Author Topic: R.D. Ellison  (Read 1826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mr j

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2019, 02:07:41 PM »
They dont change and I dont play systems, I play methods. So I answered, will you answer me?
 

Joe

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2019, 02:47:39 PM »
Ken, what's the difference between a system and a method? it seems like idle semantics to me, but correct me If I'm wrong.
Quote
So I answered, will you answer me?
Sure. I'm not claiming that the R.D. Ellison wins or changes the odds in any way. It seems to me as though it's built on the gambler's fallacy.

And you didn't answer my previous question : do you believe that nobody can win at baccarat or craps because these are even money games? If you don't, you should believe that it's possible to win at roulette playing the even chances.
 

mr j

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2019, 03:14:30 PM »
I dont play bacc or craps, dont have enough info. Why would I concentrate on more than ONE casino game?

You will NEVER be a long term winner playing many numbers, it'll never happen. Like it, dont like it, hate me for it, I dont care. Its a 100% fact.
 

Joe

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2019, 04:32:22 PM »
I dont play bacc or craps, dont have enough info.
But you do. They are even chance games; that's all you need to know. If you can beat baccarat or craps then you can certainly beat EC roulette using the same method.

How many numbers is "too many"? 5 or more? 10 or more?
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

mr j

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2019, 07:39:17 PM »
over 5
 

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2019, 09:44:52 PM »
Sputnik, thanks for all your input into this forum thread including the selections for the single zero european wheel.

It looks like the original system called out for either / or betting scenario. If one grouping didnt it in X amount of spins, begin betting the other grouping. Very interesting. Ive often thought about a covering the the wheel somehow like this but was never able to actually come up with anything. I like it.

Admit that I find it a lot of work to memorize all locations and then if everything aligns properly to then hand select all 6 spots. So.... I just selected all 12 spots and began betting the same spots over and over and over. NOT BAD. Its a grind but its not bad. One could easily go into a casino with only $200 place this $12 bet and grind those same bets over and over, never changing and could easily make $100 without any effort at all. Worst case scenario you grind down and lose $100. Big upside though. I was able to grind $200 fairly quickly without having to increase bet size or anything. Although my idea is quite LAZY I think there could even be some research done on it for some sort of progression. Maybe double bet size after so many misses.

Anyways, thanks for you hard work on this! Much appreciated!
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2019, 09:52:01 PM »
Ya, if it was me, I would just play the hottest grouping at any one time and use some kind of smooth progression approach.  I think I would find however that the cost is too expensive once TSHTF. :shrug:  Just a guess tho...
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2019, 10:25:26 PM »
Ive just simulated 1013 spins and have some interesting info to share...

71.3% = 722 times I hit one of the 24 numbers (12 splits) right away (impressive IMO)

20.1% = 204 times I hit after the first bet of 12 splits

6.6% = 67 times I hit after the second bet of 12 splits

2.0% = 20 times I hit after the third bet of 12 splits

I never had four misses in a row. Im sure it would happen with a larger test of spins.

So almost 3/4 of the time Im hitting one of those 12 splits immediately (24 numbers in total). The other 25-30% of the time theres a progression of how many misses, but even still 70% of the time roughly Im hitting those 12 numbers after one miss.

More work to do.

EDIT... so if you bet the 12 splits on a win you get 18, so thats +6 units on a win. Now need a progression.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 10:28:39 PM by Jake007 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2019, 10:46:50 PM »
Have you noticed that your ratios are exactly the same as betting 2 Doz?  I mean the amount risked is 2:1 to the payout, while covering 24 numbers?
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2019, 10:49:13 PM »
Wow interesting indeed. My brain is fried from all this math this afternoon and I have a massive headache now :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2019, 11:01:32 PM »
The progression to even bother with something like betting two dozen would be fierce IMO... Statistically, and not looking at my small sampling, you will win 99.0% of the time within 4.4 spins (so 5 spins). You will win 99.9% of the time betting two dozens within 6.6 spin (so 7 spins). Im just going to run the trusty progression calc...

http://loothog.com/Systems/prog.html

$5 Minimum Profit
$5,000 Table Limit
$11,000 Bankroll

Bank Needed: 10,930
Total Spins: 7
Minimum Profit: 5
You are playing on 2 dozens/rows at 2:1

Progression
Bet      5      for      1      spins.
Bet      15      for      1      spins.
Bet      45      for      1      spins.
Bet      135      for      1      spins.
Bet      405      for      1      spins.
Bet      1215      for      1      spins.
Bet      3645      for      1      spins.

I would be sweating after the 4th miss :)
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Third

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2019, 11:05:49 PM »
Interesting to note by betting 12 splits (24 numbers) I never had 4 misses in a row with a 1000+ spin sampling, and yet playing two dozens Ive reached 4 misses a couple times already out of 100+ spins.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2019, 11:13:49 PM »
Really?  How are you grouping your splits?
 

Jake007

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2019, 11:15:18 PM »
Per the selections in the attachments that Sputnik made...


 R.D. Ellison Selection European Wheel

Six splits for each dozen selection on the table layout
 Covering 6 numbers one each side using Bi-Modal spread with total 12 numbers.

 See attachment:
 

Third

Re: R.D. Ellison
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2019, 11:22:26 PM »
So, assuming for the sake of argument, that there is some reason other than coincidence involved in your results, the difference between the two bet selections is that 2 DOZ is confined to two 3x4 square blocks on the felt and one 3x4 square block is always left completely empty VS. every 3x4 square block at least has some chips in it.

Should we believe that it is less likely statistically for an entire 3x4 block to become extremely hot vs. 12 numbers spread out in small bits throughout all three 3x4 blocks?

Statistical theory says it makes no difference whatsoever?
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007