Reducing Volatility @ TwoCatSam

[bloomone2002]

Man that really sucks! I thought I was being reasonable in my efforts to understand and was ready to move on to the rest of the methods, I am very disappointed in his actions to be an ex-member. Well life moves on. So, is this method any clearer to you more experienced players.
Bloom

[lucky_strike]

well i send you an PM and a email

I will read the post again and see what happens :-?

Cheers LS

[bloomone2002]

Thanks....I'm too emotional right now.  
Bloom

[TwoCatSam]

Bloom

You were most patient and did nothing wrong.  As to your question about the "method"; I saw none.  That is not to say there isn't one; actually I'm still looking.

I enjoyed bantering with the fellow.  He gave me some things to think on.  I understand his point that it's better to play (if one can) than to teach others how to play.

He'll be back in a year.  Maybe we should call him the Monte Carlo Comet and expect him to blaze through every year in May!

Sam

[bloomone2002]

Thanks Sam. Honestly, MC really stirred me up. In more ways than one. Mostly positive. I'm thinking of starting a testing thread that will make an effort to decipher this concept further only if their is an interest. Maybe, me yourself and Lucky Strike can lead the effort. I am confident there is something of great value here and to some extinct I've already received it, but I want to dig further. I would need the help of some very experienced system players and a math whiz. We can pick this thread appart. I will be recruiting anyone who believes in the concept that roulette is mathematically beatable.
Bloom

[TwoCatSam]

Using Monte's example

"Table 1

20      -BE      entry point
1      -RO      -RO      -+200      =+200
9      -RO      -BE      -(-200)      =0
12      -RE      -RO      -
25      -RO      -RO      -+200      =+200
13      -BO      -BE      -
18      -RE      -BE      -
4      -BE      -BE      -+200      =+400 exit point"

Unless I am mistaken all he is doing here is betting the opposite of what came.  20 was BE, so he bet RO and won first time out.  His trigger was then RO and he bet BE and lost.  

I am going to work on the math of this idea and post it later.

Sam

[bloomone2002]

Yes, at this point in my opinion the initial process describe here has been simplified. To me the issue is understanding the mathematical impact throughout the game itself. When you apply math to a series of events. It should always perform the same way within that mathematical structure created. If you want to change your result, you just adjust your mathematical structure. Their is no concern about winning or losing, just following the rules to maintain the adjusted rate of success.
Bloom

[TwoCatSam]

I may be, possibly, understanding what his bloke was saying.  Or not............

Look at it this way:

Red has a 48.65% chance of occurring.  So does black, odd and even.  The chances of red occurring with odd or even is 48.65% X 48.65% or 23.67%.

Here are the permutations:

R/O
R/E
B/O
B/E

Each of those permutations has a 23.67% chance of occurring, and adding them you get 94.68%.  This leaves 5.32% for the house edge, which is almost exactly 2.7% x 2.  (5.4%)

So perhaps he's right!  It does seem he is saying this:

When betting red, the house has a 51.35% chance of beating you every spin with a 2.7% edge.  When betting red and odd, the house only has a 23.67% chance of beating you, but with a 5.32% edge.

Does that make sense?  Is my math flawed?  Someone who is good in math check this out, please!

TwoCatSam

[bloomone2002]

Sam, I think you about got it correct only in the last incidence when betting r/o the house edge is increased by 2.7% with the american wheel. Therefore, the house is 7.9%.
Man, I'm i wish he hadnt left. I'm ready for the next lesson of the full equation of the method.
Please come back Monte Carlo, I promise to read and re-read, learn, practice and apply.
Bloom

[TwoCatSam]

Bloom,

Yes, I definitely calculated it on the single 0 wheel.

I am going away for the weekend and will try to sneak a calculator and notepad along for the ride.

I am wondering about betting Red/Odd/Top and figuring the permutations of those.  Know it shakes out to about 13.51% for R/O/T.  But using all three you get the "win one, lose one" scenario.

Laters........

Sam

[bloomone2002]

Wouldnt that be win one -lose two or win two - lose one or win three or loss three possibilities?

Enjoy your weekend ride, watch the gas prices..lol

[lucky_strike]

Well i have to agree i have backtrack every exampel and he plays opposite. RE play BO.

There is actually no more or less then test it to find out the varience, i think.

Cheers Lucky Strike

[bloomone2002]

Yes, this is true. We all agree on that. However, the variance will be of min. significance, because the fluctations in the game have been reduced in half. See reply#13. That is the goal look to isolate from our dataset. The key now is understanding how to capatilize on an environment that doesnt fluctate as much. Before the game was watch the fluctation because it could kill you or get you ahead in the game but in the long run you would break even or lose money because of the house edge.
The objective would be to design a flat betting system that thrives on a method with min. change and provides consistent profit at about 20%.

So, I recommend start with a sample session using RO & BE and evaluate as many ways to exploit that session.

[bloomone2002]

Here is a live session
Table 3: 3/7/08

27
19
6
12
5
27
4
15
14
19
15
18
13
23
31
11
15
9
29
19
0
23
28
20
-- -- --
9
5
9
31
4
28
36
17
6
29
15
16
13
32
12
-- -- --
29
4
17
23
5
9
36
18
16
6
3
32
29
20
35

[lucky_strike]

We all agree on that. However, the variance will be of min. significance, because the fluctations in the game have been reduced in half.

Well i made a short test and it doesent work to play opp. I can post it if you want to see it!
Sorry for that...

Cheers LS

[lucky_strike]

-