# VERY NEAR THE INFALLIBLE METHOD

In the book "THE COMPLETE BOOK OF CASINO GAMES" the authors explain a method used by a Spanish systemist called García. Taking this method, that we will explain below, as a starting point, the authors elaborate their own system. We will not go into to analyse the efficiency or mathematical base of this last, but we consider its practical application excessively complex. We also take it as a starting point, but to arrive, as we will see later, at quite different results. GARCIA’s roulette system consisted of the following:

If the first play is BLACK, in the following one you bet 1 chip on the break of the series, that is to say, on RED. If the second play is RED you win 1 chip and you restart betting 1 chip on BLACK.

GRAPHIC 2

If the second play has not been RED but BLACK, you bet 3 chips on RED. If the third play is RED you get 2 chips (3 won minus 1 lost in the first play) and you restart betting 1 chip on BLACK.

GRAPHIC 3

If the third play has been BLACK you bet 7 chips on RED. If the fourth play is RED you get 3 chips (7 won minus 4 lost) and you restart betting 1 chip on BLACK.

GRAPHIC 4

If the fourth play is BLACK, you don’t bet more on the break of the series. We’ve had a series of 4. The system expects a series of 7, that is to say, 3 more BLACK. So far the losses amount to 11 units, divided into 3 bets (4, 4 and 3).

GRAPHIC 5

Fifth play: you bet the first 4 units on BLACK. If the fifth play is in fact a BLACK, you bet the following 4 units on BLACK in the sixth play. If you also win then you bet the last 3 units on BLACK in the seventh play. If the game has gone by in this manner you have obtained as net profits all the ones originated by the series of 1, of 2 and of 3 that have appeared until then.

GRAPHIC 6

However, when one of the recovery bets of the plays 5, 6 or 7 fails, this loss is added to the one which still has to be recovered and we restart the cycle betting a unit on the intermittence, 3 units on the break of the series of 2 and 7 on the break of the series of 3, until a series of 4 appears again.

GRAPHIC 7

GRAPHIC 8

GRAPHIC 9

An example, the game goes by with the profits obtained with the series from 1, 2 and 3 until a series of 4 appears. The loss amounts to 11 units. In the following play you bet 4 chips on the formation of a series of 5 and you lost. These 4 chips are added to the previous 11 that amount to a total of 15. The cycle restarts, until a series of 4 appears that will entail another loss of 11 units. This loss will have to be added to the already existing of 15, amounting a total of 26, that will be divided in 3 (9, 9 and 8). In the fifth play we would bet 9 chips on the continuation of the series.

GRAPHIC 10

As we can see, all the system is based on the appearance of a series of 7 or higher. We know that a series of 7 has a possibility of being formed every 247 plays and we have seen that in a sufficiently large number of plays this prediction is true. But, obviously, this fact does not occur regularly and in the same way that we can have 3 series of more than 6 in a sequence of 30 plays, we can also find ourselves having to wait 300 plays until one appears. What are the average losses that you may have to assume waiting for the series of 7?

Working always on the ideal distribution that we know and taking into account that a series of 4 causes that the deficit increases in 11 units more the third part of the already existing one, that a series of 5 does not alter the deficit and that a series of 6 reduces it 2/3 parts, we have to assume losses of around 330 chips with recovery bets of 110. The deficit is not really real since we would have been collecting the profits obtained with the appearance of the series from 1, 2 and 3, and they would be exactly 176 units. Summarising, we would have an effective deficit of 154 chips and to recover we would have to make bets of 110.

All this supposing that every two series of 4 it appears one of 5, and for every two series of 5, one of 6. What does this system require to put it into practice? Two principal requirements, first to have a great capital and second to have nerves of steel to apply it in the game table with real money. But neither of these two requirements would be enough to guarantee the usefulness of the system. The time could arrive, and in fact we have seen it ourselves several times during the tests we made, where the recovery bets surpassed the maximum bet allowed by the table (540 times the minimal bet). And we have also to take into account the appearance of the zero. This factor is the more important the higher the quantities which we can be forced to bet following the system.

2 OBSERVATIONS

- It is a very risky system one that bases all the recovery on a fact that occurs once every 247 plays.
- Setting aside its mathematical possibilities, the system was not making the most of the appearance of the series of 1, 2 and 3. García obtained 1 chip of profit with the series of 1, 2 chips with the series of 2 and 3 chips with the series of 3. But if we apply the progression 3 - 5 - 9, the series of one would produce 3 chips of profit, the series of 2 two, and the series of three 1 chip. The loss caused by a series of 4 would be of 17 units instead of 11.

Obviously, the deficit would increase more quickly, but the system is based on recovering all the losses with the first series of 7 or higher. When the series appears, after the usual 247 plays, the profits obtained with Garcia’s system with the series of 1, 2 and 3 are of 176 units and with our progression they would amount to 272.

GRAPHIC 11

GRAPHIC 12

This is GARCIA’s method. It was necessary to explain it to understand from which starting point we have departed to arrive at the results that, as we will see, do guarantee the success in a percentage near to 100% of the cases and do give us security during the game in comparison to the other class of violent game that guarantees only occasionally this recovery.

To begin with, we will say that if we have to apply a system that bases the recovery of all the losses on a specific fact, we prefer that this fact has more possibilities of appearing than those which had the previous one and that were between 1 and 247.

We pay attention again to the ideal distribution of the series in 247 plays, but now especially in the series of 1. There are 64, but which is their distribution throughout 247 plays? A series does not appear once every 4 plays, neither do appear the 64 together.

Applying the theory of the figures we can begin to know which would be the ideal distribution of these 64 series.

When a series of 1 appears, there is a 50% possibilities that another series of one follows and a 50% possibilities that any other series follows (2 , 3, 4, 5, etc.).

When two consecutive series of 1 appear, there is a 50% possibilities that another series of 1 follows and a 50% possibilities that any other series follows.

When three consecutive series of 1 appear, there is a 50% of possibilities that another series of 1 appears and a 50% possibilities that any other series follows.

And so on....

If we apply this on 64 series we obtain an ideal distribution in approximate groups that would remain like this:

- 16 groups of 1 = 16 series.
- 8 groups of 2 = 16 series.
- 4 groups of 3 = 12 series.
- 2 groups of 4 = 8 series.
- 1 group of 5 = 5 series.

TOTAL: 57 series.

We still have 7 series of 1 left to arrive at the total of 64. If we distributed them following the calculation of probabilities, we could have the following distribution:

- 18 groups of 1 = 18 series.
- 9 groups of 2 = 18 series.
- 5 groups of 3 = 15 series.
- 2 groups of 4 = 8 series.
- 1 group of 5 = 5 series.

TOTAL: 64 series.

We have added two to the groups of 1, one to the groups of 2, and another to the groups of 3. What we want to know now is what right of appearance has every one of these groups in the course of 247 plays. This point is easy to verify dividing the total number of plays by the quantities of appearance of every type of group. These are the results:

- 1 isolated series of 1 can appear every 14 plays.
- 1 group of 2 consecutive series of 1 can appear every 27 plays.
- 1 group of 3 consecutive series of 1 can appear every 49 plays.
- 1 group of 4 consecutive series of 1 can appear every 124 plays.
- 1 group of 5 consecutive series of 1 can appear every 247 plays.

García’s system tried to recover the losses with 3 consecutive bets in the 5th, 6th and 7^{th} plays of a series of 7. The number of series of a given length is equal to the sum of all those of a higher length. This is the same as saying that the series of 1 are in opposition to all the series of 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. together. We will take advantage of this information that the calculation of probabilities gives us to put it into practice in the following way:

- We will not attempt to obtain direct profits with the series of 1.
- We will bet 1 unit on the break of the series of 2, 3 and 4. Each of these series will report us 1 chip of profit.
- We will not bet to obtain profits on the series of 4 or higher.
- We use the series of 1 to recover the losses produced by the appearance of the series of 3, 4 and 5.
- We will attempt to recover the deficit in 2 bets on a group of 2 consecutive series of 1.

But if a group of 2 is valid, it is also valid one higher than 2. If we add all the groups of 2 and higher there is a total of 17 groups that should be used throughout the game to cancel the deficit and leave as net profits the ones produced by all the series of 2, 3 and 4.

A group of 2 consecutive series of 1 or higher can appear every 15 plays. We have already obtained a great advantage, as we do not have to wait for one chance every 247 plays to cancel the deficit; in fact, during the game we will be able to cancel it on average 17 times.

This fact, as we will see in the practical demonstration, makes both the losses and the recovery bets more reasonable in comparison to García’s system and give us more security during the game.