The Eggleston Betting system

[olinet]

NO problem

i will see alone.

thank you for your method and your explanations.

[harald]

Btw if the profit must come from winning dozens but more from repeating dozens then why not go anti-martingale on the repeats?

[jrhelp007]

col1879,

I tried to reach you via IM but you are set for forwarding messages to Mobil.

The person text me saying it's not you?

Regards,

/John

[Rester]

Amazing thing you have done here, colbster, and incredibly kind of you to share it with us.  I will be testing this in the months ahead and will report back with the results.

I am a bit fuzzy on the triggers, however, as well as the zeros.

You make it clear that our only trigger is a change in direction.  However, in your . xls example after a zero hits (following a repeat) the direction does not change (it continues to move to the right), yet bets are placed on the dozens moving to the right.  Was this because there was a repeat or because there was a zero, or both? Or was this a mistake on your part? 

The reason I ask is because later in the example (further down if you look, the large gap near the bottom) you do not bet until a direction changes - a repeat does not trigger a change in bet placement. 

Do zeros override the opposite direction rule? That is, do we reset our tracking each time a zero hits and bet as soon as there is a direction, regardless of whether the direction has changed?

Furthermore, if we have bets on the table and a zero hits, do we just ignore the zero and repeat our bet like nothing happened, or do we reset our tracking until at least two different dozens (any two dozens) come out (like you suggested in one of your posts), or do we wait until a direction changes?

Lots of confusion going on here, any feedback you may provide would be highly acknowledged.

Thank you again for all your hard work and your generosity to share it with the rest of the world.

[colbster]

Zeroes stop all bets and end all previous directions.  After a zero, we wait for our first new trigger like we would have at the beginning of a session.  You can bet whichever direction it indicates now, even if it is the same direction that lost to the zero in the first place.  If you are playing with a progression, I count zero as a loss that would move you to the next step in the progression.  Hope that helps.

[Rester]

Zeroes stop all bets and end all previous directions.   After a zero, we wait for our first new trigger like we would have at the beginning of a session.   You can bet whichever direction it indicates now, even if it is the same direction that lost to the zero in the first place.   If you are playing with a progression, I count zero as a loss that would move you to the next step in the progression.   Hope that helps.

Helps greatly.

Will report back in a few weeks.

Thank you for everything, colbster.

[Rester]

colbster,

I said I would report back in a few weeks, but there's no point in waiting.   

Before I say anything I want to congratulate you for your devotion to your goal and thank you again for your wonderful generosity to share your strategy with the rest of the board.   

I did a quick pull-up of a few sessions last night and today and crunched them manually so there's no mistake.     

There are eight sessions in total from four different tables (not that it makes any difference), two from Fitzwilliam Dublin, two from Playtech Live, two from Spielbank Wiesbaden and two are Random.    org numbers.   Sessions were roughly 150 spins each (as suggested) which roughs up to about 80 play spins per session.   

Flat betting, bet selection exactly as laid out in the .    xls example.   

Fitzwilliam Dublin:

Session 1: +8  (highest up: +8; lowest down: -7)
Session 2: -7  (highest up: +9; lowest down: -8)

Playtech:

Session 1: -1  (highest up: +2; lowest down: -12)
Session 2: +5  (highest up: +10; lowest down: -7)

Spielbank Wiesbaden:

Session 1: +10  (highest up: +10; lowest down: -5)
Session 2: -19  (highest up: +6; lowest down: -26)

Random.    org:

Session 1: +10  (highest up: +21; lowest down: 0)
Session 2: -7  (highest up: +1; lowest down: -10)

Total: -1

Total spins: 1200
Spins that resulted in play: ~640

In summary, testing does not indicate any advantage over betting the odds randomly; in effect, results are almost exactly what one would expect from random chance.     Whatever success you and others are having is solely due to strategic backing (progression, massive buy-ins, stop wins / losses), not bet selection.     A series of severe losses is likely due soon.   

Too early to retire, buddy.   

Thank you again for your hard work and good luck in your future pursuits.   

[colbster]

I appreciate your willingness to run the numbers.  However, I don't play, or suggest playing, the way that is expressed in the spreadsheet, especially flat betting.  Chops will tear up dozens, losing 2 for every 1 won.  That is why even a very mild progression is recommended.  I was afraid to post any sort of playing method with my initial post because of responses exactly like yours - too much attention is paid to the methodology without considering the mathmatical advantage I have brought to the table.  I gave a very simplistic method of playing just as an example.  My goal was to give a new way of thinking about placing bets with the hope that the community would make contributions regarding a methodology that would optimally exploit my staking advantage.  That hope never was fulfilled.  I have had some great chats with many different people in private about my methods, and have developed my own method of playing that is very profitable (300 unit buy-in, 100 unit stop loss, bets on every spin, very minor progression relative to the odds).  I am up 2,000 units in about 3 weeks, playing just a couple hours each week.  I will not be sharing that method on this forum because I have found that there are too many people (and I am absolutely NOT including you in this comment - you at lease contributed by testing the numbers) who want the system creators to do all the hard work and testing with no effort expended on their part.

Anyone who wants to develop a method of their own will benefit by including my staking discovery about the advantage over the house.  I'm sorry I was not clear that the method I detailed was not a playing method, just one for the purpose of explanation.

I would be glad to chat sometime with you about my original method, which I am certain would show you a profit based on the exact same spins you just used.

Best of luck,

Colby

[Rester]

Hi, colbster,

I have sent you a PM.

[col1879]

col1879,

I tried to reach you via IM but you are set for forwarding messages to Mobil.

The person text me saying it's not you?

Regards,

/John

I don't have a mobile. I should receive any pm's, they do not get forwarded anywhere. If you send me a pm I should get it in my inbox okay.

col

[harald]

I will not be sharing that method on this forum because I have found that there are too many people (and I am absolutely NOT including you in this comment - you at lease contributed by testing the numbers) who want the system creators to do all the hard work and testing with no effort expended on their part.

That's not completely true. I have spend time and money on this. I made a total of more then 1500 spins in different sessions with real money and try to talk about it...but got no response from you anymore. Yes there is maby a language barrier but also like some1 else said the xls. example did not match what you and others were saying. That confused me a lot. That's why i sometimes had to ask things twice just to be sure.

I gave up on this because i didn't got any response from you anymore. But more important in all those sessions i only got 2 times a repeat of 5 dozens. So i never won a single session. Also i asked here if some1 had good results so far....but not a single response. So i gave up on this and filed it under the so many 'systems' were only the creator say that he/she made money from it.

[harald]

-