It was mentioned.....................................
"Victor posted an ingenious way to play the both sides of the Evens at once.
It was posted about 12 to 18 months or so ago.
I will have a look for You but I think I have lost it.
If I have not got it then Our Friend Victor I am sure would re-post it again.
It was very very clever I think it went something like this.
<<<<<<<<<<<< Pluscope this way/And a Labby this way>>>>>>>>
Its the best I have ever seen Mate.
Your Friend
Lanky"
.......................... Victor or someone can you tell us how it goes? (example please.) thanks!!
(or any other ideas of running two different staking systems on opposite chances? if we could bet red and black at the same time, with one staking system on one and another staking system on the other, that would complement each other, so that whichever chance dominates it would work out good for us.... well I don't know if there is such a system, but it would certainly be worth testing.)
Simon,
Google Monte Carlo web book about the roulette.
There you will find how it is done.....Iboba 8)
I did download that book recently but I didn't notice a method of using 2 staking systems at once. Here is the table of contents... can you tell me which chapter you are referring to?
2nd page of table of contents...
If I recall right, it was using a martingale on one side of the even chance and an anti-martingale with limited-step on the other, in such a fashion that when the martingale losses, the anti-martingale recoups it all.
Of course, when the zero has to be accounted, the limited-step anti-martingale rises at a faster pace.
This limited-step combination was well received at the spanish-speaking scene, with some of course opposing about the catastrophic event being never losing the martingale.
The calculations had to be computed and then differential betting applied to it as to keeping the stakes lower.
well that sounds interesting, I did try testing a 3 step martingale and anti-martingale at the same time but it didn't seem to add up too well. perhaps an example can be shown sometime how we might try and make this work, or
example from the Spanish section how it worked.
(iboba, is there a double staking system in the book above?)
The long explanation is this:
Imagine you and your friend go to the casino.
You choose to bet "RED", he/she choose to bet black.
Yoy choose to bet 1-2-4 martingale.
He chooses a limited-step anti-martingale with precisely 3 steps. By betting against you, when you lose, he wins.
Both have different (separate) accounting.
Your bet remains consistent: The martingale on red.
He has to compute lost units dynamically, never having to take more than the limited steps (3) to recoup.
He has to bet in such a way that the limited-step anti-martingale has to account for 1+2+4 = 7 units (your loss) PLUS his own used units to recoup.
So he has to start with 2 units as base bet. His anti-martingale being:
2 + 4 + 8 = +14
It buys some steps.
(7) + 2 + 2 + 2 = 13 units spent as passive to recoup.
For next bet as units to recoup surpass the +14 win of a base-2 bet, he rises his base unit to 3:
3 + 6 + 12 = +21
When losses to recoup surpass 21 units, he rises base unit to 4:
4 + 8 + 16 = +28
and then as it goes past 28 units, he rises again and so on. Always keeping the steps limited to three (3), finally he has to be rising more than one unit at a time to keep with it, shall the martingale gets to take too long to break.
When you lose the martingale, he immediately recoups the 7 units and the units won by you are the net win for the run + some extra units won, depending on the anti-martingale net win, but always your 7 units are computed to be back as soon as you lose.
Of course, in reality, you apply differential betting to it (act like a single player).
So if you have to bet 1 unit on red, and he has to bet 2 units on black = you actually bet only 1 unit on black.
[table=,]
RED,BLACK,Result
1,2,= 1 unit on black
2,4,= 2 units on black
4,8,= 4 unit on black
[/table]
You substract and always bet the result on the higher-valued side.
That would work in no-zero roulette. To compute the zero for regular roulette, you have to analyze the resulting amount from the differential betting and try to put the least on zero to be able to break even on the actual wagered amount for the current spin, regardless of the steps.
Also, you have to add this consistent zero loss to the anti-martingale. This makes it a more dynamic calculation as some bets will be lost on zero and some will win, actually leaving a net profit and all of it has to be computed for the real amount of passive to recoup.
The short-explanation? It is a limited-step anti-martingale accounting for the zero :), but at the time we actually got pretty excited developing it. Some labelled it holy-grailesque proportions, as losing a 3-step martingale is something achievable in this crazy game called roulette.
Victor
hmmm, thanks so much victor, I/we will mull all that over.
Simon, at the time this type of betting plans spawned another level of debate: if we know something is bound to lose, why not using this sure-fail losing event?
As long as you can bet on the open pockets that will result on such a crappy system losing, you can devise wagering plans to accomodate such scenarios.
Of course, the party-poopers of all times came around saying what if someone is lucky enough to beat roulette with a 3-step martingale, the catastrophic event of never losing a 3-step martingale is bound to happen... etc. etc. we know their gig.
But for the sake of roulette study, this is as valid as any other approach.
Good luck and good day.
Your friend,
Victor
Quote from: VLSroulette on November 16, 2009, 01:31:57 PM
That would work in no-zero roulette.
........ baccarat is like no-zeroe roulette if you are just playing the even chances. well I suppose this is a bit of playing with fire, but I want to learn it, looks pretty cool, thanks.
Hi Victor & Everybody,
Thanks for the explanation. . . I have a few questions:
- Does my friend stay passive until I loose a sequence of 3 on Black?
- I don't quite understand what you meant by:
"It buys some steps.
(7) + 2 + 2 + 2 = 13 units spent as passive to recoup. "
- Since we're playing against each other. . . everytime he was able to recoup a sequence. . . I would have lost another 7 units
- Could you explain how both palyers would play the following sequence (ignoring "0") - me=Black fr=Red
RRB RRR BBR BBB RRR
+1 -7 +1 +1 -7 me = -11
-1 +7 -2 -2 +14 fr = +16
Thanks,
DD
I need help with this too. I understand we will be betting differentially, and we need the martingale to eventually lose and the anti-martingale to eventually win to come out ahead, but first I need to understand what each side bets (before making the correct differential bet.) So say we bet the martingale on red and the anti-martingale on black. We start out betting 1 on red and 2 on black. Black wins so we are +1 and start over (we do not continue the martingale on red, is that correct?) So we bet again 1 on red (the martingale) and 2 on black (the anti-martingale) but this time red wins +1 and black loses -2 so we are at -1. Ok so what is the next bet on black? Is it 1 and 2 again? What if red wins again so now we are at -2, then what is the next bet for the anti-martingale? If someone could give a spin by spin example showing 2 columns for red and black and what happens as each wins or loses, that would be much appreciated!
Here are actuals from a wheel I recorded. I started filling in the spreadsheet but I don't think I was doing it right so Victor or someone if you might be kind enough to fill in some of it to show how it goes and upload it back that would be great (you could also add comments in the rows to explain if necessary.) At this point I am not even trying to understand how the "consistent zero loss" thing works, just the proper advance of the martingale and anti-martingale as bets win and lose. So there are columns showing the number and color and columns for entering the red martingale bet, the black anti-martingale bet, the differential bet, balance after bet and running balance (there are no formulas in it, just want to enter results manually for now.) Thanks (to anyone) for your input (litterally.)
Quote from: simon on November 18, 2009, 01:14:10 PM
Here are actuals from a wheel I recorded. I started filling in the spreadsheet but I don't think I was doing it right so Victor or someone if you might be kind enough to fill in some of it to show how it goes and upload it back that would be great (you could also add comments in the rows to explain if necessary.) At this point I am not even trying to understand how the "consistent zero loss" thing works, just the proper advance of the martingale and anti-martingale as bets win and lose. So there are columns showing the number and color and columns for entering the red martingale bet, the black anti-martingale bet, the differential bet, balance after bet and running balance (there are no formulas in it, just want to enter results manually for now.) Thanks (to anyone) for your input (litterally.)
Monte Carlo anecdotes page 110
.......................Iboba 8)
thanks I read it, but guess it doesn't really work out. Hope VICTOR can show on my spreadsheet how to play the martingale/anti-martingale system (or anyone who understands how it goes, thanks.)
has anyone got anywhere with this yet?looks very interesting but i could do with a blow by blow account of how/when to bet.
danny
Quote from: dannyjames1979 on November 23, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
has anyone got anywhere with this yet?looks very interesting but I could do with a blow by blow account of how/when to bet.
danny
All ears..............Iboba 8)
meaning?
we need Victor to explain it, spin by spin, blow by blow.
yes but in the mean time im going to have a play with the maths and bet seletion to see if i can figure it out.
Quote from: dannyjames1979 on November 23, 2009, 08:26:59 PM
yes but in the mean time im going to have a play with the maths and bet seletion to see if I can figure it out.
This was more like explaining the positive/negative part for Lanky and Simon + a bit of history (long answer). In the end
what really matters is the limited-step positive progression concept.
Regards,
Victor