A fun system for the trend followers

[Bayes]

This even-chance system tries to "follow the wheel" and take advantage of any "elegant" patterns which may arise.

You need some "history" before you start playing -  at least one delimited streak on either side,  but after that there is no waiting for "triggers" - you play every spin.  The method is trying to adapt to what the wheel is doing, so in a way it is a "trend following" type of approach, as you will see. 

Here we go:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 

At this point I'm ready to make a bet.  The idea is to look at both sides INDEPENDENTLY, and you're looking at the length of streak which occurred LAST - the last completed streak.  We are always going to bet that the length of streak which occurred on that side will repeat (there is more than that, but this is the basic approach).

So here we look back on the RED side and see that the last "streak" was a single R.  At the moment we have a single R, but we don't know how this will end (Red may continue to become a streak of 2 or more, or it may go back to Black, creating another single of Red).  So because the last event on the Red side was a single, we bet that this will repeat so the first bet was on Black. 

Red came up again, so this was a loss:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R

Now, this is the second part of the bet selection: You can no longer bet that the previous streak will repeat because we now have 2 reds in a row, and the previous streak was a single red, so we have missed the chance.  What we do now is simply bet that the current streak of 2 reds in a row will CONTINUE, so we bet Red.

Result:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R

A win.  Once again, there is no point in looking at the previous streak because it was a single, and we are now at 3 reds in a row, so we just continue to bet on the same outcome which occurred last, and this rule always applies.  So bet R again:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B

A loss.  We now need to look back at the last streak on the Black side (forget about what Red is doing, always only look at each side independent of the other).  We see that the last streak on Black side was a streak of 3, so we bet for this to repeat - bet on Black:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B

A win.  The next bet is again on Black because we are betting that the current streak will be the same as the last one (a streak of 3), and so far we only have a streak of 2:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R

A loss.  Now we focus on the Red side again.  The last streak on the red side was a streak of 3, so we bet that the next outcome will be Red, hoping that we will get another streak of 3:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B

A loss.  Hopefully you're beginning to get the idea.  We now see that the last streak on the Black side was a streak of 2, so we bet that the next outcome will be another Black:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B

Win.  Now we need to bet Red, because we're hoping the current streak will be a streak of 2, and this will be true if Red comes up next:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
    R

Win.  Now look back to the last Red event.  It was a single, so we bet that this will repeat and bet that the next outcome is Black:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
    R
B

Win.  Again we see that the last streak occurring on the Black side was a streak of 2, so we bet Black, hoping for another streak of 2.

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
    R
B
B

Win.  Now we bet Red:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
B

Loss.  Now when we look back we see that we can't bet for the last streak on the black side to repeat, because the current streak is longer than 2, so we switch to the second rule and bet that the current streak will continue - bet Black:

B
B
    R
B
B
B
    R 
    R
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
    R
B
B
B
B

Win. 

I hope you're starting to get the idea.  The outcomes on the even chances tend to clump together, so you get stretches where they are running "streaky" and "choppy", and also periods when one side is more dominant than the other, and this system attempts to take advantage of all these things, as well as repeating patterns.  The other day I got a sequence of:

R
R
    B
R
R
    B
R
R
    R
R
R
    B
R
R
    B
R
R
    B

I won 15 consecutive bets.  Now, this won't happen that often, but there other patterns repeating all the time, and this bet selection is ready to jump on them as soon as they begin. 

Note
This won't win flat betting, but it does generate some very nice winning streaks, so you could try some kind of positive progression - maybe a reverse Marty or Labby. 

[Spike!]

Take this to the casino and play for real money and report back. I wouldn't take a lot of money, though. LOL!

[gizmotron]

I won 15 consecutive bets.  Now, this won't happen that often, but there other patterns repeating all the time, and this bet selection is ready to jump on them as soon as they begin. 

Note
This won't win flat betting, but it does generate some very nice winning streaks, so you could try some kind of positive progression - maybe a reverse Marty or Labby.

You won 15 in a row. If you had been avoiding very bad downturns then you should have reached your goal. You don't need to lean on a progression. You need to lean on your capability to "read the table." That's how Ellison explains it in his book. Now ponder this. When a pattern or trend is not occurring then you have a data set that is doing something. The next spin might be a continuation that a trend will not occur.

[Bayes]

Gizmo,

It was an attempt to create a simple mechanical system which capitalizes on trends, that's all.  Not half bad with the Guetting progression.

Spike,

Thanks for the feedback, that's really useful.  We sure are lucky to have you  here! 

[/sarcasm]

[Spike!]

Spike,Thanks for the feedback>>

Its just a typical FTL plan with a progression. If it has some subtlety I missed, please point it out..

[Noble Savage]

Its just a typical FTL plan with a progression. If it has some subtlety I missed, please point it out..

wow...

Did you at least read his signature?

[Spike!]

I actually went and read the thing in detail and its nonsensical, he's making it up as he goes along. I stick with what I said, take it to the casino, but take no money, because you'll lose it.

[Bayes]

On almost every bet, he follows the last outcome. What would you call it? Looks like FTL to me.

Au contraire,

It may look like FTL, but that's only incidental to the main bet. You default to FTL when you can make no other bet, but the main part of the system bets for the preceding streak to repeat (on both sides). That means you're not 'targeting' any particular pattern, but playing them as they arise. So you win on:

R B R B R B etc
RR BB RR BB RR BB etc
R BB R BB R BB etc
B RR B RR B BB etc
R BBB R BBB R BBB etc
RR BBB RR BBB etc

And any other repeating pattern, whether the repeat is on one or both sides.

And because FTL is used a lot, it keeps you on the right side in strong deviations. Also, when outcomes come in bunches - very streaky, as in RRRRR BBBB RRR BBBBB etc or very choppy R B RR B R B R BB R etc you still win most of the bets. Like any other bet selection, there is a nemesis - you might call it the 'chaotic' pattern.

[Spike!]

etc you still win most of the bets.<<<

The chaotc sequences will exactly cancel out any gain you make, just like every other system. Systems don't work.

And I'm not putting down FTL. With a progression it makes money most of the time. Its as good as any other system. And as bad.

[Bayes]

Systems don't work.

Yes, check my signature.

Nor does educated guessing - which is a system too.

The times when you guess incorrectly will exactly cancel the gains from the good guesses.

[Spike!]

The times when you guess incorrectly will exactly cancel the gains from the good guesses.>>>

No, thats called random guessing. Thats what 99% of all players do. Don't get confused.

[Bayes]

Whatever.

Spike, you're so predictable. It's really getting to be a bore.

At least I know when I'm confused. 

[Spike!]

Spike, you're so predictable. >>>

Its like you ask your doctor to explain whats wrong with you and he always says the same thing, so you accuse him of being 'predictable'. I'm telling what I know, of course its 'predictable'. Duh.

>>At least I know when I'm confused.>>

Like now, you mean?

[mistarlupo]

Spike, have you ever served in the government? You speak just like a politician.

[Spike!]

People like Bayes do facinate me, however. You can see he's got a box he's comfortable with and he's trying to cram me into the box with a sledgehammer, because if I'm outside his box, it can't make sense. So he makes huge generalizations to gloss over what I say. I don't have a box, so I don't care where he fits or what he believes. But the math people really can't rest until they figure you out or totally discredit you. Thats because they know their box is flawed, but they can't find the flaw, and it drives them crazy.

[Spike!]

-