Here's the chip ratio I'm trying in the latest simulation with singles turned on throughout phase 1 and phase 2 based on the 8 spin cycle:
PHASE 1
&assign(?schips?,1.75)
&assign(?dchips?,2)
PHASE 2
&if(?spinx?<38)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,5.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<36)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,4.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<35)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,4)
}
&if(?spinx?<34)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3.75)
}
&if(?spinx?<33)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3.50)
}
&if(?spinx?<25)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3)
}
&if(?spinx?<23)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,2.5)
}
&if(?spinx?<18)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,2)
}
&if(?spinx?<9)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1.5)
}
&if(?spinx?<6)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<3)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1)
}
Although this is now becoming a progression am I thinking along the right lines or should I be looking more at the tally for each individual set?
Perhaps this could be used as a base, but we can do better still on an individual basis; for example, the worst set was 28:
The Singles/Doubles tally/sequence I haven't analysed, but looking at the general counter there are way too many singles and not enough doubles by spin 37. If we were to change (should have been recognised before spin 37) and bet on doubles only, the next 3 wins all turn out to be doubles!
Attached: +1,500 in 2,000 spins! Note: there's one little bug where the chip values sometimes get swapped between the singles and doubles due to "overcrowding" (will be fixed soon - shouldn't affect the profit a great deal).
I'll look to be moving onto 4 spin cycles next as that might yield more profit and less drawdown.
PHASE 1
&assign(?schips?,1.75)
&assign(?dchips?,2)
PHASE 2
&if(?spinx?<38)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,5.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<36)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,4.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<35)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,4)
}
&if(?spinx?<34)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3.75)
}
&if(?spinx?<33)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3.50)
}
&if(?spinx?<25)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,3)
}
&if(?spinx?<23)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,2.5)
}
&if(?spinx?<18)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,2)
}
&if(?spinx?<9)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1.5)
}
&if(?spinx?<6)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1.25)
}
&if(?spinx?<3)
{
&assign(?schips?,1)
&assign(?dchips?,1)
}
Although this is now becoming a progression am I thinking along the right lines or should I be looking more at the tally for each individual set?
Perhaps this could be used as a base, but we can do better still on an individual basis; for example, the worst set was 28:
The Singles/Doubles tally/sequence I haven't analysed, but looking at the general counter there are way too many singles and not enough doubles by spin 37. If we were to change (should have been recognised before spin 37) and bet on doubles only, the next 3 wins all turn out to be doubles!
Attached: +1,500 in 2,000 spins! Note: there's one little bug where the chip values sometimes get swapped between the singles and doubles due to "overcrowding" (will be fixed soon - shouldn't affect the profit a great deal).
I'll look to be moving onto 4 spin cycles next as that might yield more profit and less drawdown.