Roulette Re: Random Thoughts


Trusted Member
Here's the old post on stitching bets... seems pretty similar to what I did above? And where's the dependency here?

"But stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.
Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.

25 - 1 unit on red. Win.
27 – Place both units on blck. Loss.

7 – 1 unit on red. Win.
29 – 2 units on black. Win. We got the win at odds of 3/1

4 – 1 unit on red. Loss

27 – 1 unit on red. win
10 – 2units on blck. Win. We got 3/1 odds

28 – Won this sequence

27 – lost this one

16 - lost

20 - won

This is not a progression. This is not letting it ride. This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return. Now the possibilities are endless and everyone can create opportunities based on their comfort and style of play. You can create dozens, quads, splits, all possible odds through stitching together these components.

Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example. Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points? This would appear to be in the same context as stitching dozens together in a cycle to achieve a specific cycle length event. " (page 5)

Continue reading...