Marty but not on the EC

[col1879]

We all understand the initial attraction of martingale. You make lots of small profits until you get that losing streak of 25 reds in a row and you were betting on black lol

But what about using martingale not on an EC such as red black etc, but on a cover the whole board except 2 numbers?

For example, if you put 0.50 on 0 and 1 on 17 splits, then you either get a profit of 0.50 or a loss of 17.50. Your head tells you that you wont suffer a loss for hundreds of spins but the reality is you probably wont get past 10 to 15 spins without suffering a loss and all your small profits you had gained will be eaten up and overtaken.

But what are the chances of losing 2 times in a row whilst covering all the board except 2 numbers? You would have to use martingale of course to cover losses. But numbers repeat of course so after the first loss you would choose 0 and 17 different splits.

I don't think it would work though. I ran a rng to spit out any two numbers and before I clicked the button I said any two numbers but 2 and 18, and out came 18. Then I said any two numbers but 4 and 36 and out came 4. Then I said any two numbers but 5 and 15 and out came 15! lol Doesn't make sense to my puny brain lol

[pins]

the stakes are the problem'   back the two numbers you are going to leave out.

[col1879]

What stakes do you recommend? I am open to suggestions.

I've been trying something a little different by putting 4.50 on the 1to18, 3 on the H and 1 in the middle of the 19,20,22,23 square. That way I am always betting 8.50 and getting a return of 9.00 (0.50 profit) and only numbers I lose on are 0, 21 and 24. It's amazing the amount of times you land on one of the 3 losing numbers. It balances out over 600 spins with either a slight loss or slight profit depending on luck.

The latest tests I am doing is to put 0.50 on 0 and to put 1.00 on 16 splits leaving 4 numbers uncovered. You get 1.50 profit per spin and do 4 spins. If you win all 4 spins you take your 6.00 profit and keep 3.00 for your BR. With the other 3.00 you place it on an EC and hope to catch a winning streak. Every 3.00 you win you give to the BR and just bet 3.00 everytime on EC until you lose. Then you start over again from the beginning.

I played this earlier today. Put 0.50 on 0 and 1.00 on 16 splits to get 6.00 profit. I then put 3.00 on red and kept doing so and caught a streak of 10 reds in a row which gave a nice profit.

Only problem is when you are going for your 4 spins while covering all but 4 numbers you lose more often than you might think or expect that you would lol

Any ideas welcomed for improving the method welcomed. Well all apart from 'dont play this way' lol I am just brainstorming. Without our imaginations we would be just like all those other poor dullards.

[iggiv]

if you wanna try your luck take at least those from within last 37 spins. it still depends on you luck though

[col1879]

This would be a perfect system if I could just figure out what the first four numbers are going to be before I start spinning lol

[darrynf]

dont change your numbers

keep using the same numbers and you should have better chances, the only way to lose is the same number coming up twice or more in a row, stop changing numbers

[col1879]

I don't think this system would work long term. Well I know it wont. But if you are feeling a little frisky and willing to risk 16.50 (you stop on any loss) then if you are lucky and manage to get your 4 spins regularly for a while without any losses, and if you do well on the EC bets with the 3.00, then you can make a nice little profit. Not to be done regularly though as a way of playing.

Theoretically, just by risking 16.50, if you get lucky, you could win 4 spins and get 6.00 profit, take 3.00 of that and go on a nice little run, win 4 more spins, another nice little run on the ec with 3.00, and so on and so on and so forth. It's uncanny though the amount of times you cover practically the whole board except 2 or 3 numbers and you end up losing lol You would expect it to be 1 in a 100, but it is more like 1 in 8 lol

[darrynf]

i wouldnt play that system, as i have tried this system and the progression dosent work on it.

it would lose fairly quickly, but if you did insist on it then i wouldnt change the numbers.

I had the same idea awhile ago and thought the only way to lose was getting the same number coming up 5 times the most.
so i would look for a no zero wheel and a progressive jackpot (you win a jackpot if the same number hits 5 times. but the progression cant be done and the zero really misses this system around. if you could make a progression then it would work but i couldnt even make a 3 step progression.

martin gale dosent work as the numbers arent even.

[col1879]

Yes I wouldn't use this system unless I had a spare 16.50 I was willing to risk.

[col1879]

-