Hello,
I have tested the "Ten Spins to Win System" in this thread:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/full-systems/inside-number-system-wins-within-ten-spins-not-betting-every-spin/
I used it as I think it was described in the pdf here:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/downloads/?sa=view;id=354
I progressed the bets when it was necessary to get a profit on a win.
This are the results from one week at Wiesbaden Table #3
Explanation:
"Spins" includes the 20 spins that was kept if it was a roll-back (session ended with a win).
"Max U" shows the max bet on one number.
"Uniq" shows how many numbers was max bet.
"Sess Low" is the session BR after the last bet (and before a win).
January 1, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 49, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 19
2, 47, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 37
3, 28, 2, 2, 20, -58, 14, 51
4, 31, 3, 6, 24, -208, 8, 59
5, 38, 3, 3, 20, -95, 13, 72
6, 40, 3, 4, 21, -140, 4, 76
7, 72, 4, 10, 22, -356, 4, 80
8, 29, 2, 1, 18, -35, 1, 81
9, 57, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 99
10, 27, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 118
11, 25, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 136
12, 76, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 154
13, 22, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 173
14, 47, 2, 2, 21, -61, 11, 184
15, 30, 3, 3, 21, -98, 10, 194
16, 23, 1, 1, 19, -19, 17, 211
17, 23, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 229
18, 25, 2, 2, 20, -58, 14, 243
19, 27, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 262
20, 44, 2, 2, 21, -62, 10, 272
21, 28, 3, 4, 21, -140, 4, 276
22, 40, 2, 2, 20, -57, 15, 291
23, 25, 2, 2, 19, -55, 17, 308
[/table]
January 2, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 29, 2, 2, 21, -61, 11, 11
2, 28, 2, 2, 21, -62, 10, 21
3, 23, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 39
4, 40, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 57
5, 47, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 73
6, 74, 5, 47, 26, -1683, 9, 82
7, 24, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 98
8, 22, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 117
9, 41, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 136
10, 27, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 154
11, 49, 4, 10, 22, -356, 4, 158
[/table]
January 3, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 61, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 18
2, 56, 3, 3, 19, -92, 16, 34
3, 46, 1, 1, 21, -21, 15, 49
4, 32, 4, 6, 20, -212, 4, 53
5, 31, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 71
6, 34, 4, 25, 26, -892, 8, 79
7, 24, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 98
8, 58, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 114
9, 24, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 132
10, 31, 4, 7, 23, -246, -246, -114
11, 31, 2, 2, 23, -63, 9, -105
12, 27, 3, 4, 21, -140, 4, -101
13, 24, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, -82
[/table]
January 4, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 34, 2, 2, 24, -69, 3, 3
2, 22, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 22
3, 44, 4, 11, 24, -383, -383, -361
4, 52, 2, 2, 19, -55, 17, -344
5, 27, 1, 1, 20, -20, 16, -328
6, 28, 3, 5, 22, -166, 14, -314
7, 22, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, -295
8, 32, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, -276
9, 26, 1, 1, 19, -19, 17, -259
10, 25, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, -240
11, 32, 2, 2, 24, -66, 6, -234
12, 31, 4, 11, 23, -393, 3, -231
13, 39, 1, 1, 19, -19, 17, -214
14, 23, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, -196
15, 34, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, -178
[/table]
January 5, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 33, 3, 4, 21, -142, 2, 2
2, 31, 3, 5, 24, -178, 2, 4
3, 24, 1, 1, 19, -19, 17, 21
4, 27, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 40
5, 65, 2, 2, 22, -61, 11, 51
6, 25, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 69
7, 22, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 88
8, 95, 3, 6, 24, -212, 4, 92
9, 24, 1, 1, 20, -20, 16, 108
10, 37, 5, 53, 28, -1907, 1, 109
11, 53, 1, 1, 22, -22, 14, 123
12, 27, 1, 1, 22, -22, 14, 137
13, 25, 1, 1, 20, -20, 16, 153
14, 25, 2, 1, 18, -35, 1, 154
15, 43, 3, 5, 23, -173, 7, 161
16, 24, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 177
17, 38, 4, 11, 22, -385, 11, 188
18, 22, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 206
19, 28, 3, 3, 20, -95, 13, 219
[/table]
January 6, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 28, 3, 3, 20, -95, 13, 13
2, 26, 1, 1, 20, -20, 16, 29
3, 25, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 45
4, 42, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 64
5, 31, 4, 11, 23, -389, 7, 71
6, 32, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 90
7, 67, 2, 2, 21, -61, 11, 101
8, 85, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 120
9, 43, 4, 10, 21, -345, 15, 135
[/table]
January 7, 2009:
[table=,]
Sess,Spins,Bets,MaxU,Uniq,SessLow,SessNet,RunTotal
1, 22, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 18
2, 25, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 34
3, 54, 2, 2, 19, -55, 17, 51
4, 26, 3, 4, 20, -136, 8, 59
5, 48, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 75
6, 41, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 94
7, 30, 2, 2, 19, -56, 16, 110
8, 34, 3, 3, 19, -92, 16, 126
9, 30, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 145
10, 24, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 163
11, 38, 1, 1, 19, -19, 17, 180
12, 28, 2, 2, 22, -63, 9, 189
13, 75, 1, 1, 17, -17, 19, 208
14, 54, 4, 19, 25, -682, 2, 210
15, 68, 2, 2, 20, -57, 15, 225
16, 23, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 243
17, 61, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 261
18, 34, 2, 2, 20, -58, 14, 275
19, 33, 2, 3, 27, -107, 1, 276
20, 28, 1, 1, 21, -21, 15, 291
21, 27, 3, 3, 20, -95, 13, 304
22, 42, 2, 1, 18, -35, 1, 305
23, 27, 3, 3, 20, -95, 13, 318
24, 26, 1, 1, 18, -18, 18, 336
[/table]
So there was two losing days.
Honestly I am comfortable with it: This system shows at least some "normal" behaviour...
;)
I attach the seven spin-by-spin .txt-files in a zip-file to THIS post and explain them in the NEXT.
I have also made some variations tests and they will also be posted but later.
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
Hello,
This is the explanation to the files I attached to the previous post.
The zip-file includes all the seven files from the test.
They are spin by spin including everything...
This is what they look like and how to read them:
This is the start of the first file:
1 1 1 1
2 2 4 2
3 3 34 3
4 4 9 4
5 5 22 5
The first column shows the spin-number from start.
The second column shows how many spins we currently use in the system INCLUDING the winning number.
The third column shows the winning number. YES! The very first number for the year IS 1...
The fourth column shows how many different numbers we have.
Further down:
16 16 13 14
17 17 4 14
18 18 36 14
19 19 10 15
20 20 30 16
21 20 19 16
22 20 10 16
23 20 2 16
At spin 20 (col 1) we are using 20 spins (col 2) INCLUDING number 30 that won (col 3) and we have 16 different numbers (col 4)
16 numbers is not enough to look for a trigger so we keep recording.
As you can see in column 2 it does not change after spin 20 because we are still only using 20 spins as we do not have 17 different yet.
Yet further down:
46 20 8 16
47 20 19 17
Waiting for the trigger...
48 21 8 17 Bet: 2 4 7 8 12 13 15 17 18 19 23 25 27 30 32 34 35: 17 x 1 = 17 : BR = -17
49 22 18 Win. Session BR = 19 units
At spin 47 we still use 20 spins and number 19 wins.
This makes the different numbers to be 17 and that is enough to look for the trigger.
At spin 48 we use 21 spins (col 2) - INCLUDING the winning number - because we are not recording but waiting and we shall use all the 20 plus the new ones.
And number 8 wins and it is a repeater and so we shall bet.
Number 18 wins at spin 49 and we bet that one so we win.
Because it was a win we make a roll-back and keep the last 20 spins.
This is the next session:
17 17 8 15
18 18 19 16
19 19 8 16
20 20 18 16
Compare the winning numbers (col 3) to the four last winning numbers above.
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
QuoteHonestly I am comfortable with it: This system shows at least some "normal" behaviour...
........ I'm not sure what that means but no-one would be comfortable being down 1683 to net 9, or being down 892 to net 8, or being down 1907 to net 1, or being down 682 to net 2. Where is the stop loss and what would these results look like if a stop loss was utilized? I think the results would look pretty bad, I'm afraid.... (this is why I don't believe in progressing bets...) damn this devil's wheel!!!
Hi Homeito,
do you know that most BM-Casinos have a Limit of "25 units of min betsize" on a single number!
br
winkel
Hello,
Simon...
Quote from: simon on May 14, 2009, 12:41:47 PM
Where is the stop loss and what would these results look like if a stop loss was utilized?
What stop-loss? This test was a test of the original rules as I wrote in the beginning of the first post.
I did not find that the rules in the pdf say anything about a stop-loss...
So I did not use one.
However there is a bet-calculator posted to use with the system.
I suspect that if you use a calculator you progress bets.
So I progressed the bets.
Also I
do not feel comfortable with risking 2000 to win 1. Read again.
I said that I feel comfortable with that it
loses at times.
Quite
opposite to what it looks like in my previous tests and the other tests posted in the thread.
I think it is hard to believe that a system like this never loses so when it does I know that I at least did not make any mistakes in the program.
That is comforting.
Winkel...
Quote from: Winkel on May 14, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
do you know that most BM-Casinos have a Limit of "25 units of min betsize" on a single number!
In the casinos in Sweden there is this rule: Minimum total bet inside is SEK20 (€2).
But you may make two inside bets of SEK10 each.
And the maximum inside bet on one number is SEK500
So the 47 unit bet is "safe"... ;)
But the 53 is not ;D
All...
This test was more to give a good spread of results when I used the original rules than to see if it can win.
Obviously there must be some kind of stop so 53 units are not bet on 28 numbers and all sorts of such things.
I hoped that this test can be showing things like that.
And it did in my opinion. At least some.
Like that it can be necessary to bet 53 units on 28 numbers...
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
Homeito, I don't know how much time you have for testing and such, but are you able to show what the results would have been, or test this to see how it would make out if you were only to make up to two flat bets (stop on first win and start again, or if first bet doesn't win, make one more bet.) It seems like the system wins a lot on the first or second bet, maybe enough to outweigh the losses. Or can this already be seen in your results?
actually I guess you can see this in your text files.
Hello,
Simon...
Yes it is of course possible to see in the files as they show every bet.
But the end result will be different than if you do it the "proper" way because you terminate some sessions in advance and so the beginning of the next session is different from the session in the file.
But I HAVE also made such a test and will post it later.
There is no time to look through it right now and I want to see that there is no mistakes... ;)
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
Just throwing this out there but...I don't think it's possible to get down -1000+ units. If you lose 3 times and you get to 31 spins you are supposed to stop and start all over tracking the last 20, waiting for 17 or more uniques, then waiting for your trigger and rebetting. You can either start your progression from where you left off (which then I can see getting down a lot if you do happen to have a long losing streak) but in the PDF I believe RJ recommends starting your bet over with 1 unit per #. That way if you do happen to reach 31 spins and lose 3 or 4 bets, you take the loss and strive to win it back with several more winning bets.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I've thought to play it, I just have not lost yet in order to take these steps.
great, looking forward to it...
Hello,
Celiza...
Quote from: celiza427 on May 14, 2009, 02:39:40 PM
...I don't think it's possible to get down -1000+ units. If you lose 3 times and you get to 31 spins you are supposed to stop and start all over
...and...
Quote from: celiza427 on May 14, 2009, 02:39:40 PM
...if you do happen to reach 31 spins and lose 3 or 4 bets, you take the loss
Let us see what the pdf says:
Quote from: RJ's pdf
If you have bet 3 TIMES OR LESS by the time you have gotten to spin 31 you follow the system all the way to spin 37.
...and...
Quote from: RJ's pdf
If you have bet 4 TIMES OR MORE and you get to spin 31, you start the whole system over (including your bet amounts...everything starts over)
... so it is not quite as you write I think.
And this is session 10 from 20090105:
17 17 5 15
18 18 25 16
19 19 33 17
20 20 22 17
20 20 22 17
Waiting for the trigger...
21 21 25 17 Bet: 1 2 4 5 9 11 13 15 17 20 22 24 25 26 27 33 36: 17 x 1 = 17 : BR = -17
22 22 29 18
23 23 32 19
24 24 25 19 Bet: 1 2 4 5 9 11 13 15 17 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 32 33 36: 19 x 2 = 38 : BR = -55
25 25 8 20
26 26 25 20 Bet: 1 2 4 5 8 9 11 13 15 17 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 32 33 36: 20 x 4 = 80 : BR = -135
27 27 30 21
28 28 10 22
29 29 7 23
30 30 19 24
31 31 2
As you can see we reach spin 31 and we have bet "THREE TIMES OR LESS" so we continue up to spin 37.
The "2" that won on spin 31 is a repeater so we bet:
31 31 2 24 Bet: 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 32 33 36: 24 x 12 = 288 : BR = -423
32 32 3 25
But number 3 wins at spin 32 and it was not bet. Continue...
33 33 23 26
34 34 35 27
35 35 31 28
36 36 4 28 Bet: 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 35 36: 28 x 53 = 1484 : BR = -1907
The next repeater wins at spin 36 ("4") and we bet the 28 numbers we have seen.
So a loss of 1907 units is quite possible (9/37 here) if we follow the rules (and progress for a profit).
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
sorry to ask dumb questions but what does "BR" stand for? Does it stand for "Bank Roll"?
QuoteSo a loss of 1907 units is quite possible
.......... no 6 are you gloating?
Quote from: simon on May 14, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
sorry to ask dumb questions but what does "BR" stand for? Does it stand for "Bank Roll"?
yes
hmmm, I don't know if 6 is gloating and Robert is drinking, but I think I heard the Devil laughing. But, there may be a way out of this with flat bets, limited bets, limited progressions, or maybe something was not done quite right. we shall await Robert's comments and/or corrections to the results... say it ain't so, Robert...
Quote from: simon
.......... no 6 are you gloating?
No, of course not! I have been here before. Problem is, the law of the third won't always behave in the way you want it to, hence the colossal drawdowns in Homeito's tests. I think the system can be made safer by controlling the progressions, maybe with a divisor, and introducing some MM. Testing is not a waste of time because you will see the system's strengths and flaws. It's just a matter of planning for the contingencies. Or maybe grinding out the profits over a longer session.
QuoteNo, of course not! I have been here before. Problem is, the law of the third won't always behave in the way you want it to, hence the colossal drawdowns in Homeito's tests. I think the system can be made safer by controlling the progressions, maybe with a divisor, and introducing some MM. Testing is not a waste of time because you will see the system's strengths and flaws. It's just a matter of planning for the contingencies. Or maybe grinding out the profits over a longer session.
I know, I didn't mean to imply that you were, just havin a little fun, you seem like a good guy (but you seem to have some enemies around here, I don't know why.) You seem like a smart guy and it would be great if we could get you on board to improve this system, which is why Robert went to great lengths to share it...
Hello,
As I sayed I have done some variation tests with added rules.
I tried two and three bets max. With and without progression.
I tried betting max 23 and 24 numbers and quit if more.
All tose four tests showed a LOT worse result than the original rules.
I will not bore you with a million tables showing negative results but if you do not believe me I have the files to prove it.
The problem in my opinion is that we bet too much sometimes.
(-Do you really mean that? ;D)
A combination of how many numbers to bet and how many units on each number.
I think we need to find a limit there. Some way...
I do not really mind using a 300-400 units BR to gain 3 or 4 units. But I will avoid it if it is possible.
Really: A 1% interest for a couple of MINUTES... What is my YEARLY bank-interest? 0.5%?
But as Simon says who can be comfortable with risking 2000 units (about the same in € for me) in a few spins...
So I will make some more tests using some "do not bet more than X units" rules.
Maybe tonight. (Maybe ;))
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
hmm, that's disappointing, I swore I was seeing a predominance of wins on the first and second bets on my spins, to outweigh the losses. I guess it was just lucky on the early limited testing I did. still I need to go through all of them (six sets of 75 continuous spins from real 00 wheels) from all possible entry points. if it wins handily I'm still going to try it (flat betting the system up to two bets) as I trust my own spins more than anything else (since I recorded them myself at a b&m casino), and they have been very difficult spins for any system to beat, as I have tested many systems on them (others and my own.) I know it's a small sampling but I've always felt if any system beats my spins really well, then it's worth a shot at the casino. I can post an upload of my spins, if anyone's interested (by just numbers, or with colors and/or dozens and columns.) There are some very unusual runs of the columns, and a triple hit of a single number, etc. A very good sampling of what can and will happen at the wheel.
Hey Simon
I'd be interested to see your results flat betting this system. So far I believe I have had some luck at my side in my 300 spins so far (getting to the 4th bet with a big progression, yet winning) a loss is to come, I'm sure. I'm just wondering if a flat betting method might be a good way to steadily build up a BR.
Hello,
I have tested this system because of the very promising first tests I saw.
Unfortunately I found several times that showed that a very large bank-roll must be used.
For example the 9/37 chance to lose 1900+ units... (Showed above)
So I made some more tests where I added rules to delimit bets or bank-roll.
"Added rules" means that whenever a original rule shall be followed it is also followed.
Secondly I follow my added rules.
I have compiled the results into days so there are seven lines in each test-result table.
Digest :)
MAKE 1 BET
* Always one bet & Always 1 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -16, +56, 15, 6
Jan 02, -37, -18, 7, 4
Jan 03, -38, -17, 9, 5
Jan 04, -56, +68, 12, 4
Jan 05, -40, -16, 14, 7
Jan 06, -17, -14, 7, 4
Jan 07, -34, -33, 18, 10
[/table]
MAX 2 BETS (<36 u):
* Max two bets & Session BR = 35 units
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -34, +40, 15, 6
Jan 02, -37, -18, 7, 4
Jan 03, -75, -73, 8, 5
Jan 04, -56, +52, 11, 4
Jan 05, -57, -48, 12, 6
Jan 06, -35, -32, 7, 4
Jan 07, -68, -68, 19, 10
[/table]
MAKE 2 BETS No Progr:
* Always two bets & Always 1 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -81, -35, 18, 8
Jan 02, -11, -11, 9, 5
Jan 03, -85, -85, 11, 7
Jan 04, -55, +17, 14, 5
Jan 05, -78, -78, 14, 6
Jan 06, -55, -55, 7, 4
Jan 07, -86, -86, 21, 12
[/table]
MAKE 2 BETS (Max Progr = 2u):
* Always two bets & Max 2 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -125, -51, 18, 5
Jan 02, -2, -2, 9, 2
Jan 03, -62, -62, 11, 4
Jan 04, -72, -18, 14, 3
Jan 05, -147, -147, 14, 5
Jan 06, -78, -78, 7, 3
Jan 07, -7, -4, 21, 6
[/table]
MAKE 2 BETS (With Progr):
* Always two bets & Progress to profit
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -125, -68, 18, 5
Jan 02, -2, -2, 9, 2
Jan 03, -75, -75, 11, 5
Jan 04, -69, +3, 14, 3
Jan 05, -141, -141, 14, 6
Jan 06, -72, -59, 7, 3
Jan 07, -28, -28, 21, 6
[/table]
MAX 3 BETS (Max Progr = 2u):
* Max three bets & Max 2 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -125, +30, 21, 5
Jan 02, -2, -2, 9, 2
Jan 03, -111, -111, 11, 5
Jan 04, -86, -33, 12, 3
Jan 05, -73, -57, 14, 5
Jan 06, -8, +5, 9, 3
Jan 07, -22, +86, 22, 6
[/table]
MAKE 3 BETS No Progr:
* Always three bets & Always 1 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -93, -1, 22, 11
Jan 02, -51, -51, 9, 5
Jan 03, -87, -63, 12, 7
Jan 04, -55, +8, 15, 5
Jan 05, -93, -93, 17, 8
Jan 06, -64, -64, 9, 5
Jan 07, -8, +10, 24, 12
[/table]
MAKE 3 BETS (Max progr = 2u):
* Always three bets & Max 2 u/number
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -114, +68, 22, 6
Jan 02, -82, -82, 9, 2
Jan 03, -68, -49, 12, 4
Jan 04, -90, -37, 15, 3
Jan 05, -173, -173, 17, 6
Jan 06, -94, -94, 9, 3
Jan 07, +18, +133, 24, 6
[/table]
MAKE 3 BETS (With Progr):
* Always three bets & Progress to profit
[table=,]
Day , Low, End, Ses, Lost sess
Jan 01, -88, +91, 22, 5
Jan 02, -162, -162, 9, 2
Jan 03, -55, -32, 12, 4
Jan 04, -122, -69, 15, 2
Jan 05, -102, -102, 17, 5
Jan 06, - 135, -135, 9, 3
Jan 07, -10, +69, 24, 5
[/table]
My personal conclusion is that this system is not for me.
And also that the first only positive tests-results was because of too limited tests.
End of my testing.
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
PS. If some one want to check the files it is OK. Just ask.
I will save them for a while but not for ever.