### Author Topic: Have I got something here? Maths person needed  (Read 12126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### sam41

##### Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« on: September 10, 2019, 04:06:26 PM »
I'll try to explain this and hopefully it makes sense! I need to know if this would work the majority of the time or not and don't have the maths head for it.

Here's what I just did:

I put £50 into Sky Vegas, and £50 in Ladbrokes Casino. I opened the SAME roulette wheel on both sites, in two windows.

I put 50p on red in Ladbrokes, £1 on black in sky.

Regardless of the result, I then increased each side by 50p for the next spin, and again for the next one and so on. Obviously the two sides are fluctuating depending on outcome. When one side is close to what I'll term a 'milestone' balance, or £55 in this case, I only bet what is needed to get there. Perhaps on the previous bet I had £3 on Ladbrokes red and now my balance is £54. I only put £1 on red this time. On black however, I stay as I was with the extra 50p going on.

Now lets say red hits again and I have £55 in the Ladbrokes account. I now start over ON RED ONLY. I go back to a 50p bet. Perhaps the bet on Black is at £3.50 now - this continues as my Sky balance is not yet up to £55.

Fluctuation continues but ultimately as I played this method, I noticed both sides steadily increasing. At some point a couple of blacks hit and my Sky balance rockets up, but the Ladbrook bets are now at a lower sum so the losses taken there aren't so significant.

If the Ladbrokes Red side falls below £55 again, you keep increasing the wager by 50p each time because its target is now £60, not to get back to £55. It may be that the Sky Black side has a run and gets to £55, and Ladbrokes red is down to £53. You would now start over on black with 50p, but keep increasing on red as normal.

Now the session I just completed finished when I got bored, and I had £58.50 in Sky and £64 in Ladbrokes. That's £22.50 profit from about 30 minutes of play, using only 50p units. What I don't know is whether that was a fluke or whether this would always happen?

Obviously there is the zero - in this session it never hit, but when it does both sides lose. I don't know if that's a problem though, you just carry on with the same format and would soon recoup what you lost. The only time it could sink you would be multiple zeros appearing in a session, probably 3 times within 10-15 spins would be an issue.

The zero aside though, was I just lucky with colours hitting more when bets were higher, or is profit an inevitable outcome based on the fluctuating stakes and wheel variance?

I'll definitely test it some more to see.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 04:09:12 PM by sam41 »

#### scepticus

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2019, 04:49:13 PM »
Sam
A maths  geek will "automatically" tell you that your system will fail " In the Long Run " so no point in asking them

#### leowls

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2019, 10:37:03 PM »
Hi sam how ia that different from betting red and black with one game vendor?

#### Roulette Man

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2019, 07:16:57 AM »
First of all, this is a novel system - interesting!

ZERO LOSSES
You can avoid the big losses when zero comes by only betting the difference of the two bets. This would need some record keeping, but it is worth it. You keep track of the two bets on paper, so you know what each of your bankrolls are and what you should bet on next spin. But instead of placing two bets you bet the difference only. Say you next bet should be 2,5 on Red and 5 on Black, then you only bet 5-2,5=2,5 on Black. You only need one roulette to play the system. Just do the calculation on a sheet of paper as if you were betting two different games and only bet the difference. Now zero is not a problem. This method is called differential betting. Meaning you follow two different progressions for opposite chances and you only bet the difference.

Why this doesn't work
Test your system in a spin sequence like this:
B B B R B B R B R B R B B B B B B R B B B R R R B B R B R B R B R R B B B RThis system is good only if every chance catches up, if they are in some sort of balance. It is not good if there is a continuous favor on one of the two Bets

However I do like the idea of steadily increasing until a profit point, regardless of win or loss.

The following users thanked this post: Stratege

#### Stratege

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2019, 08:47:59 AM »
Differential play is a very old technique. I tested this technique not on 2 games (red and black) but on 32 games, so the difference between 16 games in Red and 16 games in Black (on average). I can say that the amplitude of the statistical differences (positive or negative for the player) is diminished. So it's a very interesting base to start but, this is not a sufficient method if we add a progression.

To build a method, it often takes 4 or 5 very solid techniques. Here, we are still far from a real solution. Using only the natural game red / black does not bring a real strategic advantage, it's good but insufficient. The effects of zero are also not greatly reduced. Again, it is with the combinatorics that I was able to put in parallel 32 games which converge all on the differential R / B.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 08:50:47 AM by Stratege »

The following users thanked this post: Roulette Man

#### sam41

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2019, 11:12:28 AM »
Ok thanks everyone for the interesting comments.

Leowls, I think why I like it playing 2 at once is because if you did start losing on one colour quite consistently, you won't lose that much money overall as you're winning on the other side. If you just play one and it goes badly, you can lose quite a lot. I've found that increasing by 1 unit until you hit a target works really well but isn't foolproof. I've been up to the likes of 35-40 units before, trying to recover and bottled out of continuing as the deficit is getting out of hand. However when I did this I don't stick on the same EC, I mix it up to avoid a long streak against me. But just occasionally what should be a 48-52 ratio just doesn't happen. I think eventually you'd always get back to at least break even so if you did it with tiny units you'd be ok. Larger units causes stress though!

#### scepticus

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2019, 01:49:34 PM »
Differential betting is essential in cases like this - on the same wheel - but not necessarily on different wheels whereBOTH Red and Black can win .
On the same wheel Differential Betting is essential ! Simple arithmetic tells you this.

#### MrPerfect.

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2019, 02:50:39 PM »
Yes, sam41,  you got it!!! It's called " problems".
Few zeroes will make you realise what kind of problems exactly.

#### scepticus

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2019, 05:55:27 PM »
I was ASSUMING     that he made a mistake in thinking that both Sky and Ladbroke used the same wheel .
Do they Sam ?

#### MrPerfect.

##### Re: Have I got something here? Maths person needed
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2019, 07:48:17 PM »
Wheel could be same or different. The way he bets it doesn't matter. I have never seen in any wheel black or red coming a winner after a while.... betting more or less, progressions or staking plans..  nothing of it works if bet selection is negative in expectation. Soner or later he hits average , and average in his bets is negative.
Roulette sucks for negative expectation game.