Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 35709 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #285 on: April 02, 2017, 03:45:19 PM »
@ HarryJ
Thanks for clarifying your play, Harry. I see where the discrepancy is now. You accidentally wrote the wrong number that was spun from my Game #3.

Post #280:
Quote
23w target now doz 2(6.3.23)
29
24w in 2 spins target now doz 3(23,29,24)
28w t now doz 2(29,24,28)
35
34

It was actually number 34 that was spun, not 24. And this sequence would have been a 5 spun loss, because all the numbers were H (from dozen 3). It's a simple mistake if you wrote these numbers by hand...no big deal.

Anyway, I replayed my Game #3, using Palestis's Dozen's, but using YOUR progression as used above, and I ended up with a 3 unit win at the end (instead of the 21 unit win from the game that had the wrong number). But, a win is a win!

Also, the longest streak of losses was only 7 in a row (11 unit loss), and THAT hardly did any damage (since you do not increase your bets)! Much better than 17 losses in a row with Palestis's Progression, and another 13 losses in a row after that! That resulted in a 2,538 unit loss, which was my biggest debt I reached in that game.

Wow, look at that difference! 11 units vs. 2538 units. Unbelievable. Of course, we must remember that you had 2 extra betting spins of "insurance". So, whereas you made 5 bets in a row before restarting, Palestis's progression made 3 bets in a row. I do see the positive aspect of those 2 extra bets, Harry. Cool.

I have attached my game here. I'm pretty sure I understand now. If you want to quickly double check it, I highlighted in YELLOW the point in the game where the mistaken number was, so you don't have to bother checking my play BEFORE that point (since it lines up with your game up to that point), just the portion from the highlighted number to the end of my game.

Thanks Harry!

I haven't read your most recent post yet, where you use different Dozens, but I'll do that next and replay another game with both your method and progression. I look forward to it! Thank you.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 05:02:09 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Harryj, pip29, Reyth

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #286 on: April 02, 2017, 06:31:21 PM »
Well, I replayed Game #3 with Harry's Dozens AND progression, with the corrected number, and it was pretty close to what you arrived at, Harry, 24 units!

Here is a comparison of the two games played, both using a different dozen, but the same progression. It reveals a lot!

FIRST GAME:
Using Palestis's DOZEN, but Harry's Progression:

Most Losses in a Row            7   
Largest Debt?                       -10   units
Highest Amount Ahead         9   units

Wins =         38
Losses =      78

Total                  
3 units won         

SECOND GAME:
Using both Harry's DOZEN and Harry's Progression:

Most Losses in a Row            7   
Largest Debt?                        0   units
Highest Amount Ahead         25   units

Wins =         47
Losses =      73

Total                  
24 units won            

In Summery:

The biggest losing streaks were identical for both games, 7 losses in a row.
I never went below my starting chips with Harry's Dozens, but was in Debt 10 units with Palestis's Dozens.
Highest amount ahead during game was 9 units using Palestis's Dozen, and 25 units ahead with Harry's.

But the amazing thing to look at is the total individual wins versus losses. Now, playing the dozens, we should expect for every 1 win we will have 2 losses. That is the odds (not including the zero, of course).

So, the first game we had 38 wins. So, we should expect 76 losses. We actually had 73 losses, which is about the expected outcome.

BUT the second game, we had 47 wins using Harry's Dozens. We should expect 94 losses. However, we only had 73 losses!

In other words, the longest losing streaks were IDENTICAL at 7 losses in a row. And the amount of individual losses were identical, 73 losses. However, the amount of wins were greatly different! 47 versus 38. This is roughly 25% more wins!!! Simply by using Harry's Dozens IN PLACE OF the Roulette Felt's chosen Dozen.

I will definitely be testing more games this way to see if the win /loss ratio is this pronounced in most games played.

Oh, and as a side note, compared to my ORIGINAL Game #3 loss, using Palestis's Dozens and progression (where I reached the 10th level and had a 2,538 unit debt at one point), I had only 12 individual wins. So, we should expect 24 losses. However, I actually had a whopping 59 losses! That is 100% more losses than expected! That is tantamount to saying for every 1 win, I had 4 losses! Instead of the expected 1 win to 2 losses.

Maybe this is why Casinos choose their own Dozens for us to bet on...sneaky bastards.

Harry, I have a question. Other than what you already mentioned, do you use any other Red Flags? What are your stop/loss and stop/win amounts? I believe you already stated you would stop if you lost 20 units, correct? What determines when you stop while winning?

Also, a trigger question. Let's say you made a bet and won. The previous 3 bets are Doz 1,2,and 3, so we go to the next 3 spins. Which are Doz 1,1,1. No bet. Now we go to the next 3, which are Doz 1,1,2.

QUESTION. Would you bet for Doz 2? OR, would you wait for the 5 streak of Doz 1 to END before looking at the next 3 spins for a trigger? (I presume you'd bet the doz 2).

Thanks for sharing this, Harry!

« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 12:26:14 AM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3982
  • Thanked: 1283 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #287 on: April 02, 2017, 06:55:53 PM »
I believe the difference in stats is, in a significant part, due to the fact that Harry has added 2 additional steps to the progression? 

Regardless of what "mentally bootstrapped" critics claim, the longer your progression, the greater chances of getting a hit within the progression series.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
  • Thanked: 502 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #288 on: April 03, 2017, 01:58:04 AM »
This system is basically HARRYJ's discovery.
 I mentioned to him about working on a system using only one dozen bet, and he came up with the trigger YXX. Then I went to work testing.
After long term tests it proved to be a very effective system.
Beyond that,  the system can be adapted to everyone's playing style. Harry likes to sit in one table and remain there for his entire session. Therefore he doesn't have too many choices that the  monitoring of several tables provide. So he has to bet more frequently and take advantage of every betting opportunity. (following the flow).
     Progression is not only a personal choice, it has a lot to do with the starting minimum chip.
Where I am,  the min. chip is $10 in 2 tables and the rest are $15 and $25. . Weekends, and when there are more crowds,  it goes to $15 and $25.
Therefore a 5 step progression can be a serious investment. Especially if one level (5 spins) is lost.
For that reason I limit it to 3 steps. Starting with 1-1-1.50 ( like $10-10-15). instead of 10-10-20.
But since I have lesser chances in 3 steps than in 5 steps, I have to increase the certainty of a hit.
   And there are several ways to do that. At the cost of time.
One is to let the first trigger lose virtually (all 3 steps). Then bet the next 2  triggers.
Since 3 back to back trigger losses are rare, one of the next 2 triggers should result in a hit.
Someone I passed the system on to, has played 45 sessions and won all 45. 10 chips win in every session. Takes him about 4 HOURS to win 10 chips. But his certainty is 100%. 
Another way is to let the first bet lose virtually and then only bet 2 steps to complete the 3-bet cycle.
Or lose the first 2 steps virtually, and then bet 3 spins to complete a 5 bet cycle.
If you are patient, there are many ways to manipulate the bets to increase certainty.
Another method:    If you lost one level (3 spins), you can pick a much stronger trigger the next time. That is  XYZ (3 dozens), immediately  followed by YXX and not XYX or XXY.
This trigger scheme has been tested, and rarely produces  more than 2 trigger losses.
The majority of the time you  win in the first trigger.
Once you recover you go back to your regular betting style.
@ Terminator.
I understand that you need to have a pre chosen formula to test the system using excel.
If you test for along time you will eventually know where you stand, using standardized actions.
At the same time, you will eventually find out what needs to be done to eliminate tough situations that you run into.
Then you can adjust your actions whenever needed.
You just have to explore the various schemes that eliminate possible disasters whenever they are about to happen. But you have to do that before they can happen.
Some of the defenses are  described above.
You or anybody else could very well come up with something even  better.
It is worth the time to devote in exploring it. You just have to think harder.
Frequent betting is not always the best solution. 
Especially when you deal with high value chips.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 02:01:27 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Thanked: 926 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #289 on: April 03, 2017, 09:39:42 AM »
If you know me you know I'm all about recaps, summaries and clear explanations.
I will try to recap here the progressions that were proposed for the Dozen bet. Btw, a bet that interests me very much. Please feel free to correct me or add more detail I may have missed.

Palestis progression (Martingale [1-1-1,5] + D'Alembert [up as you lose]):
2 2 3   
4 4 6
8 8 12
16 16 24
32 32 48
On a Loss you go up the ladder, on a win you go down the ladder
But Palestis also says:
Quote
You don't really have to climb up so abruptly.
After a trigger loss or 2 back to back losses, you can start the new trigger with a slightly higher chip.
And keep it for the next few triggers, until you recovered completely and/or made a profit. Then you revert back to the usual starting chip.
Now the progression is a little blurry....

Bayes (Holloway progression):
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.

Harry's progression:
1 1 2 2 3
Quote
The 5 bets are the complete progression. As I showed I don't need to increase the basic bet. The natural W/L ratio recovers losses without increasing the bet. If a progression is lost I just accept the loss and continue with the same progression. Which is in effect a flat bet.
     If plenty of B/R is available using a second or a 3rd level could be used. If I was to play professionally I would definitely use a second larger progression.
What would be those progressions?

jek's progression Martingale/divisor):
First 3 steps are
1. bet 1 unit
2. bet 1 unit
3. bet 2 units
Quote
If the first 3 bets are lost, the next bet is determined as follows:with a negative balance between 4 to 9 units the balance is divided by 2,with a negative balance between 10 to 21 units the balance is divided by 3,with a negative balance between 22 to 100 units the balance is divided by 4,With a negative balance over 100 units the balance is divided by 5.
If the result of the division is not a whole number, then this number is always rounded up.

From the above, I would go with the Holloway progression as more conservative, or maybe Harry's IF I were sure there is an advantage in the betting trigger.
The reason is that I have seen a dozen appear 1 time in 30 spins in live play. And to tell you the truth I'm not convinced that Palestis and Harry's bet selection can improve so much the non-appearance limits. Although I definitely like the stop-restart-later aspect of their play.

I have my own ideas about a dozen progression, but I haven't done the exact math yet to be definitive. Roughly it would be something like this:
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 8 8
9 9 9
10 10 10
Reset on a new high, go back 2 steps on a win.

Further rules to make it even safer:
If you reached level 5 or above you end the progression not on a new high, but when you minimize your loss equal to the max step you reached. For example if you reached the 6 6 6 step, you end the progression with 6 units loss. You add the losses to the next attack, which starts at level 2.
 
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 12:09:00 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, Bayes, pip29, Reyth, TERMINATOR

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #290 on: April 03, 2017, 12:09:53 PM »
I don't like fixed progressions, preferring to adjust stakes according to (mainly) where I am in relation to my current target, how the session is going, etc. So with that in mind I've changed the progression in the tracker to a simple list of numbers increasing by 1, D'Alembert style. The default is to move up by 1 on a loss and come down 2 on a win, but this can be overridden at any time by highlighting a step. You get a "preview" of what the resulting bank will be using that step, given either a Win/Loss. e.g. in the screenshot the dozen progression has 3 units highlighted, and under the list you see the figures 39/30, meaning that if you choose this stake and win, the bank will be increased to 39 units (33 + 3*2), but if you lose it will be reduced to 30 units (33 - 3).



Regarding targets, I like to aim for an average of 1 unit every 7 spins. That might seem conservative, but if you were to make that flat-betting on a consistent basis it would represent about a 14% edge (1/7 ~ 0.143), but since we're not flat betting the actual ROI will be less, sometimes a lot less.  :)

Personally I find it useful to know where I am in relation to my target at all times; it's helpful when choosing the next stake. so I'll add an indicator for this which increments a count once every 7 spins.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, Reyth

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #291 on: April 03, 2017, 12:10:59 PM »
@ Palestis

Quote
I understand that you need to have a pre chosen formula to test the system using excel.

It’s not a matter of a pre-chosen formula. It is a matter of being consistent with the rules of your system, Palestis. No offense, but every time I showed you a losing session of mine, you would change the way you play it, and violate your own rules. And when I point this out to you, you say something like:

Post #278
Quote
I may have overlooked my rules at some points, in testing your numbers, but that shouldn't penalize the system so harshly.


I believe that consistency is very important. Or, as Bayes said in post #258:

"Guys, unless we're all on the same page with regard to the system rules then there are always going to be sequences which are disastrous for one way of playing but work out great for another. It's no use saying after the fact that "I would have played this or that way", same for reverse engineering."

I cannot help but feel that you are taking my lost games, and are reverse engineering them to make wins out of them. Maybe you are not doing this intentionally, but why not be consistent with your own rules when replaying them?

You keep making the claim that 3 back to back losses are rare. Yet, in my testing, this is actually very common, if I use your methods with all your red flags, as stated in your first post.

Quote
One oversight, or a slight change in version should not render the system ineffective.

But, one small change DOES have a huge impact, Palestis. I played TWO versions of this game. The first one was by playing your method of SKIPPING the first trigger after a 3+ repeating dozen. This did very well! Then, the SECOND game I played exactly the same way, except I played the first trigger, and it lost over 2500 units at one point. This is scary.

Also, when you replayed this game, by starting at a different place and playing differently than your own rules, you end up playing different triggers which drastically alters the game itself.

Quote
You just have to explore the various schemes that eliminate possible disasters whenever they are about to happen. But you have to do that before they can happen.
Some of the defenses are  described above.

Before they happen? Well, maybe you, or someone else, can point out to me, specifically, what I should have done different in my game #3, starting when I had that long losing streak. I also used your YXX safeguard several times, to no avail. And virtual betting would not have helped that much, if I waited for a streak of 3 losses virtually (losing one level) before betting, starting at spin #90, then I still would have had 14 individual losses in a row after that (instead of 17).

Besides, I cannot use a virtual betting method, so skip that. I will be kicked off of my online play if I wait too long before betting anyway.

I have attached the point in my Game #3 where I eventually reached a level 10 progression level. All the spins BEFORE this point were normal, and I was winning a lot. You claim that 3 back to back losses are rare if we use your method and red flags, so what am I missing?  I am playing the way you have suggested, and I DID get many back to back loses.

Here are my comments I made in that game (plus some new ones). Maybe you can show me where I did not follow your red flags or methods correctly?

Game: #3, starting from spin #90.

Spin - Dozen - Target - Amount won/lost] - Comments

11   L                  Notice the YXX trigger here.   
26   H                     
31   H                     
36   H   l   -1               
26   H      -1            Streak of H's
16   M         We play this 1st trigger, because it does not contain any H's from the streak. Notice YXX.
3   L                     
11   L                     
1   L   m   -2               
30   H      -2               
31   H      -2               
14   M                     
32   H                     
13   M                     
21   M   h   -4               
20   M      -4               
22   M                  Streak of M's.
27   H                  First trigger of HHM we skip, because we'd have to bet M
33   H                  HMM we play, because M is not the target. Notice the YXX.
17   M                     
18   M                     
11   L   h   -4               
23   M      -8               
7   L      -8               
28   H                     
20   M                  Another YXX trigger.   
4   L                     
11   L                     
33   H   m   -8               
35   H      -16               
25   H      -16            Streak of H's
15   M                  This MML trigger has no H's, so we bet.
14   M                     
5   L                     
14   M   l   -16               
32   H      -32               
23   M      -32               
1   L                     
4   L                     
22   M                     
35   H   m   -32               
24   M      128 win      
27   H                  First win after 17 losses in a row.   
18   M                     
4   L                     
28   H                     
28   H                     
27   H   l   -32               
35   H      -32            Streak of H's.
1   L                  Must stop betting here, even though we would have won.
34   H                     
17   M                  MLM is the first trigger. We bet because target is not H.
5   L                     
14   M                     
14   M   l   -64               
34   H      -64               
19   M      -64               
17   M                     
33   H                     
15   M                     
10   L   h   -128               
22   M      -128               
10   L      -128               
35   H                     
30   H                     
31   H                  Streak of H's
11   L                     
31   H                     
16   M                     
9   L                     
22   M                     
27   H   l   -264               
22   M      -264               
16   M      -264               
1   L                     
26   H                     
12   L                     
21   M   h   -528               
1   L      -528         At this point, I have a 2538 unit loss      
31   H      1056 win         
28   H                     
8   L                     
22   M                     
30   H                     
2   L                     
32   H                     
5   L   l   1056   win            
34   H                     
24   M                     
15   M                     
30   H   h   1056   win      

Note: I would not have gone over a 500 unit loss if playing for real, but I wanted to see how many back to back losses until I recovered.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 01:11:50 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Bayes, pip29

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Thanked: 926 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #292 on: April 03, 2017, 12:14:31 PM »
The bet selection.

Could it be true that IF there is an advantage in the bet selection process described by Palestis, it is not the specific trigger, but the stop-betting-continue-later methodology?

What IF an advantage appears no matter the trigger (say bet after a hit on the dozen) just because of the "bet-3-times-then-stop" idea?

This correlates nicely with my Skips and series are more balanced? observation.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 12:17:24 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes, pip29, Reyth, TERMINATOR

ignatus

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Thanked: 281 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #293 on: April 03, 2017, 12:29:45 PM »
When all hell break loose there's nothing to do, and no progression can save you. (yes, it do happen!) no matter how clever betselection or clever progression you have. (I should know!).. :s

So, the real question IS what's a good stoploss?
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, Reyth, TERMINATOR, ShadowBlue

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #294 on: April 03, 2017, 12:56:33 PM »
@ Kav

It would be good if we could apply your "Skips and series are more balanced?" observation to this Single Dozens method. I tried following that thread, but it was way over my head...I could not understand the betting method, even though I understood your principle. I'm hoping Juice will post his example in that thread soon!
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #295 on: April 03, 2017, 12:59:13 PM »
Kav, I tend to agree that there probably isn't anything in the specific bet selection which gives an advantage, because any simple and fixed strategy will have the same fluctuations as any other when the outcomes are random.

If you look at the 27 three spin sequences for a dozen bet, two thirds of them will have two of one kind and one of the other (i.e. XXY), so you're more likely to get XXY than XYZ or XXX etc in any 3 spins, but used as a trigger XXY doesn't predict anything, because if your bet is on Y, you're just as likely to get XXZ as ZZY or XXY etc.

There may be something in the stop-continue method though.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, TERMINATOR

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3982
  • Thanked: 1283 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #296 on: April 03, 2017, 02:44:33 PM »
@Term:  Just want to post this now before I forget:

Its ok to have choices as to how one would like to handle a wagering plan; i.e. aggressive, moderate, conservative choices at each "choice juncture". 

100% rigidity is possible but I think Pales is basically showing us that there is a certain "professional gambler's kentucky windage" possible in the process where we are able to make choices based on instinct; kind of like a deer that is in the brush, sticks its nose out to smell for enemies and if it doesn't smell right, it doesn't emerge.

So I think we should understand that about the way that Pales approaches the triggers.

The best way to emulate his approach would be to deeply understand the logical underpinnings of the system and the "instinctual reasons" for the choices he makes.  I think you are doing this perfectly because you are studying everything very closely. 

So like, take a deep breath and meditate on everything that you have learned and let inspirational understanding guide you a bit.

Its even OK for us to use our own instinct and take responsibility for our own decisions! :D

I hope you can feel where I am coming from?

The truth is that it is virtually impossible to create a system that can be followed 100% to the letter on every spin, while allowing it to be simple enough to follow.  This is because there are so many different exceptions and choices available to a high quality system that it must become something personal to the person placing the bets; a human choice based on instinct/emotion/previous experience; sometimes we just "know the best choice" and make it; intuition?

This is why computer simulations lack "the human element" and should be used as tools with that limitation in mind.  A computer simulation will show us where "the human element" needs to be applied, it does not replace "the human element"! :D
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:04:24 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, TERMINATOR

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3982
  • Thanked: 1283 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #297 on: April 03, 2017, 03:00:46 PM »
@Bayes: There may be something statistically to the fact that 2 unique of the dozens must appear before a bet is placed?

I feel this even more strongly with my variation where the missing dozen after 2 unique dozens in 3 spins is the trigger.

One obvious difference is that we are not betting INTO STREAKS because a break is required by the second unique Dozen.

I believe there are "hidden statistical tunnels" that are "entered" by certain decisions that we make; e.g. moving a bet selection, raising/lowering a wagering amount, resetting to a new session, etc.  These "hidden tunnels" are not obvious until they are traversed with conscious/analytical awareness.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:57:29 PM by Reyth »
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #298 on: April 03, 2017, 03:19:33 PM »
I feel this even more strongly with my variation where the missing dozen after 2 unique dozens in 3 spins is the trigger.

Reyth, could you give me a concrete example of one such trigger? Not sure what you mean. Thanks.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3982
  • Thanked: 1283 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #299 on: April 03, 2017, 03:24:20 PM »
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1376.msg20905#msg20905

So an example:

31 2 4 <=== this is ZXX

The missing Dozen is Y and so bet.

31 2 13 <=== ZXY no bet because there is no mising Dozen.

31 30 29 <=== ZZZ no bet because there is no missing Dozen & no 2nd unique Dozen (this is a narrow sideways channel, like in trading).  A principle behind a narrow sideways channel is that the longer horizontally the channel is, the long the breakout will be when it breaks.

Can you "see" the impact of having a second unique Dozen hit before betting the missing Dozen?  I mean to me, it seems pretty powerful.

But I want to be clear that I am not trying to derail this thread, I think the same principle applies to the actual method.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:28:59 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes, pip29