Tips and strategies to help make you a winning casino player
Best Casino Bonuses - NEW!
Gambling News - NEW!
Please tell all
your friends about it.
Below is a selection of the most
Thursday, October 28, 2004
So far most of the questions concentrated on Method 2 of FRS - my Favorite Roulette System, which requires a large bankroll to have it unbreakable.
For the ones who do not wish to use a large bankroll, Method 3 is available, where your bets never exceed 5 or 6 units. Sessions end at either +10 unit profit or at -20 unit loss, whichever comes first and you are to get many more +10 unit sessions than -20 ones, which makes this method a long run winner, the concept of which can be applied to almost any system, that has a progression of some sort.
This week's newsletter focuses on this method and answers your particular questions about it.
Q. Hi Izak,
Very impressive stats for all 3 methods. What is the highest drawdown experienced for Method 3 during your 100,000 spin test? Would your recommended 60 unit bankroll be sufficient? On average, what would one make (net) per hour playing Method 3 with $5.00 units in B&M casinos on 00 wheel?
How would I be able to test each method (other than playing at an online casino) without Excel. I do not have the roulette tester book.
A. 60 units should be sufficient for Method 3, even though you could have one back-to-back loss causing a drawdown of -40. If you have it up front, then followed by 4-5 winning sessions, that will be the only drawdown you will encounter, unless you are really unlucky, which I hope not. Playing $5 units, you should be able to make about 10 units per hour, or $50 an hour on either wheel. 00 wheels just slow down the winning process a bit, but not much.
My simulation in Excel automates the testing process. If you donít have Excel, you will have to run the tests manually, which is time consuming. You could copy and paste the Zumma numbers from Excel into a notepad or Word document. In Excel, there is a graph provided showing you the results. You will be stunned with what you will see. No other system has been able to produce a graph going linearly up most consistently (Method 2). I donít have a simulation for Method 3. I have performed that test manually myself.
Q. Hi Izak,
Thanks for your response. What was the largest drawdown in your 15,000 spin test? Since you tested this manually (ouch), what sort of documentation did you maintain and in what format?
You appear to be hedging a bit, when you say that 60 units should be sufficient for Method 3. However, I realize that one would have to incur the losses up front, with few if any winning sessions to offset the drawdown.......and this is highly unlikely.
I am curious about your statement that 00 wheels just slow down the process, with no difference in the winning amount. Please clarify. Thanks.
A. The only documentation I kept from Method 3 tests are included within FRS. It is indeed very unlikely to end up at -60 up front with this method. It simply will not happen. Itís statistically almost impossible.
The performance of FRS is not affected by 00 wheels. On the contrary, some events are more favorable in 00 wheels, because of the bet selection and the number distribution on the wheel. Another advantage of 00 wheels are that you can bet with lower amounts. And one final advantage of 00 wheels are Wild American type of variation of Roulette, where if a 00 comes you actually win your bet on even chances. This exists in GPC.
Q. Could you describe the documentation for Method 3 which is included with FRS? Also please answer my question regarding the highest drawdown experienced during 15,000 spins. How many individuals are playing Method 3? I would like to see more testimonials from people playing Method 3.
A. The documentation of Method 3 included with FRS is very elaborate. It gives lots of examples taken directly from the Zumma Roulette tester. It shows at least 6 sessions fully described with step-by-step details. For method 3, there is no drawdown, you simply stop the session and stop using the system when you are at -20 and start over. The goal is +10 units per session with a -20 stop loss.
A lot of individuals are starting to appreciate Method 3. I just got the email below from a very happy customer:
Many thanks for the prompt response in sending FRS a few days ago. After reading through the documentation, I immediately liked the look of method 2 and have been playing this online at Ladbrokes casino here in the UK.
I organized my sessions into games of 100 spins each and have played 5 games so far, results below:
Starting Bank: 500 units
Game 1 - 100 spins -
42 units profit
End Bank: 705 units
Total Profit: 205 units.
This has been a fairly easy going experience playing method 2, I've not had to make any large bets so far.
My initial reaction to method 3 was that I found it very confusing, however, I have re-read this a number of times and run a few tests in Excel and it looks to me to be an even superior method to method 2.Ē
Q. Is the bet selection for FRS original and unique or a hybrid from previous systems?
A. The bet selection for FRS is unique and no other system I have so far have used it.
Q. I realize there is no drawdown, as you simply start over at -20 or +10, and there is a factor of 5 wins to 1 loss, on average.
So I will rephrase my question. You most likely experienced some rough spots during your 15,000 spin test wherein you did not average the 5 to 1 ratio, but had more -20 losses that usual. What is the worse scenario you experienced with regard to win/loss ratio?
A. I understand your question. But I have previously answered it with the back-to-back loss issue and I said there were 2 back-to-back losses, thus causing a drawdown (if you like) of -40 units.
If the drawdown is relative to the very beginning, then there was no drawdown, as the first 7 sessions of the test were positive giving you +70 units up front. Or the drawdown was only within the very first session of 4 units before you reached your very first +10. I hope this answers your question. However, if I had a different set of 15,000 spins to test manually, I could have had a situation where the losing session begins up front with -20. But that should not discourage anyone, as the 5 to 1 win to loss ratio is a solid average over 15,000 spins.
Q. You answered all my questions very well, including the back-to-back losses. We are not quite on the same page, however, with respect to determining the worst won/loss ratio experienced during your 15,000 spin test. You indicated, on average, that Method 3 performed at a 5 to 1 win to loss ratio for 15,000 spins. However, there were peaks and valleys during the test.........and my question refers to the worst series of sessions ( let's say we took an average ratio every 50 sessions or so ) in which the system performed subpar at perhaps a 3 to 1 win to loss ratio for maybe several hundred spins or so. If I played only 20 sessions, I might have an 8 to 1 win to loss ratio or a 4 to 1 or any other ratio This can be important when playing just a few sessions, so expectations will not necessarily focus on only a 5 to 1, which was calculated over thousands of decisions, but on a range which will vary for short term play. So that is the essence of my question. I hope it makes sense to you.
A. I understand now very well what your question is and itís a very good question. Itís true that a 5 to 1 loss is only an average. On the 15,000 spin test you could have for a certain period of time an 8 to 1 losing session and also a 1-1 losing session. I was having dinner tonight and I looked at a salt dispenser that my wife bought. It had some proportion of pepper in it. We also have two separate dispensers, one for salt only and one for pepper. If I added some pepper grains into the salt and not mixed it, I would have only salt coming out of it for quite a while and then a lot of pepper. If I had mixed it, I would have an equal proportion of salt and pepper. Now, thatís exactly what your question pertains. If the spins are mixed properly, you would have close to 5 to 1 proportions, rather than a lot of 10-1 and 1-1 sessions. Since roulette is a random game, itís easy to expect that. Now, to the actual tests, I have observed some mixed ratios here and there, the worse scenario being one lost session verses 2 losing ones and the best one being 8 winning sessions versus 1 losing one, which I presume is the kind of answer youíre expecting.
Q. Hi Izak,
I just purchased the Zumma roulette tester, where you tested 15,000 spins on Method 3. I am intensely interested in this system. Therefore, I want to know how well it performs under all conditions. Do you consider Method 3 your best system for conservative play?
Please answer the
following questions regarding your test of 15,000 spins for Method 3.
A. It takes about an average of 50 spins for 1 session to terminate with either +10 or -20. Within 15,000 spins, that means I had about 300 sessions. Out of 300 sessions, there were 50 losing sessions at -20 and 250 winning sessions at +10. This gives you +2500-1000 units profit. So the win to loss ratio is as mentioned before. There were 8 back-to-back losses of 2 and 4 back-to-back losses of 3.
Q. Same question while playing online for several months.
A. I havenít used Method 3 much on-line, but in land based casinos with $25 units. On-line I used mostly Method 2, which profited 21,850 units playing with $1 chips and never busted my bankroll.
Q. Did you bet continuously without skipping spins? If so, why do you recommend taking a break after a winning session? If not, how many spins did you skip to simulate a break after a winning session?
A. I recommended the break for both physical and psychological reasons. One must rejoice the winning of +10 units at the end of the session and have some satisfaction before continuing. Otherwise, playing continuously or not doesnít make any difference. I did not simulate a break in the simulations. It was continuous play all the way long.
Q. In your last email, you mentioned that in real life, one encounters 2-3 back-to-back losses. Are you now saying that Method 3 can have 3 back-to-back losses? If so, your recommendation of 60 units might not be sufficient, if the losses occurred at or near the beginning of play. Your comment, please.
A. In my own experience, I was way up before I could lose a 60 unit bankroll. I recommend one can start with 60 unit bankroll. To lose all 3 -20 sessions up front is extremely unlucky, but I canít deny its possibility.
Q. We know the average is 5 wins versus 1 loss over 15,000 spins. However, it is much more important to know how one would fare in short term play. Therefore, how would a player do if he played 100 spins (about 2-3- hours) and then went home? And each day played another 100 spins until he completed 150 sessions of 100 spins.. How would this player do each day? Are there days that a player would encounter a loss, and if so, how much?
A. There could be some days with losses. I would stop if I would have a back-to-back loss, which would cause the loss of 40 units. But again, this doesnít mean it will happen as soon as I start playing. It could happen after 3-4 winning sessions. Even then one breaks even.
Q. All these questions are designed to determine the merit of Method 3 as a professional winning system. Any additional info. is welcomed.
A. Method 3 is an excellent way to use FRSís betting selection without risking a huge bankroll, thus being able to utilize larger betting amounts and reaching a faster profit level in a shorter time frame.
Q. How does your answer to my previous question calculate to winning at least 10 units per hour?
If you played 5 sessions per day, how many losing days were there during the 15,000 spin test, and what was the highest amount loss?
Do you consider Method 3 your best system for conservative play.......and why or why not? Thanks.
A. You get 1500 (2500-1000) units in 15,000 spins, averaging 1 unit every 10 spins. If 100 spins take an hour, you make 10 units per hour.
Some days will be losing ones as the -20 unit session could take place back to back. Itís enough to have 3 -20 units session to end at -40 (with 2 winning sessions).
However, in average one still profits 25 units per 5 sessions (1 losing session of -20 and 5 winning ones at +10, profiting 30 per 6 sessions and 5 units per session).
I have more conservative systems, such as Magic Five, where you risk 3 units in order to make 1 unit per session. FRS Method 3 is simply quite different than all other low bet methods and very original in its unique idea.
Click here to order. The system is as low as $125.
Play FRS on-line at CasinoLasVegas with 1-300 Roulette range.
Wishing you all the best,
If you missed any newsletter, click here for an archive.