Royal Panda roulette

Author Topic: New idea (not mine)  (Read 1447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DrTalos

New idea (not mine)
« on: January 23, 2019, 03:43:51 PM »
talking with a friend, we were agree that one of the way to overcome variance is play a lot of spins. Generally speaking, more spins you can play, less important will became clusters of outcomes, like repetitions or patterns. In better words, resulta will be more balanced.
  After talking and planning, he came up with an idea that can make sense, and I offer this to you all, for your evaluation. Seems a little complicated at first, but really is not.
You start playing one number straight up, with one unit. Let say the last outcome. If not hit, second bet will be last outcome straight up, second last as a split. Total negative balance -3
  If not hit, wr play 3 units, last straight up, second last split and third as a street. Total negative balance -6.
  If not hit, we add a corner (you got the idea) placing 4 bets. Fifth bet is adding a double street. Total negative balance at this if we get no hits whatsoever is -15.
  If we keep not hitting, we play to units on the double street. Next one without it and we add one unit on the corner. Next one with no hit and we add a unit in the street bet. Keep going like this.
  Any time we got a hit, we end the game if we are in profit or we keep playing without adding units if the game is not over.
  We never place bets that overstep one another (we try to cover as much field as we can).
  When we add units, we start from the double street to the straight up. If we play three units in all five combinations, and we do not hit, we add the fourth unit in the double street.
  I hope it is clear enough. I don't have much time these days so I will not waste it writing this thing. I think it has some potential, needs to be explored.
 
The following users thanked this post: funtomas76, SugTips, ele07, rimsky, Third

mr j

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2019, 03:52:11 PM »
Its kinda like, playing half of a reverse parachute system. I'm not endorsing, just saying.

Ken
 

leowls

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2019, 04:32:15 PM »
Thanks for sharing. Its good to see you posting again. Will test it out tomorrow aa im too tired and sleepy to do so now.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2019, 05:18:18 PM »
After a full row of misses for -15 units we will be facing the features of a 16 number bet.  Loss distribution:

43.25083160400391  0
 67.79073333740234  1
 81.71628570556641  2
 89.6224822998047  3
 94.11138153076172  4
 96.65847778320313  5
 98.1057586669922  6
 98.92284393310547  7
 99.38815307617188  8
 99.6512451171875  9
 99.80176544189453  10
 99.88674926757813  11
 99.936279296875  12
 99.96420288085938  13
 99.97986602783203  14
 99.98889923095703  15
 99.99358367919922  16
 99.99626922607422  17
 99.99783325195313  18
 99.99884033203125  19
 99.99935150146484  20
 99.9996337890625  21
 99.9997787475586  22
 99.99985504150391  23
 99.99990844726563  24
 99.99995422363281  25
 99.99996948242188  26
 99.99996948242188  27
 99.99998474121094  28
 99.99998474121094  29
 100  30

with a hit on the 30th spin.

Obviously the key to success will be in the recovery method.  If it was me, I would try to get a total of 144 numbers bet before trying to recover, for a 99.39% chance of a hit:

1...-1.....1
2...-3.....3
3...-6.....9
4...-10.....19
5...-15.....34
6...-21.....50
x...-y.....66
...
x...-y.....144 <=== someone needs to work this out

Also, we need to verify that no matter what hits, we get profit at each step of the betting.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 05:38:07 PM by Third »
 

mr j

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2019, 05:37:56 PM »
The very fact that you would test this is funny.  ???
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

juice

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2019, 05:46:26 PM »
Im going to have shirts made that say  " I'm with Ken..."
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

petespin

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2019, 06:58:28 PM »
U re kind of close to hg but something missed....
 

DrTalos

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2019, 07:35:56 PM »
That's exactly it. You don't get it. This is not a final product, it is a starting point.
  If you are waiting for someone to post a final, polished, winning system, you are wrong. All you can get are ideas, suggestions, starting point. You have to analyze it without prejudice (this won't work because it is similar to one my cousin posted three years ago in a blackjack forum...), take its strong points and work on its flaws.
 My perspective on this one is that I think major flaws will be getting a hit in a combination that doesn't bring much to the cause (a double street with 3 units cash you 18, not enough, and you "wasted" a hit) and no control of what to bet, with many optios excluding others because of proximity.
  On the other hand the target is very clear: few numbers hit as su or split can wipe out negative balance quite nicely.
  Now, as third pointed out, it needs a recovery system. It is a way. I do not agree. A recovery system  needs something to rely upon, and there is nothing of that sort here. I think it will need a stop loss (something I hate), or a way to lower down bets at every hit.
  As I said, needs working.

 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Third

mr j

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2019, 09:18:08 PM »
U re kind of close to hg but something missed....

......and there's the "HG" again.
 

GIAJJENNO

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2019, 10:24:12 PM »
U re kind of close to hg but something missed....

......and there's the "HG" again.

And? Somebody cant stand your style,  but you do not get a bann therefore. Somebody use HG, and you want to bann him. The masterpiece of the justice...
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

mr j

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2019, 10:37:57 PM »
Its a rookie mistake using HG lingo.
 

petespin

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2019, 08:35:55 AM »
Guys the hardest part trying to build a really good system u 'll always search for the 0,1precentage that is missing , without this u can't have a winning system.
 

Third

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2019, 09:09:21 AM »
Guys the hardest part trying to build a really good system u 'll always search for the 0,1precentage that is missing , without this u can't have a winning system HG.

I can stack cumulative probability to 99.99% and win more than I lose, but that is not the definition of a HG.  But like you say, finding the solution that that .001 is the secret we are all after.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 09:11:36 AM by Third »
 

petespin

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2019, 09:18:53 AM »
Additional and Dr talos May agree as he claims he has a winning system, a hg doesn't have to be something complicated  , a winning system doesn't need a huge br , and u must have the control of your game every single spin, a winning system must NOT have deep drawdown , a winning system gives u the confidence that u ll win no matter what , btw I know a guy ( very well known member at forums ) that he's also has a winning  method , but it needs br of 1000u to play it., so guys for sure there are multiply winning methods to beat roulette.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

MickyP

Re: New idea (not mine)
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2019, 05:26:17 PM »
Petespin, your parameters of a winning system cancel out just about every single system. All play types will fluctuate the bankroll and the black swan owes no player any favours.