An old system

[Iwonder]

A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted.  I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.

The system was described in this way:

Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)

If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.

If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.

Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.

If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression

The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.

A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.

I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit.  I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in.  When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince  yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)

Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit.  I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units.  This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).

This inspired me to test further.  I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers
A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted.  I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.

The system was described in this way:

Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)

If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.

If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.

Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.

If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression

The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.

A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.

I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit.  I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in.  When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince  yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)

Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit.  I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units.  This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).

This inspired me to test further.  I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers that Lohnro gave me through the process ( yes Lohnro, all 3million plus).
This took about 2 weeks, with the databse completing a file of numbers and importing the next one.  From the 1998 file, there was a -6978 result flat betting.
1999,2000-5 files all generated results between +17000 and +38000 flat betting.

I also tested the progression at the same time.  The progression results were within 2000 units of the flat betting each time, but the drawdown over the course of each year was invariably much greater.

My questions are:
Does anybody remember this system?
Did anybody else test it?
Is anybody willing to a: test my program to see where I've stuffed up or
                     b: write something independantly to test this

I have played this way at dublinbet for about the last two months and am up 500 units.  
There are two things I have observed by playing this:
1 It is a slow grind.  If you only play a couple of sessions, you can easily walk away with consecutive losses.
2 It is boring.  1 bet every 4 spins, you need to watch your coffee/tea/beer etc intake while you wait.

Alright, that's about it.  It's up to you guys if this topic sinks or swims.

Cheers

[Natural9]

The problem with thesesystems is the drawdown what usullay happens to me is when i test they go well and then fall away but maybe not past point of no return

But playing thr method knowing it most likely wins but getting that hefty drawdown at the beginning can be most depressing that is the trouble with volitile methods can ewe smothe it out a bit even to point of not winning so much but not losing so much either can we trade of volitility for smoothes and ease of playing it the is the $64000 question


Regards Natural

[kav]

Excuse me!!!

Did I read that correctly?!

This guy tested 3mil spins and the system proved profitable. I have never read that about any other system.
And none cared to use it in real life or comment?!

Iwonder, MrJ...  Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 metods?

[Bazeegar]

rjeaton's help....

[rjeaton1]

rjeaton's help....

Haha, glad to hear I'm actually helpful 

I'll throw something together for you guys in a bit.  I'm just in the process of coding a TON of systems that people paid me for, so I've got to take care of them first.  As soon as I'm finished though, I'll start on this.

[Bazeegar]

I'm just in the process of coding a TON of systems that people paid me for

Possibly, the only way to make money off roulette  

[Colin]

KAV just to say a chap called Simon on the other forum has a system that has NOT lost in 5000000 spins unfortunly he needs £1000 for it played with a £2500 bank .Cheers Colin

[kav]

Colin,

He should take a loan NOW!!! and go play it for real.
Could you please provide a link?

[Colin]

Kav if you go to a forum called nolinks.Roulette Forum . net Roulette System Forum and go to the section calledGambling Systems for Sale you can read about it there its a good forum but not in the class of the 1 we are on at present its in a different league LOL Colin

[Lanky]

Excuse me!!!

Did I read that correctly?!

This guy tested 3mil spins and the system proved profitable. I have never read that about any other system.
And none cared to use it in real life or comment?!

Iwonder, MrJ...  Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 metods?

Hi Kav.

Yes My Friend You did read right.

I know Iwonder very well We are close Friends.

Everything He says is true.....and Yes He has been very successful with this System.

I have just sent Him a Message Via a Mobile (cell phone) text...letting Him know that there is some interest in this His old thread for You.....(I did this as a Courtesy to You Mate)

He is an absolute great person Mate.....and I am sure that when He gets time he will Respond to You.

But I happen to know that His Logistic Business is going Gangbusters at the moment.
It has exploded in a good way for Him...He is flat out keeping up with all the demand.
He is now working upwards of 16 hrs per day and has His Family to look after as well.

But rest assured Kav He is one of the best people that anyone could ever wish to know and when he gets time He will reply to You Mate.

Lanky.

[Mr J]

"I wonder, MrJ...  Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 methods?" >>> Thats how I roll boys. Something of mine doing well? I'm not surprised. I do remember this method, no doubt. The thing is, I was IN THE MIDDLE of so many other NEW ideas, I think I put it on a shelf and then forgot about it. lol It happens. Maybe I'll pick back up on it again.  Ken

[Iwonder]

Guys
Yes I play this way and yes I make money playing it.  There are downsides.  It is BORING.  1 bet every fifth spin and waiting around can drive you nuts.  If you're playing at a B&M casino, take a book or a newspaper if you are allowed.  If not, try to find a spot where you can watch sports on a screen or something.  If you have a time limit on a session, don't start, because you can garauntee that when you have a time limit, your sesssion will go for 100+ spins.  You will have drawdowns.  You can play multiple sessions in a row that end in a loss.  If you can't bear the idea of walking out of your casino down for maybe a week at a time, then this is not for you.  You will have weeks where you break even.  Playing long for not much, or nothing.  You will have weeks where you play losing session after losing session.  You will have weeks where you play for a few wins and some losses, a little ahead, a little behind.  And then you will have weeks where every time you play you're done within ten spins and make a bucket load.
And at the end of it all, over a year, you'll have made 0.25 units for every spin you have witnessed.

I must point out a couple of things:
1.  Everything I have said is based on my experience only.  Yours maybe very different.  If I have been lucky, then I accept that.  I haven't come up with any mathematical proof that this works.  So I'm happy to take what I've made as luck.
2.  This is definately NOT a method of play for the casual player.  It is one of the biggest grinds I have ever come across.  Having said that, I believe that a casual player would benefit in that the damage to a bankroll in a single session is very limited.
3.  There is no reason that this won't work on RNG because there is no reason (to my knowledge anyway) that this should work at all.  Having said that, I personally don't play RNG.  I play online with live wheels.

Ok, I think that's all I can add.  If you wish to pursue this further, then I would be interested in hearing others' experiences.

Cheers
Iwonder

[TwoCatSam]

OK People

Mr J invented it; Iwonder testifies for it--

Lanky has said when Iwonder speaks, you better listen.

I've copied the whole thread in case--well, I won't air the words.

I'll walk the puppy around the block!

Sam

[Mr J]

"This is definately NOT a method of play for the casual player" >>> Thats alot of my methods. It does not bother me but you are right, some will stay away from it. They LOVE the action and BIG spins, wild crazy times etc (LOL) Count me out....I'll do it the slow way.  Ken

[kav]

Sam,

You forgot to give me credit for discovering the thread one and a half years after it was buried.

[kav]

-