New Forum Address: ROULETTELIFE.COM
  Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: The "Playing few numbers" saga  (Read 3833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rimsky

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2018, 08:30:32 AM »
I think the few hottest numbers system is everything but boring.  Instead it is fast and dynamic, most of all it should be dynamic and flexible.

I agree with gizmotron, but what he said is both right and obvious.

If you play such a system you're constantly in search of patterns which could reveal the mechanics of the hottest straight ups.  So far, for example, I make note of the fact that there are at least two kind of hottest: the "recurring" hottest, which hits consistently in the medium period, and it's quite reliable; and the "deceptive" hottest, which suddenly awakes, hits and is on fire for a couple of spins but then quite often becomes stone-cold and you waste lots of money chasing its reappearance.

What I am working out right now is to find a proper session bankroll amount and a reliable stop loss, in order to stand the vertical drawdowns that sometimes happen. If we can stand the hellish sequence then with a couple of hits in a narrow range of spins we are in the game again, possibly in a new phase of normalized play.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 08:50:55 AM by rimsky »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Trilobite

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2018, 09:54:03 AM »
I play for fun, I play for money. It's boring, It's exciting.

All beside the point.

play 1 number you got 36 goes to break even.

play 9 numbers you got 4 goes to break even.

play 18 number you got 2 goes to break even.

It's all same same, but different.
 

MickyP

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2018, 10:17:18 AM »
Trilobite, your last sentence, "It's all the same but different" holds the answer that you fail to see.
You say it's all the same but if you take the practical application of playing few numbers opposed to playing many numbers you will be pleasantly surprised to see the remarkable difference in both losses and wins between the two.
Few numbers on a losing run will resemble a butterfly landing on a flower.
Many numbers on a losing run will resemble a bulldog eating porridge.
On a win its like dishing up using a Alice in Wonderland teaspoon (many numbers) as opposed to using a garden shovel (few numbers).
Take your pick.
When it comes to money the right choices are very important.
 

gizmotron

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2018, 03:27:03 PM »
   Simply put, it's boring.

This is the MAIN reason why most dont do it or at least examine the idea. They want that ACTION and they want it NOW!  F**k the action. Slow & steady wins the race.

Ken

As you may know I went thru years of researching the three hottest numbers in 300 spin sets, about 10 hours of live play. But I grew tired of being taken out by the long stretches that a hottest number could have, even while  still being the very hottest number. I tried jumping to other hot numbers but all of them have these occasional cold spots.

In any method you feed the lost bets with won bets and you feed the won bets with lost bets. All guessing techniques, or rule based for that matter, have a balanced equilibrium aspect to them. When you know that balance point you can make decisions on when to get out before disaster occurs or when enough is enough when you win.

I switched to EC bets because I was not hunting for action. I was seeking anything that tends to continue. My thinking is wired that way. So when I think back at hot numbers I try to see things that might continue. From my interval chart above, and many charts like it, I get a sense that all the hottest numbers have occurrences where they display short lived intervals of 10 or less spins between hits and that these mini swarms often happen in several hits all gathered together in 30 to 60 spins.

That is a continuation of kind of consistency.  That alone would be worth hunting for. They pop up everywhere, even when a very cold number wakes up, or is that heats back up. I only played a method of full boringness. Stick with the same three numbers for 300 spins. But I can see that hunting the mini swarms might actually be good.

Got to think about this for a while.

Thanks Ken
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j, MickyP

MrPerfect.

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2018, 07:21:33 PM »
Ken is right. Slow and steady kill . Agressive betting should be limited according to the edge on offer.
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

Third

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2018, 01:29:12 AM »
The farther inward a person goes on the felt, the more efficient are his bets, where the single straight-up number is the most efficient way to bet.  It really can't be said that it DOESN'T matter what our bet selection is (because IT DOES) but the overall point about needing to properly configure our system parameters is well taken.  Rimsky, I think you are definitely thinking in the right way and are on the right path.  Often times our frustration leads us astray and especially when we are so close to breaking through; when frustrated it can be quite difficult to be clever.  There is no doubt that every number will be hot from time to time but some numbers will NEVER be hottest and other numbers will be hottest far more often than any other numbers.  Its true that every number will gap and there is no way on this earth to avoid it but flowing with the gaps to survive them profiotably, is definitely possible!
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 01:34:22 AM by Third »
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP, rimsky

rimsky

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2018, 11:23:18 AM »
Well, today I suffer a spectacular loss.
I was playing as usual this "few hottest straight up numbers" and it was such a rollercoaster session, up and down, up and down. So, while chasing my hottest straight ups, I thought to add that part of "dozen drive" when you wait for a virtual loss trigger of "Z" and then bet it again for four spins once it reappears (with an additional virtual loss spin). So the two methods work in combination (0,25€ chip for the first, and 5€ chip for the second).
Well, the Z dozen hellish sequence was waiting for me. The negative progression killed me, and I lost about 150€ in just ten minutes.
This has to remind me that negative progression must be dismissed.
This has to remind me that any dozen play although I love it is eventually deadly, regardless how much conservative you are.
This has to remind me that playing straight up numbers is the key to avoid vertical drawdowns and accept small wins.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

ahlidap

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2018, 03:06:54 PM »
Rimsky,

have you stopped on the 4th loss, then wait until Z comes, then bet on new trigger (if it's not Z again) ?
RNG, Online studio, or online B&M / B&M table?
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

rimsky

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2018, 03:45:08 PM »

Roulette Live studio with 800 players online.
I skip the first four spins as virtual loss trigger.
Then waited for Z to reappear without betting.
Then after Z reappeared I wait for one spin virtual loss. Then I bet 4 actual spins and I lost.
Then I wait again Z to reappear. When Z reappeared I bet 4 actual spins and I lost.
Then I quit.
End of the story.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 03:47:39 PM by rimsky »
 

scepticus

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2018, 04:00:19 PM »
RimskyWe have all suffered a loss while learning so I can understand your frustration. I can  also understand  you wanting to ditch betting the dozens but I don't agree.
 What you experienced  is what can happen when betting the Hottest or Coldest  dozen . Also what can happen when using negative progressions. These , I think, are the flaws in your betting that led to the rapid dtrawdown.
just remember - there is NO system that is 100% guaranteed so be careful in guarding your bankroll .There is no easy money in gambling  !
 
The following users thanked this post: rimsky, Third

MickyP

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2018, 05:50:24 PM »

Roulette Live studio with 800 players online.
I skip the first four spins as virtual loss trigger.
Then waited for Z to reappear without betting.
Then after Z reappeared I wait for one spin virtual loss. Then I bet 4 actual spins and I lost.
Then I wait again Z to reappear. When Z reappeared I bet 4 actual spins and I lost.
Then I quit.
End of the story.

This is a different approach to the dozen drive.

Did you test this approach before you went "all in"?

In order for a meaningful analysis of your loss that may help you and others you will have to give a detailed report of your play with motivations.
 

rimsky

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2018, 06:57:59 PM »
My report is quite detailed.

However I didn't mean to say anything wrong about dozen drive.

While I was writing I was just talking to myself.

I played any possible system with the dozen and eventually all of them have lost. Negative progression has to be dismissed. Hit and run strategy, short sessions, stop loss, all of these are only fake solutions.

As I gave up EC now I'm gonna dismiss dozen play.

I think flat betting few straight up numbers sometimes using a positive progression will be the one and only strategy for my roulette play.

But of course this is not a general truth it's only my resolution.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 07:00:32 PM by rimsky »
 

MrPerfect.

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2018, 07:09:01 PM »
Dousen is almost random bet itself. It can go sleep for many spins, no reliable trigger can be found on euro wheel... on American it's not so straight forward. 
 

Third

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2018, 08:58:23 PM »
Funny thing Rimsky, I also just got the worst shalacking I have yet ever witnessed after making that encouraging post!  Sometimes very rare events will stack with other less rare events and do so in a continuous series.  However, because I utilize systems to minimize my losses, I was able to accept a loss that is recoverable and my bankroll was never in any danger.  I spent a large amount of time flowing with the negative streak until eventually it was clear that a full recovery wasn't likely in the near future and that the rare negative events stacking had reached a very rare consecutive sequence.  I quit with 75% of my table bank intact and I always have two table banks on hand.  It definitely hurt, in fact it felt like my whole system was completely repudiated, as if everything I had accomplished before meant nothing but I could look at my situation with a long term view and point to the fact that I experienced a very rare negative event and survived it without getting wiped out.  I came back today and am using my funds to recover now.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 09:50:58 PM by Third »
 

scepticus

Re: The "Playing few numbers" saga
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2018, 09:08:38 PM »
Rimsky 

It is natural to  want toditch things that don't work but we need to be careful that we don't overreact to disappointment . Sh*t happens as they say.
Betting Dozens  CAN be profitable . It depends on how you bet  them. Choosing the winning number is not the only thing that is necessary. Money Management -Discipline etc. are also needed .
As for Hit and Run . This can also be profitable . It depends on the target . Those who oppose Hit and Run need to tell us WHEN and WHY they decide to leave the table .You can't stay at the table forever can you ?  If the odds remain the same no matter WHEN you bet it makes no difference when you leave the table does it ?
We need to accept that losses will occur and adopt the attitude  that "   He who turns and runs away lives to fight another day " rather than chase losses .
 
The following users thanked this post: Third