Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 35258 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Thanked: 496 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #315 on: April 04, 2017, 09:41:45 AM »

Yessir!  I am on board with your philosophy of "make 'em beat me on every separate occasion or just pay me!"
This must be the best conclusion for many roulette systems.
Zig zaging many short targets, forces roulette to opposite zig zag your intentions.
You can easily zig zag your targets. But for something to follow your zig zags ( including roulette), it will get "dizzy" before it can catch up with you.
Or simply give up and concede (pay you up).
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 09:43:23 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, jekhb76

moles40

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #316 on: April 04, 2017, 12:11:36 PM »
Wait for two same dozens and one other dozen to hit in last three spins and bet the single dozen to hit in the next three spins ,with progression of 1 1 2 and if no hit keep tracking then bet 2 2 4 ?
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #317 on: April 04, 2017, 06:11:28 PM »
@ Palestis

Thanks for replaying this game #3 again. I understand the reasons why you played it the way you did. But I need to clarify something very important.

If you look at my original Post #245 (page 17), you will see that I played TWO version of this game. The FIRST version is where it did VERY WELL, by always SKIPPING the first trigger.

However, the SECOND version is where the problem was, where we ALWAYS played the first trigger, as long as it had no dozens from the streak before it. This was the disaster game.

The reason I compared both games is because you gave us these two DIFFERENT ways to play your method AFTER a streak.

Now, I appreciate you replaying this game again, but unfortunately, you played it by mostly SKIPPING the first trigger AFTER a streak. I already did this and it did great! (Post #245)

What I wanted to test is your other method, by always PLAYING the first trigger after a streak, as long as it does not repeat a dozen from the streak. You did not play this way in your last replay of Game #3. You also explained this in your replies to KAV, as to you skipping the first trigger, EVEN if the previous dozen streak did NOT appear in the first trigger.

So, in your replayed game, you started by using this trigger:

11-26-31

Then, you only made TWO BETS and stopped (36-26). This is what I did also. So we are on the same page

Now notice there is a streak of 4 H's at this point (26-31-36-26). The first trigger after this streak is:

16-3-11

There are no H's in this trigger. This should have been played, not skipped.

I already played Game #3 by skipping the first trigger, and it did WELL, just like your game did well.

But this game #3 is ONLY testing the method of PLAYING the first trigger.

Remember how everyone was confused because you were playing the first trigger differently from your rules? Then you clarified that it was okay to PLAY the first trigger, as long as it does not contain any dozens from the streak?

This was in your Post #210, where you said:

Quote
"I guess the word  "preceding" caused all the confusion."

Then you went on to give many examples of how to play the first trigger, such as

Quote
Example-1:    12,10, 5, 22,23,35.
Yes in this case we can play after the very first trigger 22,23,35, even if it followed  the LLL streak.
Because neither 22,23 were part of the LLL streak, and neither the target H dozen was part of the streak.

So, I hope this clarifies my position. I understand WHY you skipped the first trigger in your recent game, Palestis, but I was testing it by PLAYING the first trigger, as you suggested in the above post and many others..

Personally, I prefer always skipping the first trigger after a streak, but I was testing it both ways.

Anyway, the way you played it lines up with the way I would have played it also, because I prefer to skip the first trigger after a streak.

Because you chose to play it that way in your recent game, and because I have had more success playing that way as well (by skipping the first trigger after a streak) and because that is how most people in this thread interpreted your original rules, I think it is safe to say that always SKIPPING a trigger after a streak is the better way to play your method, rather than playing the first trigger.

Plus, you said, in reply #307:
Quote
That is how I would play that session. It could be that I would make some number jumps, but I would probably end up with no different results if better.

Since you agree that you would have the same disastrous result if you had played the first triggers also, I think your rule should be changed to reflect this.

Reply #307:
Quote
When I say as part of the rule is to avoid the first trigger after a streak and pick the next one, it means the trigger that is almost glued to the streak. If it came after 5 or more numbers obviously the red flag has in a way expired.   If it follows immediately the streak or  very close to the streak then you pick the next available  trigger.

Palestis, statements like this is  why everyone was confused earlier in this thread. You told us to do this from the beginning of your thread. And this is how I WAS playing your method. Then, you started saying, in Post #210, and many posts prior to that, that you would PLAY the first trigger after it immediately followed a streak, as long as it does not contain any dozens from that streak. This seems contradictory to many readers.

This is what I mean when I show you a losing game I played, you play it differently. I mean, when I had a losing session by skipping the first trigger you played the first trigger instead, and had a winning session. And now that I am playing the first trigger and had a losing session, you are skipping the first trigger and having a winning session.

So, from now on, I am going to be consistent and always SKIP the first trigger. I think your rules should be consistent also, and reflect this as well. And it would avoid confusion among us readers. And would eliminate the possibility of reverse engineering.

I hope I did not insult you or anything, but I am just trying to make your rules clear so everyone can understand them.

Thank you.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 06:25:06 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #318 on: April 04, 2017, 06:30:30 PM »
@ Bayes

Quote
I'm not saying that intuition is necessarily bunk, only that I don't think the "human element" is necessary. This

Yes, I agree that I don't think the human element is necessary, and it can be programmed into a computer. But just to clarify, I was NOT bringing up the argument of intuition. I was only replying to Reyth, who brought up that this is what Palestis was trying to show us.
 
The following users thanked this post: jekhb76

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #319 on: April 04, 2017, 06:36:01 PM »
Because you chose to play it that way in your recent game, and because I have had more success playing that way as well (by skipping the first trigger after a streak) and because that is how most people in this thread interpreted your original rules, I think it is safe to say that always SKIPPING a trigger after a streak is the better way to play your method, rather than playing the first trigger.

 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, jekhb76

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #320 on: April 04, 2017, 06:43:37 PM »
When a system can go more than one way in a decision (and every good system can), even computerized random choice does not replace or duplicate the infuence of a human decision.

Unless Pales himself tells me that he doesn't scan the situation and make an educated decision based on previous experience and an appraisal of the current situation, which can be therefore summed up as "intuition", I will continue to say and believe that he is indeed using intuition to make his choices regarding triggers.

Its not just triggers its also bet amounts too and its not just that its also things like "is 5 spins enough to separate this or do I need more, or is 4 enough here?" which manifest continuously at each decision point.  A computer cannot make actual human quality decisions UNLESS you wish to sacrifice the human element and become robotic instead.

Human consciousness is too rich to cheapen by trying to equate it with a computer simulation.

Computers can help us to be more "responsible" in our decision making process by logically pointing out areas that need better decision making and that is putting a computer in its proper place, which is a tool to be used by humans to improve.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 06:47:06 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, palestis, pip29, jekhb76

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Thanked: 496 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #321 on: April 04, 2017, 09:38:49 PM »
@ Palestis

Thanks for replaying this game #3 again. I understand the reasons why you played it the way you did. But I need to clarify something very important.

If you look at my original Post #245 (page 17), you will see that I played TWO version of this game. The FIRST version is where it did VERY WELL, by always SKIPPING the first trigger.

However, the SECOND version is where the problem was, where we ALWAYS played the first trigger, as long as it had no dozens from the streak before it. This was the disaster game.
Terminator
When I tested the game for a long time I did not use any flags or any exceptions.
And it worked very well except that I run into 3 back to back losses a few times (not frequently enough to trash the system) and one time it was 4 back to back (12 spins).
Because I got worried about that, I looked for clues as to what to do to avoid this situation.
And that's how the red flags came about.
Especially, the situation where a target dozen was in a streak prior to the trigger.
The fact that you did well by skipping the first trigger after a streak, is worth taking notice.

But did you determine if the first trigger to be skipped, that IMMEDIATELY follows the streak,   behaves differently than a trigger that comes after several numbers have past? I figured you run into both situations. Did you make a point to take notice?

If several numbers passed, I assume, that maybe it shouldn't count as heavily. As opposed to forming immediately after the steak. That is y in real play I skip a few numbers deliberately, so I don't have to burden my head with more thinking.

You see, I spent a lot of time testing the system without paying attention to red flags.
Then it became clear that paying attention to the red flags, it reduced the amount of back to back losses ,of 3 or more. ( that is 9+ spins, not 3 spins).
I think the fact that we avoid the first trigger, immediately following  the streak (especially if the target dozen was the streak),  is clear and we all agree.
Now it's the issue of the first trigger being unrelated to numbers in the streak.
In a few tests I found that the first trigger of this kind  won after the steak. Lesser times it didn't. You found that it didn't in the game#3 test. . At this point we are not sure if it is a coincidence one way or the other.
You have done a few tests and you will test more.
I am sure your findings regarding  PARTICULAR issues with some red flags,  will be more important than mine. Because unlike  score card tests, in real live play I skip some numbers to get away from ambivalent situations.

Don't see me as the professor and you as the student trying to learn from me.
It could be the other way around as you spend more time examining the issues whenever they arise.
Don't compare your actions to mine as if I was the higher authority in this system.

I can only claim and vouch that the system works, due to the lengthy tests that I did.
One or two red flags without a doubt do make a big difference.
Regarding the particular details of some other red flags, ( which most of your inquiries refer to), you can be the final judge, and I won't have any problem agreeing  with you or learning from you.
I take the easy way out by skipping spins if in doubt. You extreme attention to detail can yield much better findings. Feel free to post your conclusions.
Ps:
 As far as player intuition, I didn't mean in a way that makes the experienced player the predictor of outcomes. What I meant was that whenever in doubt, (if the numbers  significantly exceed their statistical share, variance if you will), then abandon for several  spins, or change table. 

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #322 on: April 05, 2017, 12:44:31 AM »
Thanks for clarifying, Palestis. I understand your points. You have mentioned to skip numbers many times when in doubt, and I agree that's a good idea. And yes, we are all students and can learn from each other.

Thanks again for sharing, Palestis! We'll keep experimenting and posting results as needed. It IS an exciting system. Harry's as well. Eddy has some great ideas also...worth looking into.

I look forward to hearing from others as well who play this system!

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, palestis, pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Thanked: 496 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #323 on: April 05, 2017, 01:27:37 AM »
HARRYJ came up with the idea and the trigger.
I tested it for a long time. And it works extremely well. Then added some tweaks like the red flags.
Plus the option to use Virtual losses. Then someone, I think it was Lemon, added the idea of using only YXX trigger with the stipulation to follow immediately an XYZ. ( not YXX by itself without being supported by a an XYZ prior to it.). I found that to be a very effective trigger if it came to added certainty after a few progression losses. Despite the extra wait until this trigger happens.
But I wasn't about to test it  for another 6 months to see which red flags and under what circumstances work the best. That is y I have been flexible on that issue as well as the progression issue.
Anybody's ideas can be as valuable as the system's designer.
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #324 on: April 05, 2017, 08:04:48 AM »
Human consciousness is too rich to cheapen by trying to equate it with a computer simulation.

Well I think you're misunderstanding the point I (and TERM, I believe) was trying to make. Computers are amazing tools, but they're only tools and have no initiative or creativity. But once a human has conceived of and designed a system, and tested it (perhaps with the help of computer), the implementation of the system can be left entirely to a computer. Of course intuition can play a part in the design stage, but the trouble is it's often unreliable, especially concerning probabilities, so intuitions should always be checked against reality.

What's the point of bringing in ad-hoc deviations from the system and bets based on "intuition" if prior research and testing has already shown the way? And if the testing shows negative results then intuition can't save you. It just amounts to pure guessing.

Anyway, there's a lot more that could be said on this topic, but I don't want to derail the thread. Perhaps we could start a new thread on "The Human Element".  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, jekhb76

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #325 on: April 05, 2017, 02:16:50 PM »
Maybe every decision can be boiled down to previously grinded statistics but I doubt it and escpecially because statistics are subjective too but ya derailng the thread.
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Divisor for Progression?
« Reply #326 on: April 05, 2017, 07:07:01 PM »
I have a question regarding Palestis's Progression.

1-1-2
2-2-4
4-4-8
8-8-16
16-16-32

Whenever there is a win, but we are still in debt, we replay the current level we are on. SO, for example, if I reach level 5 (16-16-32) and win, I will repeat this level until a new high (or a tie).

Now, my question.

Let's say I WIN on level 5, but I am only 4 unit BELOW my previous high.

It seems like a big risk to start betting on Level 5 again, when we are just 4 units away from starting the progression over again.

What is a good DIVISOR, or method, to know WHERE in the progression level to reduce to? For example, it may be a good idea, instead of replaying level 5, to drop down to level 2 or 3 instead.
Is there some kind of math formula to determine the best level to drop down to?

Thanks.

 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #327 on: April 05, 2017, 07:15:19 PM »
In those situations I would drop back to a level such that the first bet, if it wins, would take you to at least break even. So in your example this would be the first bet of level 2: 2 units.
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #328 on: April 05, 2017, 07:49:37 PM »
Thanks Bayes, I was thinking along the same lines. So, if I was 4 units away from a tie, divide that number by 2 and start at THAT level that begins with a 2 (2-2-4). Thanks!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 07:51:10 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, Reyth, jekhb76

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #329 on: April 05, 2017, 11:02:21 PM »
@ jekhb76

Eddy, Thanks for posting your Whitticker Progression. I'll start giving it a try with my tests. BTW, I sent you an email 4 days ago with some questions about your method, did you get it?

This Whitticker seems very interesting, and able to withstand long losing streaks. Thanks.

For those interested, I made an Excel document with this Progression. I also added mouse over comments to make it easier to use this document.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 02:33:33 AM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: pip29, Reyth, jekhb76