profits.  The randomized bet selection with a trigger even further reduces the risk (actually achieving better than the stated 99%) because 20 spins are forced ON TOP OF pre-existing spins in which the selected split has already missed.

Trigger critics will constantly harp on the long run evening out of bankroll results but never mention the hidden effect where the BACK END of the worst sequence is reduced which is a hidden protective benefit that further increases safety and makes recovery more financially manageable even when the wheel is at its worst.

One of the greatest strengths & improvement of this system is that over 99% of the time you WILL be in profit with a single hit; multiple hits are not required as long as the base progression remains unbreached.  When the base progression becomes breached, this system has the greatest chance of fully recovering all profit without any further losses.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 07:23:49 PM by Reyth »
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, lone wolf


Re: Splitfire
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2016, 10:05:54 AM »
I cannot open this attachment with windows 10


Re: Splitfire
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 10:16:43 AM »
In the WW2 as a child I have seen many fights between spitfires and  German Yachtfighters. The spitfife was one of the best and succesful English fighters.
The following users thanked this post: Reyth


Re: Splitfire
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 10:52:01 AM »
You must put both files in the same place and open the .exe file.  If you get an error message then you can download the compiler here:

Then you first run the compiler in the location where the two files are.  Then use the compiler's File ===> Open command to load the file.  Once it is loaded you then hit F5 to run it.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 04:36:23 PM by Reyth »