Hurried Splits Test - Part 1 (Primitive)

[Natural9]

Hi Metalrat...and any other readers 

I said I'd test the double primitive formula system over the next few weeks...however, as I wouldn't use it again myself nor recommend it, I think it would be a bit pointless. It is, after all, only supposed to be a quick demonstration of the Law at work. A brief word on the divisor...I usually test with a pluscoup progression, true negative progressions, flat betting and a divisor, so I can compare them all. The divisor outperforms the others by a long way.

Instead of testing the system outlined in stage two, I'll be testing something more usable. It will have two primitive formulas (for betting on splits that haven't hit/have hit once or more than once) and a hybrid formula (for betting a combination of hit and unhit splits). Each formula will thrive on specific sets of favourable conditions. Tracking will involve charting the outcomes for x spins (probably 9 or 10), then attacking for y spins (probably 5 or 6). Attacks will be wrapped up by spin 16 of the interval at the latest. Only one formula will lead the attack, and which one depends on the conditions revealed by tracking. This allows us to be betting every 10 or 12 spins, rather than spending an age recording the results.

I'll try to keep the tests true to real situations...testing for sessions of 120 spins (maximum), with a stop-loss, profit target, using a divisor. If the system is in profit after five tests, around 600 spins, then I'll post it with the divisor plan.

Stay tuned 

Hey Six good work mate

In your opinion why does the divisor MM work so much better than anything else and how do the profits compare I know lanky swears by it and I agreewith him but can you give me your viewpoint on the divisor plan

Originally the divisor plan was used for horse racing but Lanky adapted it for roulette and what divisor do you use?

Regards Rodney

[Number Six]

Hello Rodney,

Well, I'll be starting a new thread soon to do a proper test of a three-formula system. I'll be testing with a divisor, pluscoup, true negative progressions and flat betting...then we can all see a real example of how well divisors perform. I prefer to make divisors a little more aggressive than standard, that way I can strike a balance between full grinding and heavy attacks. I really can't see why people use true negative progressions when there is something as clinical as the divisor around! It is not an MM, but a staking plan, and it's very logical. Sometimes they can run away from you, so a stop-loss is still necessary, but for sure they will keep you in the game longer than any other staking method and help you reach your session target even if the spin outcomes are going against you. The system still has to be robust for the divisor to be effective, no doubt, but they can make an average system better. When testing I regularly find that a negative progression will hit me with absurd deficits like -500 units, yet the divisor will net +50 (those figures are real, by the way, from a real test!). Why are divisors so promising? For me, I play very cautiously and only bet when the conditions are right. My hit rate is pretty high, when the system I'm using is performing well, I'll get a hit within the first or second spin so the divisor is always recovering quickly...it seldom gets out of control. I use it in a way you'd use a pluscoup...resetting the divisor after each win that brings a new bankroll high - not everyone does this but I like to play safe. I don't think a divisor would work for a long progression, unless it was very conservative, as they really feed off regular wins. And, of course, they are highly configurable. There is a divisor out there for everyone, that is the truth!



A quick add for profit comparison: the divisor is safe and sound, and profits tend to be unpretentious (I.e small and regular). Ending the session with a deficit is really very rare. Sometimes you'll find that it would have been better to use a true negative progression, you may walk away with +50 from the divisor when you could have got +200 from a true progression. But remember that when it's +50 again from the divisor, it could have been -500 from the true progression! A divisor is a concrete bunker and true negative progressions are flimsy wooden shacks...which one would you rather be in when the bombs start falling??

[Natural9]

Sixer you are so right Lanky has proven to me what a true grinding methods can do for you overall BR it really is a consistant up with the odd blip and that is playing 2 dozens
We really need to drive ourselves for self discipline a little bit of profit make big profits in the long run those who say you cant win at this dam game are deluded because  of the edge so to speak but there are people from this forum doing it every day and that is without VB or DS or any other initials you like to think of

Six you are an inspiration and  i take my hate off to people like you

I have this little Sportbetting method for baseball there are plenty of hits and i am thinking of using  the divisor staking plan for it

Regards Rodney

[Number Six]

I take my hate off to people like you

I'll presume you meant hat! 

[Natural9]

I'll presume you meant hat! 

Oh crap the old spellchecker  didnt pick that up lol

[xman1970]

Thanks Mr Xman...I think we all need a bit of Ms Luck 

I like what your posting & the way it's being posted....

There is no "luv me I have the HG" mantra about it & that great by you & great for this forum.....


Long may it continue.....

[Lanky]

GcgnyA  <a href="hxxp: uteewbepxpmf. com/">uteewbepxpmf</a>, zvmvgqegcrgt, [link=hxxp: mdszuntuidsa. com/]mdszuntuidsa[/link], hxxp: zawinmogbhyv. com/

[Natural9]

Hi #6.

Preach it Brother Preach it.

Lanky.

Preaching to the converted brother

[sniper]

Hello Friend,

I am a die hard Divisor follower and user. My master is none other than Lanky from Australia.

Regards

sniper

[Number Six]

Yes, we must all thank Lanky for introducing us to the divisor...it's one of the most important acquaintances I've ever made 

[Phishalot]

Was reading the samples of play.
I did not see any overlapping splits. IE 2:5 And 5:8 How is this handled?
Ran tests and would like to add this method to my arsenal.

Thanks
Phishalot

[Lanky]

Hi Phishalot .

Mate for the splits use an 18/1 Divisor.

Your Friend.

Lanky.

[Phishalot]

Thanks Lanky,

Will the divisor still be 6?

With the divisor will we still stop at 5 losses or continue to a profit?

How do I handle the added bet after every loss?

Six,

If the splits come in 2:5 and 5:8 is this considered a duplicate or is the 5 just covered on both sides?

Been running tests on old games have done very well increasing my game average by 20 units. The 160 unit loss on the neg. Progression scares me though. The divisor is giving me a less scary result.

Thanks All
Phishalot

[bombus]

I believe for simplicity, practicality, and tidiness each number is only coupled up into splits once.

So, no overlapping.... 2 with 5 only... 8 with 11 only, 32 with 35 only, and so on.

[Number Six]

Phishalot, as bombus said. I wouldn't recommend using this system for real money. It was merely a quick demonstration to show how the law of the third might migrate to the splits. I would suggest sticking to the pleins and try to use some sort of wheel-sector tracking. I had planned to look into it but I'm working on something else right now. I had an idea of forming unique wheel sectors for each attack, the disbanding them afterwards, so no sector would be fixed and the system would be very fluid. Unfortunately I haven't got round to it yet.

[Number Six]

-