Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 15882 times)

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #105 on: March 16, 2017, 09:53:30 PM »
Nice one Bayes  !
 
The following users thanked this post: jekhb76

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
  • Thanked: 378 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #106 on: March 16, 2017, 09:58:26 PM »
@ palestis, a query.  After a win or an "abort" by rule 3 (stop if the first 2 bets after the trigger result in XX ) in your view is it better to collect spins until you are 3 spins "clear" of the trigger before looking for the new trigger?
@ Bayes
When you encounter a situations like this, you have to stop and think for a moment to figure the previous situation,  if it is worth it to continue based on numbers that have already been accounted for.
Since there is no shortage of triggers, the best thing to do is leave everything behind and start fresh.
Very soon you will find a new trigger. You are not missing anything. It also gives you the chance to get away from questionable conditions.
I have tested about 30,000 numbers from various score cards and another person that also checks it about 40,000 numbers.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, juice, jekhb76

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Thanked: 536 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #107 on: March 17, 2017, 09:12:04 AM »
Since there is no shortage of triggers, the best thing to do is leave everything behind and start fresh.

Ok palestis, thanks. I'll code the tracker to only look for a new trigger 3 spins after the old one, that way there won't be any ambiguity. There will be no shortage of triggers if I include some double streets.
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, Reyth, jekhb76

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
  • Thanked: 158 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #108 on: March 17, 2017, 03:50:31 PM »
Kkav I am extremely pissed off. Twice I have written long posts only to be told J do not have the right to post. I am away from home and working with an old tablet that was rejected as obsolete by my primary school granddaughter. Hours wasted !!

       I will keep this shorter. Bayes raised the question of using DS . This system was designed around the use of DS. In collaboration with Pal it was adapted to work with his intermitant style.
        As Bayes pointed out there are 15 possible DS dozens. SSO there isenty of choice. If we exclude the natural dozens 12,34,56. I prefercto combine DS 1,2,3. with DS 3,4,5.In this way each dozen with include 6 R&B. O&E. H&L. Research has shown that this distribution improves slightly on the performs CE of the natural dozens.
          I use "Flow" as WL as the "Rule of Thirds" this means that I try to flow trends by using the last 3 numbers spun as a possible trigger. This often results in a string of single spin wins.
           I use a 5 step progression which is an "Insured Martingale", designed to tailor the payback to the expectancy. This greatly reduces the number of progression losses, and improves the W/L ratio. So I do not increase my basic bet after a loss. I let the W/L ratio take care of recovery. This keeps the B/R required small.
        I was recently asked if I knew anything better. Frankly I don't. I may sacrifice a few wins to recover a loss, but there are plenty of triggers and wins out there.
                 Harry

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth, jekhb76, TERMINATOR

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #109 on: March 17, 2017, 04:24:08 PM »
Wow.  Alot of people will like the flat betting for the recovery.
 
The following users thanked this post: jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Thanked: 289 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #110 on: March 17, 2017, 06:50:27 PM »
Harryj, I'd like to read more about how you play your strategy. Can you get more specific? Thanks.
 
The following users thanked this post: jekhb76

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Thanked: 536 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #111 on: March 19, 2017, 10:47:10 AM »
I did another short test using the tracker. 198 spins and 34 units profit. The worst stretch was 3 consecutive losses.

@ Palestis, do you have any stats on the percentage of wins over all your tests? If the system has any flat bet advantage it should return a winning percentage of more than 69% on a single zero wheel assuming each "attack" after a trigger is 3 spins long.

You mentioned that you tested over 30,000 spins. Is that spins or actual bets? What was the longest run of consecutive losses? Thanks.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Thanked: 536 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #112 on: March 19, 2017, 12:50:54 PM »
The Holloway progression works quite nicely with 2-1 bets and is quite conservative:

1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,25,28

Reset on a new high, or go back 2 steps on a win.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
  • Thanked: 378 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #113 on: March 19, 2017, 01:08:35 PM »
@Bayes.
I can't think of any flat bet advantage because I haven't tested it that way.
Actually I don't even test it with the final win /loss amount of chips in mind.
My main concern is how many BACK TO BACK losses I encounter. That is y, testing as many spins as  possible is extremely important.
Because I know if 3 back to back losses are the rare maximum, then it is obvious that you can never lose. (provided you have a sufficient B/R and the guts to go with it). 
3 back to back losses for a single dozen (9 spins), is not nearly as bad as 3 back to back losses for EC (at 3 bets per EC). (not to mention 24+ numbers).
I encountered 4 back to back losses once, and the 3 back to back losses were extremely rare (with many wins in between.
But in the case of 4 back to back losses they were well within the exception rules, as well as well the majority of 3 back to back losses.
In fact I have the record of the 4 back2back losses that I encountered, and as you can see it is clear that in actual plat it would've been prevented.
The red flags are very obvious.
I think the trigger ( XXY), that makes this possible, must be very powerful , because of the way dozens behave.
Once the maximum back 2back losses are established, the progression is a personal matter. 
Can you really think of a situation where someone with $5000 B/R and $5 minimum starting chip, can lose? Not even with 8 back to back losses and  Martingale style progression for a single dozen.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 01:16:45 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Thanked: 536 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #114 on: March 19, 2017, 01:52:08 PM »
I agree that number of back to back losses is the overriding factor when using a progression.

Can you really think of a situation where someone with $5000 B/R and $5 minimum starting chip, can lose? Not even with 8 back to back losses and  Martingale style progression for a single dozen.

But if using a full martingale progression the limit would be more like 4 back to back losses. If 8 occurred it would take you well over the house limit.

4 losses x 3 spins per attack = a progression of 12.

A full marty is 1,1,2,3,4,6,9,13,20,30,45,68, and continuing on the stakes really start to get silly.

Not that I would ever use one though...
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 01:55:08 PM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Thanked: 536 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #115 on: March 19, 2017, 02:09:17 PM »
A maximum of 4 back to back losses seems remarkable, it corresponds to a max losing streak of 12, when we know that for a dozen it can go to 30+. The trouble is that these high variance outcomes don't tend to show up until you've tested many thousands of spins. I'm assuming that the variance of the bet is no lower than a random bet, which may not be the case - in fact it can't be so if the max losing streak is only 12.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #116 on: March 19, 2017, 02:11:41 PM »
You need millions for the worst but of course when we have an event that is ###,###  (not the worst) and we double our bankroll in events that are in the ###, the very statistically rare events don't matter, as long as we are willing to surrender a bank without a further escalating fight about it.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 02:14:27 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes

TERMINATOR

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Thanked: 289 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #117 on: March 19, 2017, 05:28:32 PM »
I tested 5 games so far (manually). It was doing awesome, until my 5th game. The last game I played, I lost 7 progressions in a row (at the 64-64-128 level). I was playing Dozens and Columns at the same time, and the Columns category is the one that lost (the Dozens did a profit).

With your strategy, it should not matter whether we play Dozens or Columns, right?

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Thanked: 697 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #118 on: March 19, 2017, 11:55:24 PM »
1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,25,28
Reset on a new high, or go back 2 steps on a win.
I agree that this is an amazing progression for a Dozen.
However I find unbelievable that Palestis managed to turn the max unhit limit of 12 numbers from well over 20 spins to only 12.
I understand that the rules are a bit complex so it can't be easily programmed for a 50K test.
Therefore I'd like to ask Palestis, if we ignore the exception rules, what would be the maximum of back to back losses? 5?
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
  • Thanked: 378 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #119 on: March 20, 2017, 12:35:45 AM »
@ Kav.
As a matter of fact I always ignore the rules, but only  for testing purposes.
(Paying attention to the rules will significantly slow down the testing, as I do it manually).
Then,  whenever I see 3 or more  back to back losses I circle them and go back later to see if the violation of the rules was the culprit. And sure enough it was in the 4 back to back case and I would say 80% of all 3 back to back losses, and quite a few cases of 2 back to back losses.
So you have ample warning before you decide to bet. 
So far I have only seen one case of 4 back to back which I posted in the picture a few posts above.
And that was while ignoring the rules. Never seen 5. Again without compliance with the rules.
Computerized testing summarizes the back to back losses, but I am not sure if it pinpoints where they happened, so you can go back to that spot investigate it.
In actual play you have full view of the previously spun numbers, and whenever they fall under the "no bet" rules, it is obvious, and therefore easy to avoid by skipping spins.
I guess the great advantage of this system is that it warns you ahead of time of an impending bad situation.
Many systems do not provide the advantage of early warning signals. So you basically proceed blindfolded.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 01:01:18 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav