Author Topic: Simple, maybe too simple...  (Read 1746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jake007

Simple, maybe too simple...
« on: February 18, 2017, 08:53:41 PM »
I look at all systems and all systems give me ideas which I like to test. A simple plan of picking one dozen and continually betting on it with a progression of 1,2,3,4,6,9 for 100 spins (after 9, bring bet back down to beginning) gives me results like this often:

session
1: +125
2: +44
3: -70
4: +63
5: -28
6: +149
7: +15
8: -116
9: +9
10: +134

In 1,000 spins Im up +325. I stop each session after 100 spins no matter how I am doing. This was a good batch of 1,000 spins. ive seen higher and lower. If I were to do 100 spins in the morning & 100 at night, I would be up +325 after a week. Im definitely not a rocket scientist like Kav or Reyth who most certainly put far more thought into their efforts (which amazes me).

This is only one simple plan I run. Is simple, maybe too simple. I dont have to worry much about bet amounts, signals, debt management, gigantic bankrolls, enormous martingale bets, etc.

What are your thoughts on such simplicity and the potential for failure?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 08:55:18 PM by Jake007 »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Thanked: 1317 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2017, 09:47:47 PM »
Some stats might help study this method deeper.
12-number bet (dozen)
Spins		Probability % to...		...hit at least once	...hit exactly once	...hit more than once	...sleep all spins1		32.432432432432435	32.432432432432435	0	             67.567567567567562		54.346238130021916	43.82761139517896	10.518626734842954	45.6537618699780843		69.15286360136616	44.41987641403273	24.732987187333435	30.847136398633844		79.15734027119336	40.017906679308766	39.1394335918846	20.8426597288066455		85.91712180486037	33.798907668335104	52.11821413652527	14.0828781951396246		90.4845417600408	27.404519731082516	63.08002202895828	9.5154582399592057		93.5706363243519	21.602661950177655	71.96797437417425	6.4293636756481118		95.65583535429181	16.681592239519425	78.97424311477238	4.3441646457081839		97.06475361776474	12.680264371256317	84.38448924650842	2.93524638223525910		98.01672541740861	9.519717996438677	88.49700742096994	1.983274582591390911		98.65994960635717	7.075466078434152	91.58448352792303	1.340050393642831812		99.09456054483593	5.215331261745076	93.87922928309085	0.905439455164075413		99.3882165843486	3.8175285136647505	95.57068807068384	0.611783415651402314		99.58663282726256	2.777827400795556	96.808805426467	         0.4133671727374339515		99.7206978562585	2.010975434938868	97.70972242131963	0.279302143741509416		99.8112823353098	1.4493516648208056	98.36193067048899	0.1887176646902090417		99.87248806439851	1.0404973945081795	98.83199066989033	0.127511935601492618		99.91384328675575	0.7443940024303353	99.16944928432541	0.0861567132442517519		99.94178600456469	0.5309116383699838	99.4108743661947	0.0582139954353052420		99.96066621930046	0.37760429471549345	99.58306192458497	0.0393337806995305621		99.97342312114897	0.26789493881842436	99.70552818233054	0.02657687885103415822		99.98204264942498	0.1896296220722437	99.79241302735274	0.01795735057502307823		99.98786665501687	0.13395212861368566	99.85391452640319	0.01213334498312370324		99.99180179393032	0.09444333392269261	99.89735846000762	0.008198206069678176
 

Reyth

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2017, 10:53:48 PM »
I think the key to your system will be in the recovery method used.

What did you just call me!?  A rocket scientist??  Hmmm, if you only knew how intellectually challenged and uneducated I am in maths!  I use programming as strong(?) arm to compensate for my maths challenges...

I guess the best I have seen is Roulette Extreme and learn its programming language and much better would be to learn ANY programming language and then program your own roulette simulations because it would give you more freedom to explore even though the analysis tools in Roulette Extreme are quite helpful and are difficult to replicate.

Roulette has limits!  Roulette can be beaten!!  We just need to discover how best approach these limits; all those that have beaten roulette have done so!!!

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Jake007

Jake007

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2017, 11:47:16 PM »
 :o  I'm just terrible at math and thats why I think I gravitate to the more simple ideas. I did not know about Roulette Xtreme! Thanks! I use linux as my OS and so far the software doesnt seem to work using a Windows emulator. Will have to contact the company to see if they have had any success with installing it on linux. For not I use loothog website which is probably very limited.
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j, Reyth

Reyth

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 12:16:35 AM »
Well, when you are able to program your own complex simulations, it really helps to understand how difficult it is to consistently beat true random.

If you can get Roulette Extreme to work & actually learn its programming language, you can use that as a bridge to learning an independent programming language that will give you virtually limitless freedom to explore roulette outcomes.
 

Jesper

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2017, 06:40:52 AM »
Simple methods are not bad, I have seen many very complicated which is just complicated not better at all.

In any progression system, we can get a heavy loss, no one can make a method stopping the risk for such an outcome.

The variance is just there, and will  be against us.  One problem with negative progressions is we bet sometimes
very low on a winning streak, and climb when we are losing. 
on a dozen a negative progression can be 3 times a fib.

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 13 13 13 21 21 21.....

If we try to win 100 units it is near sure we are up in 21 or 34 bets during the way.

 

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2017, 12:18:08 PM »
Jake007:  What's your recommended bankroll when using this ?
 

dobbelsteen

Re: Simple, maybe too simple...
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM »
I agree with Reyth that maths are useless for the short run events. Simulationwith simple computer programs will broadan your knowledge faster. I only use the very simple Excel program which gives you very fast results.
I have analysed this system and the graphs are the results.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth