Hurried Splits Test - Part 1 (Primitive)
STAGE ONE
This is a quick test applying the Law to a splits system with a single primitive formula. The expected averages are: 12 splits to arrive in an 18-spin interval. The formula used here is based on "Apex Theory", which will be discussed later...but essentially it is the foundation of a formula that hunts for opportunities to bet on numbers that have already hit once in the interval. The key gist is that there will be streaks of consecutive different splits (same for when playing straight up bets), and at some point that streak should be interrupted...when one of the splits repeats (this is the event we're aiming to catch).
The streak ascends as the spin count advances, forming an upward slope. Eventually the ascent will conclude, as though reaching the summit of a mountain, and an apex appears. The apex occurs at, and symbolises, the first moment that one of the splits has repeated. At the other side of the apex is a descending slope, which gets steeper as more and more splits arrive for a second time. Finally the slope evens out, and that stage signifies the end of the full-length 18-spin interval. The ascending slope begins to develop again immediately, creating a new apex and descent...the process recurs infinitely.
Obviously there is no way of predicting when the apex will take shape...that is why it's Apex Theory and not Apex Fact. But we can use some probability and common sense to hazard a guess.
Onwards...
The primitive formula for this splits system is: track the wheel outcomes until six different splits have hit in a row, then bet them! On a win, stop and track again. On a loss, rebet and add the winning split. So the first bet will be 6 splits, the second bet 7 splits, the third bet 8 splits and so on until a winner is hit. A traditional negative progression of 1, 1, 2, 4, 9 is required. The zero is discounted.
The test shows a real case of tracking and attacking. As only one primitive formula is active and the system is aiming to catch solo winners in each interval, the attack will create a conventional model.
The spin outcomes are taken one at a time from random.org.
(T) = tracking
(b) = bet
[table=~]
Spin~ Out~ Split~ Bet~ Res~ Net~ Notes
1~ 23~ 20:23~ (T)~-~-
2~27~27:30~(T)~-~-~
3~2~2:5~(T)~-~-~
4~28~25:28~(T)~-~-~
5~21~21:24~(T)~-~-~
6~0~-~(T)~-~-~
7~26~26:29~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
8~30~27:30~(b) 2:5, 20:23, 21:24, 25:28, 26:29, 27:30~W~+12~End of interval
9~22~19:22~(T)~-~-~
10~21~21:24~(T)~-~-~
11~3~3:6~(T)~-~-~
12~2~2:5~(T)~-~-~
13~36~33:36~(T)~-~-~
14~7~7:10~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
15~3~3:6~(b) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 21:24, 33:36~W~+24~End of interval
16~30~27:30~(T)~-~-~
17~22~19:22~(T)~-~-~
18~13~13:16~(T)~-~-~
19~0~-~(T)~-~-~
20~10~7:10~(T)~-~-~
21~31~31:34~(T)~-~-~
22~26~26:29~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
23~13~13:16~(b) 7:10, 13:16, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 31:34~W~+36~End of interval
24~0~-~(T)~-~-~
25~27~27:30~(T)~-~-~
26~18~15:18~(T)~-~-~
27~0~-~(T)~-~-~
28~15~15:18~(T) 15:18 split repeated, ends/begins tracking~-~-~
29~2~2:5~(T)~-~-~
30~10~7:10~(T)~-~-~
31~0~-~(T)~-~-~
32~27~27:30~(T)~-~-~
33~22~19:22~(T)~-~-~
34~11~8:11~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
35~5~2:5~(b) 2:5, 7:10, 8:11, 15:18, 19:22, 27:30~W~+48~End of interval
36~3~3:6~(T)~-~-~
37~29~26:29~(T)~-~-~
38~7~7:10~(T)~-~-~
39~19~19:22~(T)~-~-~
40~25~25:28~(T)~-~-~
41~0~-~(T)~-~-~
42~4~1:4~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
43~6~3:6~(b) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29~W~+60~End of interval
44~18~15:18~(T)~-~-~
45~7~7:10~(T)~-~-~
46~20~20:23~(T)~-~-~
47~14~14:17~(T)~-~-~
48~32~32:35~(T)~-~-~
49~9~9:12~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
50~20~20:23~(b) 7:10, 9:12, 14:17, 15:18, 20:23, 32:35~W~+72~End of interval
51~9~9:12~(T)~-~-~
52~36~33:36~(T)~-~-~
53~3~3:6~(T)~-~-~
54~36~33:36~(T) 33:36 split repeated, ends/begins tracking~-~-~
55~33~33:36~(T) 33:36 split repeated, ends/begins tracking~-~-~
56~27~27:30~(T)~-~-~
57~0~-~(T)~-~-~
58~12~9:12~(T)~-~-~
59~32~32:35~(T)~-~-~
60~22~19:22~(T)~-~-~
61~26~26:29~(T) Opportunity:~-~-~
62~9~9:12~(b) 9:12, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 32:35, 33:36~W~+84~End of interval
[/table]
[table=>]
Primitive Summary
Spins>62
Outlay>-42 units
Gain>126 units
Net>+84 units
Opportunities exposed>7
Bets placed>7
1st spin hit rate>100%
Apexes missed>3
[/table]
This can be considered a perfect session, as the progression was never needed for chasing any deficit (truly, the numbers are real!). The formula, although it could carry on winning exponentially, won't stand up on its own. It would crash for an ample loss if all 18 splits arrived in 18 spins. So we can disregard this system as unviable, and instead use it as a sort of reference for delving deeper into advanced system schematics.
Those of you with eagle eyes may see discrepancies regarding tracking and attacks.
An example: on spin 24 we began tracking after a win. The split 15:18 arrived on spin 26, and then a second time on spin 28. The split hit twice within six spins, so there was no betting opportunity. We had to abandon tracking and begin again. Spin 28 (and the 15:18 split) represents the endpoint of a failed tracking period, and also marks the start of a new one...rather like an intersection.
Technically, after a win, tracking for the next betting opportunity should commence from the spin the win was achieved on...the win is the intersection of a successful attack and a fresh interval. However, testing has proved that it's more prudent to wait until the result of the following spin to resume tracking.
There are ways this system can be made safer and more efficient, by improving the formula, and some ideas will be covered in the threads tracking and attacking, and formulas defined.
For now we can leave this test, but we'll surely come back to the results later.
Number Six
Mighty interesting idea.
Thanks for posting it and thanks for that excellent chart!
Sam
Very, very interesting!!
I applied the splits method to my last losing session. I would have won 750 units instead of losing 260 (150 spins).
I'll have to check some of my winning sessions.
Ron.
Number Six
Nicely explained and very interesting approach . :thumbsup:
Thanks
Max
Hi Ron,
Have you read the System Theory thread...what you are describing in your post is the pis aller policy ;D
Pis aller means last resort...is it a fallback option to enforce when things are going badly. But as all my ideas are generally based on betting straight up, how effective the pis aller would be for splits is debatable. It may not always be an option, which leaves the system exposed to the house edge.
Max,
Stay tuned for part two, when we'll substitute the primitive formula for a dynamic one and see what difference it makes/what trouble we get into. We'll use the results from this test as a comparison and also do a second test. I hope to put in a little thread about the different types of formulas and what they do/how they attack before we proceed.
6
Hi Number 6
A very interesting piece
Thank you
TSK
It also works on my last two long, winning, sessions. Not better than my own results, but close. Definitely worth checking further.
Ron.
I've adjusted it to betting after 5 numbers rather than 6.
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6 progression.
Ron.
Hurried Splits Test - Part 1 (Primitive)
STAGE TWO
This is stage two of the primitive formula test. Here we'll be using the double primitive formula – that is applying two separate formulas to hunt for two different sets of conditions. We'll be searching for opportunities to bet on numbers that have arrived once and numbers that haven't arrived (but not in the same interval). Because the formulas function independently of each other and interpret the results in totally distinct intervals, the staircase structure won't be created in this type of play. Bets cannot overlap and no purple patches will be exposed.
Formula One is based on the Apex Theory and is the same formula as used in stage on of this test: track the results until six different splits have hit in a row, then bet them! On a win, stop and track again. On a loss, rebet and add the winning split. So the first bet will be 6 splits, the second bet 7 splits, the third bet 8 splits and so on until a winner is hit. A traditional negative progression of 1, 1, 2, 4, 9 is required. The zero is discounted.
Formula Two bets on splits that haven't arrived: track ten spins, if eight or less different splits have hit, then bet the unhit splits for up to eight spins (betting a maximum of 26 numbers). Various negative progressions are required. The zero is discounted.
The spin outcomes are the same as stage one of this test and were taken one at a time from random.org.
1 = tracking formula 1
2 = tracking formula 2
(t) = tracking
(a) = attacking
(b-nn) = bet
nn = end of attack/interval
Red #= betting opportunity
Green # = intersection of failed tracking phase and fresh one
Blue # = new interval
[table=&]
Spin&Out&Split&1&2&Bet&Res&Net
1&23&20:23&t&t&&-&-
2&27&27:30&t&t&&-&-
3&2&2:5&t&t&&-&-
4&28&25:28&t&t&&-&-
5&21&21:24&t&t&&-&-
6&0&-&t&t&&-&-
7&26&26:29&t&t&&-&-
8&30&27:30&a&t&(b1) 2:5, 20:23, 21:24, 25:28, 26:29, 27:30&W(b1)&+12
9&22&19:22&t&t&&-&-
10&21&21:24&t&t&&-&-
11&3&3:6&t&a&(b2)1:4,3:6,7:10,8:11,9:12,13:16,14:17,15:18,31:34,32:35,33:36&W(b2)&+19
12&2&2:5&t&t&&-&-
13&36&33:36&t&t&&-&-
14&7&7:10&t&t&&-&-
15&3&3:6&a&t&(b1) 2:5, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 21:24, 33:36&W(b1)&+31
16&30&27:30&t&t&&-&-
17&22&19:22&t&t&&-&-
18&13&13:16&t&t&&-&-
19&0&-&t&t&&-&-
20&10&7:10&t&t&&-&-
21&31&31:34&t&t&&-&-
22&26&26:29&t&t&collision (b1) in play&-&-
23&13&13:16&a&t&(b1) 7:10, 13:16, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 31:34&W(b1)&+43
24&0&-&t&t&&-&-
25&27&27:30&t&t&&-&-
26&18&15:18&t&t&&-&-
27&0&-&t&t&&-&-
28&15&15:18&t&t&&-&-
29&2&2:5&t&t&&-&-
30&10&7:10&t&t&&-&-
31&0&-&t&t&&-&-
32&27&27:30&t&t&&-&-
33&22&19:22&t&a&(b2)1:4,3:6,8:11,9:12,14:17,19:22,20:23,21:24,25:28,26:29,31:34,32:35,33:36&W(b2)&+48
34&11&8:11&t&t&&-&-
35&5&2:5&a&t&(b1) 2:5, 7:10, 8:11, 15:18, 19:22, 27:30&W(b1)&+60
36&3&3:6&t&t&&-&-
37&29&26:29&t&t&&-&-
38&7&7:10&t&t&&-&-
39&19&19:22&t&t&&-&-
40&25&25:28&t&t&&-&-
41&0&-&t&t&&-&-
42&4&1:4&t&t&&-&-
43&6&3:6&a&t&(b1) 1:4, 3:6, 7:10, 19:22, 25:28, 26:29&W(b1)&+72
44&18&15:18&t&a&(b2)9:12,13:16,14:17,15:18,20:23,21:24,27:30,31:34,32:35,33:36&W(b2)&+80
45&7&7:10&t&t&&-&-
46&20&20:23&t&t&&-&-
47&14&14:17&t&t&&-&-
48&32&32:35&t&t&&-&-
49&9&9:12&t&t&&-&-
50&20&20:23&a&t&(b1) 7:10, 9:12, 14:17, 15:18, 20:23, 32:35&W(b1)&+92
51&9&9:12&t&t&&-&-&
52&36&33:36&t&t&&-&-
53&3&3:6&t&t&&-&-
54&36&33:36&t&t&&-&-
55&33&33:36&t&a&(b2)1:4,2:5,8:11,13:16,15:18,19:22,21:24,25:28,26:29,27:30,31:34&L(b2)&+81
56&27&27:30&t&a&(b2)1:4,2:5,8:11,13:16,15:18,19:22,21:24,25:28,26:29,27:30,31:34&W(b2)&+95
57&0&-&t&t&&-&-
58&12&9:12&t&t&&-&-
59&32&32:35&t&t&&-&-
60&22&19:22&t&t&&-&-
61&26&26:29&t&t&&-&-
62&9&9:12&a&t&(b1) 9:12, 19:22, 26:29, 27:30, 32:35, 33:36&W(b1)&+107
[/table]
[table=>]
Double Primitive Summary
Spins>62
Outlay>-109 units
Gain>216 units
Net> +107 units
Opportunities exposed>12
Bets placed>12
1st spin hit rate>92%
2nd spin hit rate>8%
Bets missed>4
[/table]
So the progression was only needed once on Formula Two. Betting opportunities collided once, on spin 22, so we bet the Formula One opportunity and won. The double primitive formula injects some variation into our playing tactics. The progressions were very conservative, slightly more aggressive and we could have added an extra 50 or 60 units net gain. Formula Two has the ability to backtrack after a win, starting a new interval on previous spins and exposing a lot more betting opportunities but this can be covered later.
In this test the double primitive performed particularly well compared to the single primitive. The outlay was heavier but our gross gain was much higher, resulting in an additional 23 units net. We missed a total of four betting opportunities – three apexes and one situation where bets collided. The first spin hit rate, as you'll see, was excellent. This can easily be played in a B&M casino and although it is far from perfect, it can be pretty effective. These tests are meant to demonstrate the usefulness and application of the Law, and trust me there are some great systems to be made.
Hi
Primative or not, 2 games of 100 spins using the stage 1 version:
14/4 - 130 units
15/4 - 165 units
cheers,
metalrat
Hello Metalrat,
I'm presuming that's +295?? :D
Well, these tests are good for kicking on and designing better systems. I have used the stage two version in real play before but a bad session can be fairly ruinous with a traditional negative progression. I generally use an aggressive divisor staking plan, which can improve any system enormously. I wouldn't say either of the two systems posted here should be used, to be honest, but they show the law of the third has potential.
Hi Number six,
indeed +295 at DublinBet.
And yes, some very hairy situations, albeit not ruinous this time.
I am looking forward to reading about the aggressive divisor staking plan, hoping you are willing
to share that with us.
I am in for the long term winnings, small as they may be.
Been around this and other forums a while now, and have noticed that spectacular does not last long.
Potential is a good and worthwhile description, neither raising undue expectations nor leaving no room for
improvement.
Thanks for posting and i am looking forword to further lessons.
cheers,
metalrat
Hi Metalrat...and any other readers :)
I said I'd test the double primitive formula system over the next few weeks...however, as I wouldn't use it again myself nor recommend it, I think it would be a bit pointless. It is, after all, only supposed to be a quick demonstration of the Law at work. A brief word on the divisor...I usually test with a pluscoup progression, true negative progressions, flat betting and a divisor, so I can compare them all. The divisor outperforms the others by a long way.
Instead of testing the system outlined in stage two, I'll be testing something more usable. It will have two primitive formulas (for betting on splits that haven't hit/have hit once or more than once) and a hybrid formula (for betting a combination of hit and unhit splits). Each formula will thrive on specific sets of favourable conditions. Tracking will involve charting the outcomes for x spins (probably 9 or 10), then attacking for y spins (probably 5 or 6). Attacks will be wrapped up by spin 16 of the interval at the latest. Only one formula will lead the attack, and which one depends on the conditions revealed by tracking. This allows us to be betting every 10 or 12 spins, rather than spending an age recording the results.
I'll try to keep the tests true to real situations...testing for sessions of 120 spins (maximum), with a stop-loss, profit target, using a divisor. If the system is in profit after five tests, around 600 spins, then I'll post it with the divisor plan.
Stay tuned ;)
Great stuff No.6 :thumbsup:
good luck to you.... 8)
QuoteA brief word on the divisor...I usually test with a pluscoup progression, true negative progressions, flat betting and a divisor, so I can compare them all. The divisor outperforms the others by a long way.
Hi #6.
Amen to that Brother.
Lanky.
Quote from: Number Six on April 16, 2009, 06:27:07 PM
Hi Metalrat...and any other readers :)
I said I'd test the double primitive formula system over the next few weeks...however, as I wouldn't use it again myself nor recommend it, I think it would be a bit pointless. It is, after all, only supposed to be a quick demonstration of the Law at work. A brief word on the divisor...I usually test with a pluscoup progression, true negative progressions, flat betting and a divisor, so I can compare them all. The divisor outperforms the others by a long way.
Instead of testing the system outlined in stage two, I'll be testing something more usable. It will have two primitive formulas (for betting on splits that haven't hit/have hit once or more than once) and a hybrid formula (for betting a combination of hit and unhit splits). Each formula will thrive on specific sets of favourable conditions. Tracking will involve charting the outcomes for x spins (probably 9 or 10), then attacking for y spins (probably 5 or 6). Attacks will be wrapped up by spin 16 of the interval at the latest. Only one formula will lead the attack, and which one depends on the conditions revealed by tracking. This allows us to be betting every 10 or 12 spins, rather than spending an age recording the results.
I'll try to keep the tests true to real situations...testing for sessions of 120 spins (maximum), with a stop-loss, profit target, using a divisor. If the system is in profit after five tests, around 600 spins, then I'll post it with the divisor plan.
Stay tuned ;)
Hey Six good work mate
In your opinion why does the divisor MM work so much better than anything else and how do the profits compare I know lanky swears by it and I agreewith him but can you give me your viewpoint on the divisor plan
Originally the divisor plan was used for horse racing but Lanky adapted it for roulette and what divisor do you use?
Regards Rodney
Hello Rodney,
Well, I'll be starting a new thread soon to do a proper test of a three-formula system. I'll be testing with a divisor, pluscoup, true negative progressions and flat betting...then we can all see a real example of how well divisors perform. I prefer to make divisors a little more aggressive than standard, that way I can strike a balance between full grinding and heavy attacks. I really can't see why people use true negative progressions when there is something as clinical as the divisor around! It is not an MM, but a staking plan, and it's very logical. Sometimes they can run away from you, so a stop-loss is still necessary, but for sure they will keep you in the game longer than any other staking method and help you reach your session target even if the spin outcomes are going against you. The system still has to be robust for the divisor to be effective, no doubt, but they can make an average system better. When testing I regularly find that a negative progression will hit me with absurd deficits like -500 units, yet the divisor will net +50 (those figures are real, by the way, from a real test!). Why are divisors so promising? For me, I play very cautiously and only bet when the conditions are right. My hit rate is pretty high, when the system I'm using is performing well, I'll get a hit within the first or second spin so the divisor is always recovering quickly...it seldom gets out of control. I use it in a way you'd use a pluscoup...resetting the divisor after each win that brings a new bankroll high - not everyone does this but I like to play safe. I don't think a divisor would work for a long progression, unless it was very conservative, as they really feed off regular wins. And, of course, they are highly configurable. There is a divisor out there for everyone, that is the truth!
;)
A quick add for profit comparison: the divisor is safe and sound, and profits tend to be unpretentious (I.e small and regular). Ending the session with a deficit is really very rare. Sometimes you'll find that it would have been better to use a true negative progression, you may walk away with +50 from the divisor when you could have got +200 from a true progression. But remember that when it's +50 again from the divisor, it could have been -500 from the true progression! A divisor is a concrete bunker and true negative progressions are flimsy wooden shacks...which one would you rather be in when the bombs start falling??
:)
Sixer you are so right Lanky has proven to me what a true grinding methods can do for you overall BR it really is a consistant up with the odd blip and that is playing 2 dozens
We really need to drive ourselves for self discipline a little bit of profit make big profits in the long run those who say you cant win at this dam game are deluded because of the edge so to speak but there are people from this forum doing it every day and that is without VB or DS or any other initials you like to think of
Six you are an inspiration and i take my hate off to people like you
I have this little Sportbetting method for baseball there are plenty of hits and i am thinking of using the divisor staking plan for it
Regards Rodney
Quote from: Natural9
I take my hate off to people like you
;D I'll presume you meant hat! ;D
Quote from: Number Six on April 16, 2009, 09:50:33 PM
;D I'll presume you meant hat! ;D
Oh crap the old spellchecker didnt pick that up lol ::) :o
Quote from: Number Six on April 16, 2009, 09:40:32 PM
Thanks Mr Xman...I think we all need a bit of Ms Luck >:D
I like what your posting & the way it's being posted.... 8)
There is no "luv me I have the HG" mantra about it & that great by you & great for this forum..... :thumbsup:
Long may it continue..... 8)
GcgnyA <a href="hxxp: uteewbepxpmf. com/">uteewbepxpmf</a>, zvmvgqegcrgt, [link=hxxp: mdszuntuidsa. com/]mdszuntuidsa[/link], hxxp: zawinmogbhyv. com/
Quote from: Lanky on April 17, 2009, 12:57:04 AM
Hi #6.
Preach it Brother Preach it.
Lanky.
Preaching to the converted brother :thumbsup: ::)
Hello Friend,
I am a die hard Divisor follower and user. My master is none other than Lanky from Australia.
Regards
sniper
Yes, we must all thank Lanky for introducing us to the divisor...it's one of the most important acquaintances I've ever made :)
Was reading the samples of play.
I did not see any overlapping splits. IE 2:5 And 5:8 How is this handled?
Ran tests and would like to add this method to my arsenal.
Thanks
Phishalot
Hi Phishalot .
Mate for the splits use an 18/1 Divisor.
Your Friend.
Lanky.
Thanks Lanky,
Will the divisor still be 6?
With the divisor will we still stop at 5 losses or continue to a profit?
How do I handle the added bet after every loss?
Six,
If the splits come in 2:5 and 5:8 is this considered a duplicate or is the 5 just covered on both sides?
Been running tests on old games have done very well increasing my game average by 20 units. The 160 unit loss on the neg. Progression scares me though. The divisor is giving me a less scary result.
Thanks All
Phishalot
I believe for simplicity, practicality, and tidiness each number is only coupled up into splits once.
So, no overlapping.... 2 with 5 only... 8 with 11 only, 32 with 35 only, and so on.
Phishalot, as bombus said. I wouldn't recommend using this system for real money. It was merely a quick demonstration to show how the law of the third might migrate to the splits. I would suggest sticking to the pleins and try to use some sort of wheel-sector tracking. I had planned to look into it but I'm working on something else right now. I had an idea of forming unique wheel sectors for each attack, the disbanding them afterwards, so no sector would be fixed and the system would be very fluid. Unfortunately I haven't got round to it yet.