The Eggleston Betting system

[birdhands]

Good point.  And I'm just going to come right out and say that I find gambler's fallacy to be a valuable working hypothesis, but hey, I don't really even believe in germ theory, so you can all just chalk me up as another wingnut on the forum.

[col1879]

I think I have finally worked out what I have been doing wrong. Do you have to follow the triggers L R L R L R exactly?

What I had been doing was,

eg free spin and out comes 3rd dozen

free spin out comes 2nd dozen (movement left)

bet 1 on 2nd dozen and 1 on 1st dozen

Out comes 1st dozen (win)

Remove all chips and free spin

Out comes 3rd dozen (movement left)

What I had been doing is betting 1 on 3rd dozen and 1 on 1st dozen because of the movement left trigger, but this is wrong and I have to wait for a movement right trigger? Is that right? It has to be L R L R and cannot be L L R L?

Thanks

[bombus]

@ col1879,

remember this bit?

Note:  I will not expound on what methodology you should use to determine expected L-R values.    You can use a follow-the-last, opposite-of-last, Signum, Lww, or whatever other system you choose to determine if your expectation is for the dozen to move left or right.    For the sake of this example, I have determined that the last spin fell in the 2nd dozen and I expect the next spin will move to the left into the 1st dozen. 

[darrynf]

right, good luck with that, you may not be able to predict the ball future but you as shore as hell can see the past events lol

just a thought

[col1879]

I remembered it, I just never understood it. Too many unfamiliar words lol

[birdhands]

OK, I've hit some bad numbers (not too bad) and I want to make sure I'm doing this right.  Colbster, could you check these?

28
20
31L
9W
5
12
13
25
24
6W
24
00L
20W
9L
29W
32
15
28
9W
8
5
2
19
13
21
10
23L
8L
13L
5L
8W
24L
7L
00L
28W
4
11W
21W
31
33
28
33
00
7
13
6
2W
12W
26W
7
2W
33L
15W
27
10W
23
13
11
4W
18L
2L
6W
11W
26W
10
1W
14W
12
10W
36W
28
3
10W
7W
14W
15
17
17
23
18
14
00
31
22
26L
00L
3W
28
3L
23W

28 wins, 16 losses   total -4 units
I guess it would be +2 without the American 00.

[colbster]

That was a mildly disappointing session.  I counted -6 units flat betting.  This was only 90 spins, a relatively short session, during which you don't have time to really recover much when it turns against you.  It was also a 0/00 board which makes it more likely that you will experience these streaks from time to time, although it will show a mild advantage over even the American table.  I would be shocked if there was not a full recovery after a continuation of spins, as it already appeared to be recovering from an earlier drawdown that reached -15.

Here is a side note: Using my progression on the exact same spins, I was +34 spins, nearly +.40 units per spin.  You might give the progression consideration, as it is mild compared to many.

[col1879]

After a 0 or 00 hits are you not supposed to do at least 2 free spins before resuming betting? I noticed you bet twice right after the 00 hit.

[colbster]

You are correct about spinning after the 0/00.  The first spin is a tracking spin, as is the 2nd spin following a 0.  If there is movement from the 1st to the 2nd spin following a 0, that is the trigger for your next bet.  You cannot spin for at least 2 spins after a 0/00.

[birdhands]

Oh, I just ignored the zeros and continued what I was doing already.  Oops.

[col1879]

Sam, do you always go L R L R L R with the triggers?

[birdhands]

so far, yes.

[birdhands]

If I were to run a progression, 1,3,9,27,54, etc, which is what I think you mean by a martingale, I would only start betting after a loss; otherwise it could crash way too fast.  The safest way would be to program a bot to only bet after 2 or 3 virtual progression losses.  But if this system really does win flat-betting (I'm not convinced yet) then it's a holy grail and it doesn't matter anyway; the bot could just flat bet all day and the money would roll in.

Sam

[colbster]

I do not use the 2-dozens martingale because it does get big to quickly.  I use the usual 1-2-4-8-16-32-64 progression, despite it being two dozens.  If you win the higher levels after strict chops, you can lose some units in the progression, but that is infrequent.  On the other hand, you win units after losses just as often because you have a good streak of repeats along the way.

[birdhands]

That sounds good.  It probably has the same effect as using a fibonacci.  You could even go forward one step on a loss, back two on a win, so if you win in the higher levels you will recoup your losses faster.

[birdhands]

-