### Author Topic: Random Cracker  (Read 1652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### ignatus

##### Random Cracker
« on: January 06, 2017, 07:49:12 PM »
This is not my invention, i remember this system, (but i don't remember who invented it!) all credits to the inventor. not me. This is an EC-system. This is the way i play it;

Procedure: Bet against the last 4 outcomes in any EC. (i chose to play with R/B)

For an example the four last outcomes was RBRR---> now you bet BRBB

When hit, (or lost the 4 steps) repeat procedure,(reset to 1u) and bet against the new 4 last outcomes

Total risk is a 4 step marty 1-2-4-8 STOP.

Losses do happen, and they have to be accepted. but that should not be the end of the world, since hitrate and recovery seems to be good.

First tests was played with 5u bets.

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### gizmotron

##### Re: Random Cracker
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2017, 08:32:39 PM »
[...] A strict set of rules to make bet selections will always encounter enough defeating sequences to have it fail at the expected rate.

On the plus side it does attempt to tackle the issue of bet selection by forcing an unlikely sequence to occur in order to defeat it. These unlikely difficult to occur sequences nevertheless happen.

Go ahead. Give it a power test. Try it in large numbers.

Now consider this. If the exact sequence to beat this is based on singles, then a clustering effect of repeats like doubles and triples would make it an effective time to use the sequence. As long as the clustering effect were holding up the sequence could not lose. That takes a mind working in conjunction with the rigid rules.

I spent a year trying to discover the most unlikely sequences. Strict rigidity can't beat Randomness or Roulette.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 08:55:49 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: kav, ignatus, Reyth

#### kav

##### Re: Random Cracker
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2017, 08:55:02 PM »
gizmo,
This interesting point you make about rigidity vs flexibility and adaptation is not specific to this nice system.
Maybe start a topic about it to explain it in more detail?
Your experience and research is appreciated.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth, gizmotron

#### ignatus

##### Re: Random Cracker
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2017, 09:16:54 PM »
[...] A strict set of rules to make bet selections will always encounter enough defeating sequences to have it fail at the expected rate.

Go ahead. Give it a power test. Try it in large numbers.

But i won't test it in large numbers, it's meant to be played in short sessions. I know, all systems and betselections fail in the long run,(that's the nature of roulette) but this is hit and run,(so should all roulette systems be) I'm hoping for winning more (short term) games than losing, with set wingoal and stoploss...

ofcourse defeating sequences will happen,(how frequently, is the question?) I know, and I also mentioned this, that's why its played in a short 4 step attack,...but then, it seems like hitrate is good enough to recover make some little profit, and quit while you're ahead of the game, when you've reached your set wingoal.

I was suprised at the hitrate, and i had good results from my first testings, im not saying this will work, even short term, as with most of my systems im lucky in the beginning , but then luck turns on me, you know how the story goes? :/ This one need more testings to be sure about the winrate in 10 games sessions, as i use to test all my systems,...
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 09:20:26 PM by ignatus »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### gizmotron

##### Re: Random Cracker
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2017, 09:40:10 PM »
Any time you use an unlikely sequence that is the only way to defeat a 4 step progression you are going to see a lot of winning passages through that sequence.

Now if you can find a way to win 4 in a row from an unlikely sequence then you could use/create a positive parlay. Just one win and zing, you are way ahead.

1 - 2 - 4 - 8 = 16 from one unit risked.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 = 8 where you take off 1 after the second win and take 2 off after the third win. That gives you a little as you go and still gets you 11

The following users thanked this post: ignatus, december, Reyth

#### gizmotron

##### Re: Random Cracker
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2017, 06:32:56 PM »
gizmo,
This interesting point you make about rigidity vs flexibility and adaptation is not specific to this nice system.
Maybe start a topic about it to explain it in more detail?
Your experience and research is appreciated.

Ya, that might be a good idea. The point I was trying to make is that even if it is a rigid system I have found that there are times when the system will work great. Those times have identifiable characteristics to them. There are also characteristics that occur that a rigid system will assuredly lose. The good player would want to know what those times are. So in this thread the point is including situational awareness included with the system or method.

Flexibility is a nebulous subject and applies differently to each bet selection choice and type of bet. It's like there must be a skill just for EC's. Like for instance there can be a skill for when to use a Marti on the EC bets. There can be a flexibility skill when there is a sleeping dozen or sleeping column. You could deliberately target the best way to cobble together 7 wins in a row parlay by only betting when a pattern currently occurring is continuing to happen. The topic of flexibility is two wide a topic of situational awareness. It needs to be added to the discussion of every method or system discussed, like Rigidity & Situational Awareness = best practice.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 08:01:49 PM by gizmotron »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth