High/Low matrix thought

[buffalowizard]

Something worth looking at

I have Highs and Lows in matrix 3 wide.

If there are more Lows in the above line, bet 3 times for High 1,2,4
If there are more Highs in the above line, bet 3 times for Low 1,2,4

Never go further than that with progression. Zero counted as a loss.

I like it because even in this instance

HHL  2 highs, so bet 3 times on low
HHL  you lost the first 2 bets, but won the third and actually go +1 up because of the progression.

LLL
HHL -1
HLL +4
LHL +1
LL0 0
H0H +3
HLL  +8
LLH  +9
HLL  +4
LHL  +1
LLL  -6
LHH  -1
HHH  -8
LHL  -5
HL0  -10
LHH  -5
LLL  +2
LLH  +3
HLH  +6
HLL  +11
HHH  +18
HHH  +11
LLH  +10
HHH  +17
LLL  +24

[buffalowizard]

Here's another example matrix.

stop-loss and stop wins should be set up before a session I believe

LHL   +3
HLH   -4
HHH  +3
LLL   +2
HHL  +1
LLL    +4
HLH   +1
HH0   -6
HHH   -13
HHH   -6
LLL     -5
LLH    -4
LLH    -1
HLH    +4
HLL    +9

[col1879]

What do you suggest for the win/loss ratio = quit you decide upon before commencing?

[buffalowizard]

What do you suggest for the win/loss ratio = quit you decide upon before commencing?

Hi col,

More testing will decide for us when to exit either up or down.

Initial thoughts maybe at +10   or -20?  I guess a lot of it is personal preference too

Maybe you could post a matrix and see how it fares? Cheers mate

BW

[col1879]

My gut tells me the acceptable loss percentage should only be slightlly higher than the desired profit percentage.

Personally, I would check the win/loss ratio after every bet. eg if you win your very first bet (win 100%/loss 0%) quit and start a new session. Why risk two LL's putting you in the negative? Don't give back profits!

I would choose if a win percentage ever equals or is greater than 60% (eg win 60%/ loss 40%) then = QUIT

and

If a loss percentage ever reaches 70% (eg win 30%/ loss 70%) then = QUIT

and always check the percentages after every bet, then decide whether to quit or play on based on your percentages guidelines!

[buffalowizard]

Yes, your right col. Definately play it spin by spin, and quit when you feel comfortable.

Doing some more testing and I'm actually really liking this. Especially the fact that the downturns seem to be minimal.

HHH
LHL    +5
HHL    +4
HHH    -3
HHL    -2
HHL    -1
LHH    +4
LLH    +3
LHH    +8
LH0   +3
HLH    +6
L0L    +9
LHH     +14
HLH     +11
HLL     +16
LHH     +21
HHL     +22
LL0    +21
LHL     +18
HHH    +25
LLH     +24

+24

Anyone else wanna help in testing?

[col1879]

***********Especially the fact that the downturns seem to be minimal.****************

Knowing when to quit when you are 'down and out' is actually more important than knowing when to quit when you are 'up and flying'

You might get on the LLL bus and think it has to stop at any moment. Before you know it you realise you are on an LLLLLLLLLL bus and you didn't get off 7 stops back when you should have! No coming back from that, especially if you are using a big 7 step progression. Every bet is always 50/50 (don't give me that 48/48 green goblin talk) If you get 3 LLL's in a row then quit and start a new session or just start 'free spinning' until a W comes along.


I look forward to more test results. Keep up the good work

[buffalowizard]

What I like about this method is that you only ever bet 1,2,4 with every line, so there's no danger of spiralling out of control.

Its really simple. More testing to follow

BW

[col1879]

**************Its really simple. More testing to follow****************

Usually simple = better, in my (limited) experience. I look forward to more test results

Colin

[col1879]

BW, I recommend a 1-2-2 rather than 1-2-4, but it's your choice. Or test both and compare? 1-2-2 doesn't sound logically more sensible but just try it.

What about adding a different EC as an alternative to H/L when it's on a losing streak? When you get two losses with H/L take over with a different EC? Just a suggestion.......

Colin

[buffalowizard]

BW, I recommend a 1-2-2 rather than 1-2-4, but it's your choice. Or test both and compare? 1-2-2 doesn't sound logically more sensible but just try it.

What about adding a different EC as an alternative to H/L when it's on a losing streak? When you get two losses with H/L take over with a different EC? Just a suggestion.......

Colin

Good suggestions col,

My latest test was a brilliant one. Using 1,2,4

LHH
HLL   +5
LLL    -2
LLL    -9
HLL    -14
LHH   -9
LLL     -2
HHH   +5
HLL     +10
HLH    +13
LLH    +12
LHH    +17
HLH    +14
LLH    +13
LHL    +10
HLH    +13
HLL     +18
0HH    +23
HLL     +28
HHL    +27
LLL      +34
LHH     +39
HLH     +36

1,2,2 would be less aggressive. I'm waiting for the streaks of losses before altering. If this holds up, then using the other EC would be great.

BW

[buffalowizard]

Still trying to find a horror session with this. However, this was the toughest so far and only pulled clear with the last 2 lines!

This one provided the largest drawdown so far that I've tested also...-21  not too bad

LLH 
L00   -7
LHL   -10
LLH   -9
HHH   -2
H0H   -9
HLH   -12
LHL   -9
HHH   -2
LHH    -7
HLH   -10
H0L   -9
LHL   -12
LLH    -11
LHL    -14
LLL    -21
HLH    -18   
LHL    -15
LHL    -18
LLH     -17
HLL    -12
HHH    -5
LHL    -2
LLH     -1
HHL    -2
L0H    -7
HLL    -12
0HH    -7
LLH    -8
LHL     -11
HHL    -12
HLL     -7
HLH    -4
LLH     -5
H0H    -2
LLL     +5
HHH    +12

[buffalowizard]

2 more sessions, here's the first!
LLL
LLH   +1
LLH  +2
LLH   +3
HLH   +6
HLL    +11
HHH   +18
LLL    +25
LLL   +18
HLH    +21
LLL     +28
LLH    +29
HHH    +36
LHL     +39
HHL    +38
HHH    +31
L0H     +26
LLL     +33
HHH     +40
LHL     +43
L0H     +44
HHL    +43
HLL     +48
LHH     +53
HLH    +50
HHH    +43
HLH    +40
LLH     +39

[buffalowizard]

Next...pretty good win margin by now, max drawdown still -21  so far
0LH   
HL0  no qualifiers
L0L  no qualifiers
LLL   -7
LHL   -10
HHH   -3
LLL    +4
HHL   +3
LHL   +6
LHL    +3
LHH    +8
HLH    +5
HLL    +10
HLH    +13
HHL   +14
LHH    +9
LLL    +16
LLH    +17
H0H   +20
LLL     +27
LLL    +20
HHL   +19

[col1879]

The  test with the -21, did you retest it with only the 1-2-2?

[col1879]

-