### Author Topic: The longest EC ZigZag ever?  (Read 1030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Crazy K

##### The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« on: February 04, 2019, 08:17:13 AM »
Hi. This is my first post here after a whole day of reading (I mean 24 hours in a row!).

Recently I've been playing roulette and doing research with systems, strategies, etc. I've tested almost all the strategies, and the Classic Marty and 65/135 seem to be the best fit for me so far. This should follow up by a number of negative comments about Marty, but please read beforehand: ⬇

1. I'm from middle east, a country with no real world casinos. So I'm playing online, and the casino I'm playing in HAS NO TABLE LIMITS! Minimum bet is 50 bucks (which is almost equivalent to a cent  ). I call this 50 minimum 1 unit from now on, since it's the minimum bet I can make.

2. The online casino I'm talking about is a very basic one. I guess the random generator (aka the wheel) is flawed! I'm using a simple Marty-based strategy, and it has worked so far (+26,560 units in less than 2 days). Here is my strategy:

I start by betting on RED, if lost I go with the opposite EC that would be BLACK, if lost I go back to RED, and so on...
I use Classic Marty progression 1 2 4 8 16... which I can hold up to 15 losses (16th bet is my last possible bet), but 14 is the longest I've ever seen, leaving me with 2 left possible bets in my progression. I cash out at +20,000 units.

So here is the question: How can I find out what's the worst case that could happen? My approach to this is sort of empirical. I know mathematically it will lose in long run, but I'm okay with losing if it's "long" enough. Mathematical probability of loss is 1 in every 25000 = (0.53)16

Following the 65/135 pseudo-rule, how can I do the same research for the longest RBRBRBRB... streak that could happen against my first EC bet?

PS: I don't know why this is working. I was just tired of being hit by long bad streaks, so I decided to follow the bad trend which is happening to me: betting on what made me lose and try to cope with long same-color streaks. But now I'm looking at the posibility of the worst case of RBRBRBRB... ZigZag sequence! If it came out successful, I'm gonna pick a name for this strategy    I keep posting results here.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM by Crazy K »

The following users thanked this post: Sputnik, Third

#### rimsky

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2019, 08:34:06 AM »
The longest recorded "zigzag" (intermittence) between Red/Black is 32 spins at Montecarlo casino.
Personally, I never seen a RB intermittence > 16.
I think the target you selected could be profitable, but forget about martingale. It's a bloody loser.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 08:37:54 AM by rimsky »

The following users thanked this post: Crazy K

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2019, 08:40:49 AM »
The longest recorded "zigzag" (intermittence) between Red/Black is 32 spins at Montecarlo casino.
Personally, I never seen a RB intermittence > 16.
I think the target you selected could be profitable, but forget about martingale. It's a bloody loser.

Yeah I've been bitten by Marty many times before. I was just testing the idea, and suddenly felt like it's working. I thought maybe the random generator is flawed, IDK.

Which progression fits better with this idea, assuming that we will never hit the 32 spins ever again (at least me)?

#### rimsky

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2019, 09:24:06 AM »
I would dismiss EC play.

However a milder Guetting could be tested.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 09:25:42 AM by rimsky »

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2019, 09:42:08 AM »
I would dismiss EC play.

However a milder Guetting could be tested.

I never found positive progressions useful. The point is that if the spins are good enough to make profit with some positive progression like Guetting, then it's good enough to utilize a negative progression like Martingale up to 16 levels. People always point at lower risk of losing the bankroll, but I'm not trying to keep my bankroll safe, I'm trying to double it and deal with the risk.

#### rimsky

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2019, 09:59:22 AM »
I would dismiss EC play.

However a milder Guetting could be tested.
People always point at lower risk of losing the bankroll, but I'm not trying to keep my bankroll safe, I'm trying to double it and deal with the risk.

Sorry but that's the way losers talk.

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2019, 10:04:01 AM »
I would dismiss EC play.

However a milder Guetting could be tested.
People always point at lower risk of losing the bankroll, but I'm not trying to keep my bankroll safe, I'm trying to double it and deal with the risk.

Sorry but that's the way losers talk.

Not offended, 'cuz I'm in negative so far.    I'm here to learn. However, I believe my statement on positive progressions is kind of true. I appreciate your contribution.

The following users thanked this post: rimsky

#### rimsky

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2019, 10:33:39 AM »
Looks like you misunderstand the nature of the game. It's not a fair, equal game.

Inertia of roulette is that eventually the player loses. If the player is very competent he loses small, otherwise he loses ALL AND EVERYYTHING.

To neutralize this pattern the smartest strategies, iron discipline and experience are needed. Always tweaking what works and quitting what does not.

One of the biggest merit of this forum in my view is that is now mainly focusing on the straight ups play, shifting the attention from EC and outside bets in general.

If I was you I would begin pointing at this direction. With the proper attitude, which is somehow conservative. Maybe you could save yourself years of delusion.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 10:35:39 AM by rimsky »

The following users thanked this post: SugTips

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2019, 10:43:02 AM »
Looks like you misunderstand the nature of the game. It's not a fair, equal game.

Inertia of roulette is that eventually the player loses. If the player is very competent he loses small, otherwise he loses ALL AND EVERYYTHING.

To neutralize this pattern the smartest strategies, iron discipline and experience are needed. Always tweaking what works and quitting what does not.

One of the biggest merit of this forum in my view is that is now mainly focusing on the straight ups play, shifting the attention from EC and outside bets in general.

If I was you I would begin pointing at this direction. With the proper attitude, which is somehow conservative. Maybe you could save yourself years of delusion.

I am familiar with the nature of this game, even in ways that it's not discussed in this forum and I don't wish to mention now.

Straight ups lead to a world of new opportunities as well as new -as you said- delusions! Take 5 minutes and you will find numerous topics offering strategies that even the OP doesn't know how it works, but just because it's more complicated, it looks more advanced (which it's not!). Straight ups are more complicated in nature, so you will sense much more fallacy around it.

Btw, I'm not a fan of EC nor against the inside bets. I'm still researching.

#### GIAJJENNO

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2019, 11:00:54 AM »

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2019, 11:09:34 AM »
Try example Johnson progression

https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=9.0

I have read the topic completely. I even developed a simulator for it. The only thing I couldn't understand was betting on "pairs" to keep the bets low! Can you explain it in more details?

The problem with the Labby variations for me is getting way too big bet peaks, no matter how I try to keep them small.

#### Crazy K

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2019, 02:53:12 PM »
UPDATE: Just doubled my bankroll in 2 days. As I mentioned, I cashed out once at +20,000 units, and now my balance on the table is my starting bankroll (33,000) plus +13,000. I'm waiting to meet the cash-out target (+20,000) again in a few hours to secure my profit.

Being +33,000 units up and winning 1 unit per spin means I have passed 1 in 25,000 or (0.53)16 possibility of loss. Still doesn't prove anything... or does it?

The following users thanked this post: Sputnik

#### GIAJJENNO

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2019, 03:34:07 PM »
Nothing, because if you catch 16 RBRB sequence all your bankroll will ggoooonnee mate.

#### Third

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2019, 03:51:06 PM »
You can calculate the percentage of hit rate that you want to support by debt recovery, like maybe 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 = -255 units, which will give you a 99% hit rate.  Then use a recovery method to win back the -255.  This sort of thinking is better than entire bankroll eclipse because it will happen that you will have 2 failures before you can recover, just like you are having more wins than expected without a loss; the loss is just hiding but it is there and its coming for you!

The following users thanked this post: Crazy K

#### Sputnik

##### Re: The longest EC ZigZag ever?
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2019, 03:51:45 PM »

Crazy K i will make a polite suggestion to safe guard your winnings.
Now you say you won twice as much than what you risk.

Then you should start playing with half the unit size and regress operating with casino money.
You could have done that when you won half the money you risk.

Look what happens when you regress other then operating with casino money.
You need to bust twice in a row or you need to get 16 zig zag sequences twice after each other to bust, if you regress.

Don't give all the money back to the casino, use regression and operate with winnings.

Cheers

The following users thanked this post: rimsky, Third, Crazy K