7. Other Systems

Besides the Martingale, the Labby and their variations, there are other systems with elaborations that have attracted many players and are used to considerable extent. One group operates on the theory that any pair of so-called "Equal Chances," such as Red and Black, or Odd and Even, naturally tend to counter­act each other.

Of course, the 0 and 00 have a say in this, but there is a way of getting around them; in fact, they are somewhat ignored by the player who is gripped by the "equalizer" notion. Statistics do show that after a long series of plays there is not apt to be much difference in the number of times that two opposites ap­pear.

A scientific survey conducted at Monte Carlo many years ago showed .003 difference between Red and Black over a series of more than 16,000 plays, so anyone who thinks that he can clean up by constantly playing one color at the expense of the other will get nowhere in the long run unless chicanery happens to be involved; but that is something to be taken up later.

For the present, we may go on the opinion of one veteran casino operator who was quoted as saying:

"If any honest wheel began showing a steady 3 to 4 per cent edge of one color over the other, it would be a sure bet that some smart system player would spot it and the word would spread so fast that they'd all be playing the winning color before the house even guessed what was up."

Since opposites have proven their ability to cancel each other out, why not develop a winning method of play based on that very fact? That's exactly what some keen minds have tried to do, through:

The Flat Stakes System

Though actually based on the equalizing process, this is called the "Flat Stakes" because the player always makes the same "flat" wager. Thus the play can never get out of hand as with the Martingale or even the Labby. But if a player simply stays on one color, or even alternates them—first Red, then Black—he will still lose on Zeros.

One scheme is to watch the play until one color, say Red, has piled up three wins in a row. Then a bet is made on Black, the idea being that the longer the run, the more likely it is to break. By waiting for runs of four or five, then betting the opposite color, the chance for the break is even greater—so some people think.

Their thinking is incorrect. It doesn't matter whether one color has had a run of three or twenty-three, the odds are even that it will come up again on the next play. The same applies, of course, with High-Low or Odd-Even if the run occurs with one of these.

Should three Reds be followed by another Red, players fol­lowing this system keep playing Black figuring that each suc­ceeding turn is still heavier in its favor. Once Black hits, they watch for another run of three. It can be Red or Black, High or Low, Odd or Even. Always, beginning with the fourth play, they choose the opposite and stay with it until the break. Then they watch for another run of three.

Taking a look through our Sample Chart we find these results following various runs of three:

IN BLACK: Red hit the 4th play 5 times:    Win 5

Red hit the 5th play 2 times:                                0

IN RED:                                                    Black hit the 4th play 3 times:          Win 3

Black hit the 8th play 1 time:                      Lose 3

IN HIGH:                                                  Low hit the 4th play 1 time:  Win 1

Low hit the 6th play 1 time:                        Lose 1

IN LOW:                                                   High hit the 4th play 7 times:            Win 7

High hit the 6th play 1 time:                        Lose 1

IN ODD:                                                   Even hit the 4th play 4 times:           Win 4

Even hit the 5th play 1 time:                               0

Even hit the 7th play 1 time:                        Lose 2

IN EVEN:                                                  Odd hit the 4th play 2 times:            Win 2

Odd hit the 5th play 2 times:                               0

Even ran out on a 4th play:                         Lose 1

Total                                   WIN: 22 Units.      LOSS: 8 Units.

FINAL PROFIT: 14 Units.

Despite the apparent fallacy of this system the figures with this particular set of plays are quite impressive. They should have come about equal; instead the system shows a winning advantage of nearly 2 to 1. That, however, helps to emphasize the error of depending on any series of plays as a standard. Somebody might come up with another set in which this sys­tem took a bad beating.

Of course, there might be something peculiar about the wheel on which these 80 plays were thrown. As we said before, we'll be coming to that later. Meanwhile, note this factor in relation to the wheel. In the system just described, there is, of course, no play on the sequences that are "building up" to three. It's only when they've gone that high that you try to topple them.

This means that Zeros (or Double Zeros when they appear) are ignored during the "build-up" process as there is no bet underway. But when the payoff comes, you must figure Zero as a loss.

This is quite simply illustrated:

On the chart, Black built up a sequence of three on the 7th, 9th and 10th plays, only to be nicely spiked by a Red on the 11th. The 8th play was ignored because the Zero came up and it had absolutely nothing to do with the building up of Black. There the Zero was strictly neutral. But:

After High had built up a "three sequence" on the 59th, 60th and 61st plays, we were ready with a bet that Red would appear on the 62nd. Instead, up popped the Zero. Since it wasn't a Red, it had to be accepted as a loss.

So the "house number" can be both helpful and harmful in this type of play, which is at least encouraging, as it is an out­right menace where every other system is concerned, except those that specialize in playing the Zeros themselves, another type of play to be discussed later. At any rate, the Flat Bet System with its unit-by-unit play is well-enough controlled to be worth a try.

There are other ways of applying a "flat bet" to the "equal­izer" theory. One of these is:

The Four-Point Margin

Here, the player starts with a stake of four chips, putting them one by one on any equal chance, say Black. His purpose is to build those four chips into eight so that he can pocket the original stake and start over with what he took from the bank, which is a noble thought, indeed.

But there is more to it than that. Assuming that the trend is toward Black, as in the Master Chart, the player soon makes his required four units—in this case in immediate succession: +1, + 2, + 3, + 4. Now, he figures that the trend will turn, so he simply watches the play, keeping track of Black until it has gone down to nothing.

Study the chart from the 5th play to the 22nd, inclusive, and you will see how it worked in that case: + 3, + 2, + 3, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 3, + 4, + 3, + 4, + 3, † 2, + 3, + 2, + 1, + 2, + 1, 0. This ended appropriately with "zero" because Zeros are counted as losses, even in this mental series, as they help to speed it.

On the 23rd play, an actual bet is made, because Black has been brought back to balance. The chips go on Black, of course, as a swing is expected in that direction. Nor does Black disap­point us. It hits on five of the next six plays: + 1, + 2, + 3, + 2, + 3, + 4, and another profit of 4 units is chalked up.

Starting with the 28th play, the player keeps track but does not bet, as the trend is now toward Red. Here, Black begins to climb (+ 6, + 7) making it look as though an opportunity has been missed. But no: Black drops and never gets higher than + 5 until on the 62nd play, it has fallen to the balance point of 0.

To have won, Black would have had to climb from + 4 to + 8, so nothing has been lost and 4 units have been saved. Be­ginning with the 63rd play, chips are placed on Black again and the score runs — 1, 0, + 1, + 2, + 1, + 3, + 4, for another winning sequence, terminating on the 72nd play.

Bets are then pulled, which works perfectly, because from the 71st play through the 74th, a run of Reds brings the tally down to + 3, + 2, + 1 and 0. The balance has been reached again.

So the chips go on Black, starting with the 75th play, where three straight losses (— 1, — 2, — 3) are counteracted by three straight wins (— 2, — 1, 0); so at the end of the 80th play, bets are still being made on Black, on the theory that it will run up another + 4 margin.

Summarized: Black scored as follows: + 4, 0, + 4, 0, + 4, 0, for a profit of 12 units, with things at balance ending with the 80th play.

The Opposite Play

Now how would it have worked with Red?

On the first series (1st through 4th plays) Red ran into an immediate loss (-1,-2,-3,-4) of 4 units. After such a loss, the play stays on the same color with actual bets, hoping for a comeback. But, again, Red hits a loss of — 4 (5th to 28th plays, inclusive).

That's all the more reason that a swing is due. So again, actual bets are made on Red. It's a long haul, but on the 76th play Red finally comes through with a + 4. Now we have the question: Should actual bets be made, because Red lost two series at the start? Or should a switch be made to the imaginary process?

The answer is: Switch. Always switch after a win, on the theory that good luck won't last through another series any more than bad luck would. In brief: Never bet on a series fol­lowing a + 4 run; but always bet following a — 4.

In this case, the rule may be working for the 77th through 80th plays show Red going + 1, 0, — 1 and — 2, which are all part of an imaginary chain, no bets being made.

Summarized, Red's score was — 4, — 4, + 4, with a "no bet" series under way. Two partners playing both colors would be 12 to the good on Black, 4 out on Red, putting them 8 units ahead.

But there's no guarantee that it will work that well. Suppose a player walked squarely into a run of eight Blacks followed by a run of eight Reds. Playing Black, his score would be 4¯ 4, No bet, — 4, — 4 or a loss of 4 units. His partner, playing Reds, would experience — 4, — 4, + 4, No bet, also a 4 unit loss. To­gether, they'd lose 8 units.

Also: A prolonged alternating run, Red, Black, Red, Black, Red, Black, etc., would keep the score so close to the balance point that the player would be getting nowhere. Of course, some people play on an alternating basis, while others always play for a change of color (Red after Black appears and vice versa) but those sequences can go sour, too.

Your balancing process, mathematicians will tell you, will keep you in business only while brief spasms of luck hold out against the steady drain of the bank's customary percentage.

To stave off that inevitable disaster, some players forego "flat stakes" and use a modified progression while backing the equilibrium theory. This is called:

The Up and Down System

This is just one of the slow progressions that has been ap­plied to the balancing of opposites. Many persons regard it as the best and even critics of the "Up and Down" concede that it may give the player a longer run for his money than most other systems.

The player stars with a bet of 10 units on an equal chance, such as Odd or Even. Every time he wins, he wagers 1 unit less, so that a series of straight wins would run 10, 9, 8, etc. But every time he loses he adds 1 unit to the next bet, a series of straight losses costing him 10, 11, 12, etc.

We have mentioned bets on "Odd" or "Even" in order to use our Master Chart in a simple but graphic illustration of the "Up and Down" system. The plays to be considered are the 61st through the 76th, in which the Odds and Evens equalize:

 Playing ODD                             Playing EVEN

Won                 Lost                 Won                 Lost
1st:                   Odd                 10                   10
2nd:                  Odd                 9                      11
3rd:                  Odd                 8                      12
4th:                   Even                 7                      13
5th:                   Odd                 8                      12
6th:                   Even                 7                      13
7th:                   Even                 8                      12
8th:                   Even                 9                      11
9th:                   Even                 10                    10
10th:                 Odd                 11                    9
11th:                 Even                 10                    10
12th:                 Even                 11                    9
13th:                 Even                 12                    8
14th:                 Odd                 13                    7
15th:                 Odd                 12                    8
16th:                 Odd                 11                    9
TOTALS 82    74        86                    78

Each column shows a profit of 8 units from 16 plays that broke even on wins and losses. That's a 2 unit per play, which is how it's supposed to turn out when a column balances. But a zero adds a loss to either side—or both. The picture is not so rosy when you apply this system to the first twelve plays on the Master Chart, using High and Low.

High shows a win of 48 units on four winning plays, against a loss of 90 units on eight plays that missed, including one Zero, or a deficit of 42 units. Whereas Low, winning 67 units on seven plays, lost 43 units on five plays, zero included, or a gain of only 24 units.

That's why some players like to watch the wheel a while and guess what's overdue, then play it. But they still may win more if they back luck with a system or stay in the game longer when they encounter a losing session.

The author, Sidney H. Radner, testing a "One-Armed Bandit." Another type of slot machine is also shown.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here….