A strange system.

[simon]

This seems to be a very effective methodology based on testing of my real spins.  just for fun I checked a lazy man's way to do this, what I would call "following the cousins,"  which requires no input or marking.  all I did was keep looking back what the last cousin link was (example from real spins: 18-1-30-27-21 (now I would bet all the 0's) and next 30 hits again for a win (ofcourse you don't always get a hit that quick.)  and so even if the next betting opportunity is from a link many spins previous, whatever the last cousin to cousin relationship was I bet it to follow again.  There are many -4's but a couple of +32's makes up for them and then some.  A hit on 4 numbers is a beautiful thing!  Testing playing this way on over 300 of my real spins resulted in a startling 300+ units.  I suppose though this was an anomaly and it was just the way the stars lined up over the wheels I was recording that day.  But I would be curious to know if anyone else wants to try this method if they also see positive results.  By the way as with the "strange system" or whatever you want to call it, in my lazy man's way to play it I disregarded all numbers greater than 6 in second digit, and disregarded bets that would call for a number greater than 6 in second digit.  I don't want to distract from the original work and will in fact be making a template I can follow better for implementing it (complete with different colored numbers so you can find them quicker when entering the 1's and x's) but you might want to try just "following the cousins" as I call it and see how it goes.  I certainly like a system that only involves flat bets, limited losses and good profits on a hit.  I see people cover the board with a ton of chips all the time, sometimes they may not even make a net gain if they hit they are so frenzied and disorganized covering so many numbers, and ofcourse they lose alot when they don't hit.  Like I said, a straight up hit with just 4 chips out there is a beautiful thing, and this seems to happen well enough for whatever reasons, betting these trends on "the cousins."

[simon]

There are no bets/sr's called for for 1-1, 2-2, etc. (why?)  I was curious to see if I could determine any significance to the s/r's so I did the following:  I put all the s/r sets in a spread sheet column so they are vertical one under the other, with a row in between the groups so they are separated by group and numbered 1 through 10 by group, so the 2-3 and 3-2 sets are at the top with the highest rating of 1, and the 0-6 and 6-0 sets are at the bottom with the lowest rating of 10.  This is how I would set up my template for play anyway, so that I could have several columns after each set to fill in the 1's and x's called for after each set hits or does not hit.  I went through my first set of 75 continuous real spins from real double zero wheels and linked every single number one after the other, disregarding any number that ends higher than 6, and made checks in the columns after every set that came in.  I thought that I would just see if I might end up with more checks in the top 5 groups then the bottom 5 groups (or not), but then I realized the numbers are not evenly divided within the top half s/r's and bottom half s/r's so this would not really work and give the quick picture I was looking for (for example, the sets that start 6, there is only one in the top half s/r's and five in the bottom half s/r's.)  There are six of each set, and the only sets that are evenly divided between the top half and bottom half s/r's (3 in each) are the sets that start 1 and the sets that start 5.  So, looking at my 75 continuous spins, there were nine occurences of numbers that were 1 or ended in 1, six of which ended up in the top half, and 3 of which ended up in the bottom half-- the 1-2 (s/r 4) hit 3 times, the 1-5 (s/r 5) hit 3 times, the 1-4 (s/r 6) hit 1 time, the 1-0 (s/r 7) hit 1 time, and the 1-6 (s/r eight) hit 1 time.  But, there were seven occurences of numbers that were 5 or ended in 5, only two of which ended up in the top half s/r, and five ended up in the bottom half-- the 5-2 (s/r 4) hit 2 times, the 5-4 (s/r 6) hit 2 times, and the 5-0 (s/r 7) hit 3 times.  I will test the rest of my spins and see if these s/r's show any significance.

The question when playing this system will be, what has more weight-- the s/r's, or the most recent hits?  For example, I am wondering, johnnyg, if I have had one hit with a group in a higher weighted s/r (say the 1-3), and 2 or 3 hits in a lower weighted s/r (say the 1-5) , which am I going to bet for, the 1-3 or the 1-5?

[Davemd]

Hi Johhnyg,

              In the zero group you have
0-3
0-2
0-1
0-4
0-6
     should we have 0-5 in that group as well or is there something I have missed,

                                                                                                            Regards,

                                                                                                                       Davemd. 

[johhnyg]

Simon this is not my system and there are probably many questions that I can not really answer or I would be making them up as I go along. You are right to play about with it and see what you come up with. The man who invented it told me that when the numbers with the higher strength rating start hitting, they hit with more frequency than with the ones lower down. This is not always so however because last week when I was playing this the very bottom one with a strength rating of 15 (the 6-0) was hitting like crazy.

[johhnyg]

Dave, if you go back to top of page 1 you will see that there is a 0 to 1 or 5. This means both have the same strength rating of 18. There are 5 in total where 2 numbers in a set have an equal strength rating.

[Davemd]

Thanks Johhnyg,

                       yes see what you mean,

I didnt look at it properly,

                                  many thank's,

                                                    Davemd.

[simon]

Davemd if you look at the chart you will see the 0-5 in the s/r 18 row.

Disregarding same to same hits (0-0, 1-1, etc.) there are 42 possible sets (6 of each starting number x 7 groups) and they are all in the chart.  There are 7 more possible sets if we counted same to same hits.  Example, the numbers 3-23-0-10-11-31 come in, that would be 3 sets (or "cousins" as they are sometimes referred to), that hit same to same, which are not in the chart and could cause a loss as we would not be betting on these sets to occur.  I might go through all 450 real spins I recorded (75 continuous spins at 6  different wheels) and make checks after all 47 possible sets to see which hit the most and their frequencies, etc, and see if the 2-3's, 1-3's, and 5-3's show any more popularity and frequency than the other groups.

Or, like exercising, I may just sit down and wait for that urge to pass...

[simon]

well I did tally all possible sets from a pre-recorded 75 spin session which doesn't take long, just to have a look, in case anyone is interested here's what the results looks like.  The first column below is the first number of the set and the second column is the second number of the set and the x's are the occurences, so in the first group 0-0 had no hits, 0-1 had one hit, 0-2 had one hit, 0-3 had no hits, 0-4 had one hit, and 0-5 and 0-6 had no hits.  ETC.  What can you say about the results below?  Not a whole lot.  By popularity of occurences we have the 1's and 6's (9 each), the 2's (eight each), the 4's and 5's (7 each), the 3's (4), and the 0's (3).  Meaning, numbers that were 1 or ended 1, or 6 or ended 6, came in the most in the 75 spin session, at which  point a decision would be made as to whether to bet or not on the next spin.  Since there are ten groups/ten s/r's, instead of identifying them as s/r 24 (best) to 15 (worst) as the author does, I identify the groups with the ratings of 1 (best) to 10 (worst)-- the theoretical strength rating according to the system.  Thus the most hits were the 2-6 (s/r 7) which had 4 hits, and the 1-2 (s/r 4), and the 1-5 (s/r 5) which had 3 hits each.  Make of it what you will.....

All I can say is I wish I had brought tons of cash and bet nothing but black chips on the 450 spins I recorded from 7 wheels and had played "followed the cousins" on them as I described previously... yeah I would have lost -$400 every losing bet, but I would have left with +30K by the end of the night.  I guess that would have drawn a few on-lookers.  ah well, I can dream...  Later.....
                  
                  
0   0            
0   1      x         
0   2      x         
0   3               
0   4      x         
0   5               
0   6               
                  
1   0      x         
1   1               
1   2      x   x   x   
1   3               
1   4      x         
1   5      x   x   x   
1   6      x         
                  
2   0               
2   1      x         
2   2               
2   3      x         
2   4      x         
2   5      x         
2   6      x   x   x   x
                  
3   0               
3   1      x   x      
3   2      x   x      
3   3               
3   4               
3   5               
3   6               
                  
4   0               
4   1      x         
4   2               
4   3      x         
4   4      x   x      
4   5      x   x      
4   6      x         
                  
5   0      x   x   x   
5   1               
5   2      x   x      
5   3               
5   4      x   x      
5   5               
5   6               
                  
6   0               
6   1      x   x      
6   2               
6   3      x         
6   4      x   x      
6   5      x   x      
6   6      x   x      

[simon]

debunking the strength ratings (sr's)...

here is further analysis of cousin trends and sr's with actuals... for simplicity sr's have been converted from author's numbers to 1 for best and 10 for worst in accordance with his ratings...

another 75 continuous spin session w3 (wheel 3) presented the following results...

seven hits of the 0 sets which went to 0 cousins three times (0-0 sr not designated), went to 5's three times (0-5 sr= 7) and went to 4's one time (0-4 sr= eight).  highest sr for a 0 link is 0-3 sr= 4, which did not hit.

3 hits of 1's, all of which went to the 4's (1-4 sr= 6).  highest sr for a 1 is 1-3 sr= 2, which did not hit.

7 hits of 2's, which went twice to 0's (2-0 sr= 7), twice to 3's (2-3 sr= 1), once to 5's (2-5 sr= 4), and twice to 6's (2-6 sr= 7).  highest sr for 2's is 2-3 sr= 1, which hit once.

8 hits of 3's which went to 0 three times (3-0 sr= 4), went to 2's once (3-2 sr= 1), went to 4's three times (3-4 sr= 3), and went to 6's once (3-6 sr= 5).  highest sr for 3 is 3-2 sr= 1, which hit once.

12 hits of 4's which went to 1's once (4-1 sr= 6), went to 2's once (4-2 sr= 5), went to 3's once (4-3 sr= 3), and went to 4's five times (4-4 sr not designated), went to 5's three times (4-5 sr= 6), and went to 6's one time (4-6 sr= 9).  highest sr for 4's is 4-3 sr= 3 which hit once.

7 hits of 5's which went to 0's once (5-0 sr= 7), went to 2's twice (5-2 sr= 4), went to 3's three times (5-3 sr= 2), and went to 4's once (5-4 sr= 6).  highest sr for 5's is 5-3 sr= 2 which hit 3 times.

and finally 4 hits of 6's which went to the 0's once (6-0 sr= 10), went to the 1's once (6-1 sr= eight), and went to the 4's once (6-4 sr= 9).  highest sr for 6's is 6-3 sr= 5 which did not hit.

observations:  in this 75 spin session no significance could be seen with the supposed strength ratings (other than 5-3 hitting slightly more than the others in the 5's group, consistent with 5-3 having the highest sr of the 5's group.)

but the most cousins hits of all in this cycle of spins (which represents a good, normal, at least an hour+ session at the table) was 4 to 4 which does not even have a designated sr and would cause losses because we would be betting against a 4-4.

conclusion (for now anyway):  forget the sr's and just go with how the cousins are trending.

I still like this system because of the frequent straight up hits with so few chips out and without progressing the bets.  it could be a grand illusion which happened to work on my test spins and may not work next time at the casino, but I believe I will give it a go next time I'm there...

[johhnyg]

Simon, you have a put a lot of hard work into studying this and I hope your reward is a successful trip when you next visit the casino if you decide to give it a go. I like the changes you have made and with patience I think it will work great. That is the real skill to this. Of course the low outlay for a good payout is excellent when the hits come your way but you have to allow them to come to you and not force them. This is not for anybody who likes to be in and out of the casino in an hour or two.

[simon]

ok johhnyg thanks for the system and thanks for the advice.

[simon]

-