Система "Ambush Flat Staking"

 Anyway I played a flat stake on columns, waiting for a repeat in a given column, and then backing the other two. I would stake myself with ten units a day (much larger than the minimums for numbers) and attempt to win 5. If I lost on a spin, I naturally would have had a run of 3 on that column, and would bet against it again. If it won, I would wait for another repeat of two and then play again. These were the days when I believed that dammed little white ball had some kind of intelligence and a memory. (alas it is not so)

Obviously I was trying to turn the immediate odds in my favour, snatch the quick win and then bail as it were. I found that I won more than I lost. If I had a bad day and lost all ten units, I would just have to accept it and go home. Most days however, sometimes quickly, and on some occasions after hours of waiting and playing, I would get my five units profit and go home. I kept my family alive for about three months this way.

What happened in the end is that, I hadn't had much to start with in the first place, and as I was constantly coming home and passing the money over to the wife to pay rent and so on, not much was going back to build a decent stake. Bottom line is that after three months, I lost a couple of days in a row, and that was me. I had to go find a job again.

Recently I have hauled all this stuff back out, and dusted it off. I now have a look at a situation where if you go after the "sixains", one chip on each using 5 chips, obviously you cover 30 out of 37 or 81% of the wheel (This percentage take zero into account). Initial experiments led me to attempt to go in with 5 chips or units, attempt to double them, and bail. If at any time along the way I hit a loss, I would pocket those units I had won and still stop playing. I figured the advantage was that there were only a very few occasions when the Casino would nail my whole stake, (loss on first spin) but mostly even if I lost after say 3 or 4 spins, I still had a part left. On the days that I won, I would take the full 5 units from them. Kind of seemed that these orphan chips which were collected on the way, may just work out to be the long term profit, all other things being equal.

Over a period of time the idea was to divide the cumulative winnings by the number of days played, to come up with a percentage win / loss ratio of unit per outing. So long as this was a positive percentage, we were doing OK. Over a period of 2 months, playing 4 or 5 times per week I found that the percentage fluctuated a bit, but was never negative.

It wasn't much, only about .69% of a unit, but it was positive. This would mean that if you had to play with big daily stake, say $5,000 or in our country R5,000 betting R1,000 per six numbers, whether you walked out a winner or loser on the day, you had made .69% of a unit or R/$690. In theory, playing say 5 times per week this works out to $3450 per week and or + $180,000 per year.

Just to digress slightly, I did bet in this fashion using 3 units on the 1-18 / 19-36 slot and the other 2 on either the dozen or directly on the sixains. This to offset the zero effect as much as possible, as when it comes up, you only lose half of the even chance bet, whereas if you bet straight on all the sixains, obviously you'd lose the lot.

So this doesn't seem too bad, but I was unhappy as one single loss would knock me out. Harking back to when I was playing columns, I used to start with 10 units, which in effect gave me 5 positive bets. If I applied the same theory to sixains, I felt that to sit down with 15 units(three positive bets), and go after a win of 10 units should work.

The idea being to play as I did with the columns (i.e. when a loss occurs play again, if you get another loss after (rare, but does happen), you're wiped and have to go home. The idea is to play until you have either made 10, or lost sufficient that you can't cover the next bet, (i.e., you've lost 12 units, and need 5 to cover the next bet). Pick up the remaining 3 and walk.

Now I'm not going to lie to you and say that this works like a bomb in a real Casino, as I haven't got that far yet, but I tried it in simulation over 400 simulated days play, which is a good many thousand spins. The rules were, either walk with 10 units or accept the loss.

I have a book with some 600 or so spins recorded from an actual Casino, and I used these. The rest of the numbers were generated from a Roulette Wheel site I found on the net. (Incidentally this was a double zero wheel, and I did count the double zero every time it came up, so the odds were slightly worse for me than they should have been)

The results over these 400 games were encouraging, yielding a profit ratio of 3.1 units per playing session, this obviously taking all losses into account. The ratio fluctuated up and down a bit, but mostly hovered around the 3 mark. If this can be achieved, and you use a big unit bet, you could make some serious money.

Which numbers do you bet. I think it doesn't matter. This little ball has no memory. For the purpose of the simulation I bet against the sixain that had come up last (i.e. if 1 - 6 came up, I'd leave it out for the next spin, and back all the others).

My thought is that if the ball has no memory (excluding dealer biases and so on), then each spin is fresh. If you treat each spin in isolation, you have an 81% chance of winning each time. True, when you win, you only win one but when you lose, you lose 5. None-the-less I feel the approach should be that it is a numbers game, and you are after a positive percentage of all the money you put on the table, regardless of whether you win or lose on an individual spin.

After all, that is how the Casino operates. If they see you put $100 down on a table, they immediately say "There's $15 or $20 for us, regardless of Whether you go on to win or lose, because guaranteed, just across the room there is some other person who's losing while you're winning, or winning While you're losing.

"You can do some quick simulations of this idea by playing just numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you will find that they will only come out just under 1 in 7 spins. So now you have to look at the staking plan as this is the main part of the strategy. If you only win on the 3rd, 4th or 5th spins then your profits will not be too great, should a number of blank plays occur."

Bob, I agree with you 100% as far as you went:
- yes, any five numbers work (I adopt the opening spin numbers)
- five numbers = 5 / 37 chance (single zero wheel) = just under 1 in 7 chance
- but the house pays the equivalent of only 5 / 36 for a win
- so, under The Law Of Great Numbers we must lose two and one half percent each time the wheel spins = no profit
- and, I believe it's impossible to design a flat betting system to both overcome the house odds and turn a profit.

But, this system (which I've renamed "Ambush") relies on these critical elements

1). Stop betting after 5 spin losses. Restart after any one of the five Trigger numbers comes up (as you observed)
2). Bet / Bank ratio of 250 to one (two games by five numbers = 10 chips = 2,500 bank)
3). Increase the stake by 1 chip after the financial equivalent of each 15 spin losses
4). Play two of these games separately but simultaneously
5). End the session immediately upon winning no less than 100 chips

As to those elements, in above order:

1). We know in roulette that any given group of numbers will run "hot" or "cold" and we know too well that most money is lost in "cold " runs. So, "stop-start' betting avoids cold runs while waiting in "Ambush" for the hot run which will definitely come up sooner or later.

2). And we all know that the hot run will occasionally come up much-much later.
So, one obvious purpose of the Bank is to ensure we are still at the table when the hot run does come along.

3). And we know that the above will result in the usual two and one half percent loss on turnover to the house if we flat bet. So, a further purpose of the Bank is sufficient chips to gradually increase the size of our bet while waiting in Ambush for the hot run. By this means we hope to defeat that bloody Law Of Great Numbers on the basis that we need fewer win spins than prior loss spins in order to recoup cumulative losses and walk away with profit.

4). Playing two games simultaneously merely results in flushing out a hot run in less spins than in playing one game (but also increases required Bank size).

5). Reason for quitting at 100 chip win is obvious to a seasoned player.

But in logic, no method should defeat that bloody Great Law Of Numbers. So, how come I have never failed to get my 100 chip target win without busting my 2,500 chip bank, at least so far in some 40,000 actual table bets?