SergeM
The way the digits are distributed in the groups has no bearing other than that's the way the codes
are developed.
Step-1 has 3 choices.
If set to 1 then we are limited to the digits in group 1 or digits (0-1-2)
If set to 2 then we are limited to the digits in group 2 or digits (3-4-5-6)
If set to 3 then we are limited to the digits in group 3 or digits (7-8-9)
Step-2 has 2 choices 1 = play odd and 2=play even
Step-3 has 2 choices 1=lowest remaining digit or 2 = highest remaining digit.
Lets say that I set step-1 to 2, I am then working with the digits in group #2, (3-4-5-6)
Lets say that I set step-2 to 2, I have then reduced the digits in group #2 to (4 and 6)
Lets say that I set step-3 to 1, I now select the lowest remaining digit from step-2, (4)
The step code I chose in the 3 steps is 2-2-1 which decoded = (4) so 4 is the digit I would play.
It's my findings that breaking the digit selection into a 3-step process does better than making
one choice from a pool of 0 to 9. This is nothing new as daily game players have been trying
to select hI/low, odd/even ect.. almost since the game first came into existence. The steps tool
just organizes everything and provides a simple means to analyze the data by using a 3 digit
code.
There are 2 step codes that require two steps settings to reduce to a single value. These are
codes 1-1-1 and 3-2-1. Anytime step-1 and step-2 are both set to 1 then step 3 must be a (1).
If step-1 and step-2 are set to 3-2 then step 3 must be a (1)
I am trying to formulate a betting strategy based on my 18 game test. What I want to do is estimate
the number of lines I need to play over so many games to hit a P-4 straight. I don't want to use the
published odds but create a new set of odds based on my current hit rates as they seem to be consistent.
Using the steps and S/C chart my 3-positional hits are 11 x better than the odds would suggest. I think
I am even doing better than 11 x as on average I am hitting 10 or 11 out of the 12 steps.
I am having trouble with my calculations because of the number of variables. If I select group-2 in step 1
my odds are 1 in 4 for hitting the next two steps but if I select group 1 or 3 in step-1 then the odds are 1 in
4 for hitting steps 2 and 3 except when step-1 is set to 1 and step-2 is set to 1 then the odds are 1 on 2.
It's the same if step-1 is set to 3 and step-2 is set to 2.
I need to reverse engineer a set of odds for winning a P-4 straight based on my hit rates for the 18 game
test.
Lets say we start with a base line for the number of expected step hits is 8 of 12. We have to offset the odds
because the odds for hitting steps 2 and 3 are 50/50 except when the codes for step1 and 2 are 1-1 or 3-2.
If we set the base line at 8 can we throw away those 8 and then set the odds for hitting 4 of 4 based on the
4 remaining steps and their prospective odds. What if we set the base line up to 9? We manage 9 or more
step values over 95% of our plays. Using this information it should be easy to build a new set of odds for
reaching the 12 of 12 hit.
The bottom line of my question is this. If I were working with only 4 steps then what are the average odds
based on some of these 4 coming from a mixture of steps 1, 2 or 3. It seems logical to me that if my average
number of hits, game to game is 9 then I should be able to calculate my odds for hitting the remaining 3 for a
straight hit.
It may be that I am way off in my assumptions but since I have hit 11 of 12 step values 3 times in 18 attempts it
seems logical that a straight hit should not take 10K lines. I could play until I hit but I would much rather have
a number to aim for. If I am wrong I might end up playing 10K lines without a win.
RL