Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 31605 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #450 on: April 22, 2017, 08:56:21 PM »
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1376.msg22034#msg22034



Left click the top line and select "copy link address".
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 08:58:09 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: TERMINATOR

probasah

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #451 on: April 23, 2017, 06:18:02 AM »
Hi Terminator & all

Here is the tracker with Holloway and Palestis Progression.
version 3.0
2 graphs / 2 progressions
added some game data betting statistics
fixed some errors
1008 spins
LW history

I havent programed the palestis variation money management yet but that should not be an issue.

I still do not see any statistical advantage from what i see in this method, as the wins still cover about 1/3 of the betting options. 33% wins for a dozen bet.

you can generate as many LW lists as possible just press f9 or add your spins on the left column.

Please let me know if there is anything you might need.

Regards,
Alex
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth, TERMINATOR, drenek, JustMe

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #452 on: April 23, 2017, 09:34:39 AM »
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 556 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #453 on: April 23, 2017, 10:12:48 AM »
Hi guys, sorry about the delay. After further testing I've come across a lot of really bad sequences (see attached for an example on the columns). I know I'm not using the exact selections that palestis recommends but I doubt whether it will make much difference, because as Kav has pointed out, you can make up any sequence which will make a system lose heavily, and if this sequence is no less likely than another, where is the advantage? I know this seems "negative", but I'm just trying to be honest here. IMO the selection is too specific and "brittle"; it should be more flexible.

Regarding the progression, I can still post it if you like but in my view progressions should be taylored to particular bet selections, and since I don't see any evidence that the selection has any particular merit, I can't recommend any "out of the box" set of parameters for it (the progression). The only advantage it has is flexibility, so if you feel the stakes are getting too high you can increase the divisor, but this is the case for any other divisor progression, such as Lanky's six point divisor, described here. You can find a similar one here.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 10:09:29 AM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, palestis, december, probasah, TERMINATOR

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #454 on: April 23, 2017, 11:07:13 AM »
I think we should stick with what we at least know is statistcally advantageous in the short run as a basis.

My personal opinion is that it will be at least the XYY +3 trigger and if you were to ask me I would say that my "farthest back" method will do even better.

Regardless of our selection basis, we will have a drawdown.  Our survival depends on our method of recovery.  How else can we learn to recover but to study our drawdowns?

We need to beef up our recovery methods so we can ULTIMATELY continue winning all the time!
 
The following users thanked this post: TERMINATOR

Mister Eko

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #455 on: April 23, 2017, 04:23:03 PM »
probasah,

This system is very interesting, I read about this whit pleasure before I registered, but sometimes I doesnt understand, what the hell is speaking about. Now, what you uploaded these excel files I downloaded, and I think is good, but can be seen that with both progression the profit/bankroll line went slowly to the negative. I misunderstood something?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 10:31:58 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

probasah

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #456 on: April 23, 2017, 04:43:43 PM »
Hi Bayes

I am really interested in your progression. Even though this method seem to follow the normal 33 % win expectancy for a dozen, i believe that we need to focus more on the money management than a "magic" system.
I tested sooo many methods by now and all show the negative balance when i refresh the page with 15000 random spins.
Results come like : +5, +14, +20 ( you start feeling the buzz, this thing really works), than it comes
                              -46, (still hoping), +12, +5, ( we can do it...), than -230. Game over.

All the hype is dead.
Back to square 1
Back to mathematics.

I really think that the Winning method is about money management - PROGRESSION more than the bet selection.
Anything else is just wishful thinking.

I do invite all of the members here that found a way to win consistently, if they want to help not to reveal their method ( for the obvious reasons) , but at least to give us a push in the right direction.

I am here if you need to test your ideas.
Regards,
Alex
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 04:48:48 PM by probasah »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #457 on: April 23, 2017, 05:16:42 PM »
My best advice is not for us to be disheartened by drawdowns but instead to isolate them, publish them, study them & conquer them.

My opinion, without studying a single drawdown sequence, is that the solution will simply be to identify the universal onset of an aberrant sequence & cease betting until the universal onset of non-aberrancy.

Although this may not be the solution in its entirety, I believe this will respresent the lion's share of any solution and this is because the drawdowns that kill us are large, yes but also RARE, so that simply avoiding them will SAVE money; a penny saved is a penny earned?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 05:19:58 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, probasah

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2077
  • Thanked: 431 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #458 on: April 23, 2017, 06:40:30 PM »

" Ido invite all of the members here that found a way to win consistently, if they want to help not to reveal their method ( for the obvious reasons) , but at least to give us a push in the right direction." probasah

If you factor in a negative then the result will always be negative. IMO
If winning depending solely on Money Management then I think that Professional  Mathematicians would have solved the problem  by now. I think we need a reasonable Bet Selection coupled with  Money Management .Like Palestis  I think we need  to limit the Table Bank to aid recovery.
I think that  using the Nine Block's 2 indicated numbers as dozens and wait for a First Loss of the 2 and then bet for a limited number of spins - say 4 - could be advantageous. This will show more losses than what has been put forward but in real world betting  we must be prepared to accept losses. What matters is that the profits exceed the losses.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #459 on: April 23, 2017, 08:21:07 PM »
Like Palestis  I think we need  to limit the Table Bank to aid recovery.

 
The following users thanked this post: Mister Eko

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #460 on: April 23, 2017, 08:47:00 PM »
@ Alex

Thank you for adding Palestis's progression to your version 3. You have a talent for programming Excel. Such detailed work! And thanks for being willing to add my divisor at a later date.

Even though there may not be a statistical difference in Palestis's original trigger selection, in all my tests, there IS a statistical advantage to the XYY+3 trigger. But I've only tested 10,000+ spins manually so far. I would very much like to test this ONE specific trigger with your Excel programming talent.

Would you mind creating another Excel document testing just this ONE item? The XYY+3 Trigger? No progressions or divisors are necessary. Just the W/L stats. It should be relatively easy compared to what you've already done.

Here is how the XYY+3 trigger works:

Step 1: Only use the XYY trigger (XYX and YYX triggers are ignored)
Step 2: If the PREVIOUS 3 spins do NOT include an "X", then bet. If it does include an "X", ignore this XYY trigger.
Step 3: Bet up to 3 times, and then stop. If 1 of the 3 bets win, it's a win. If no win within the 3 bets, it's a loss.

That's it! If it loses, you don't have to increase the NEXT XYY+3 trigger bet.

If you can do this, it would be a great help! Thank you, Alex.

Statistically, there should be a 69.1% win rate (on a Single Zero wheel). But during my 10,000+ tests, the lowest win rate I reached was 76% (during each 4,000 spin test), and the highest win rate I reached was 84%. I have NEVER had a losing session with these XYY+3 triggers yet in 10,000+ spins.

If you do decide to create this document, Alex, maybe you can also add a win percentage feature? Thanks!
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 05:24:10 AM by TERMINATOR »
 
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 #461 on: April 23, 2017, 08:55:32 PM »
@ Bayes,
Yes, I am still definitely interested in your progression. Please post when you get a chance. I agree that money management and progressions are the key to winning. Your results with your progressions that you posted in this thread seem to be the most impressive of all so far. I like how it is flexible, because that's what we need.

@ Reyth,
Can you give a summery of your "farthest back" method?

Quote
the solution will simply be to identify the universal onset of an aberrant sequence & cease betting until the universal onset of non-aberrancy.

I totally agree with you and Alex that this is one of the best approaches to winning. Well said!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 08:57:07 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
  • Thanked: 1197 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #462 on: April 23, 2017, 11:45:01 PM »
Farthest Back Dozen Selection

1) Spin until there are 2 unique Dozens in the last 3 spins and bet the missing Dozen
2) Stop the progression if a zero should hit while betting and ignore any zero that occurs otherwise; e.g. XX0Y = XXY and is a stronger trigger to bet Z

Notice that this is different than simply betting the farthest back Dozen because there must be 2 unique Dozens present in the last 3 non-zero spins; this changes the statistics even more favorably.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 11:46:49 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: seventwice

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Thanked: 454 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #463 on: April 24, 2017, 04:57:38 AM »
Hi guys, sorry about the delay. After further testing I've come across a lot of really bad sequences (see attached for an example on the columns). I know I'm not using the exact selections that palestis recommends but I doubt whether it will make much difference,
Bayes, I isolated the instance where there were 5 back to back trigger losses in columns, but as you say you used a different trigger selection. In fact all 5 losing trigger selections were formed from the numbers of the previous 3 bets.
I have tried this route during tests and it didn't work for me either.
When I use fresh numbers, I never run into so may back to back losses.
In this case the total losses would've been 3 back to back triggers.
Also the same in the other instance of 4 back to back trigger losses in columns and one 4 back to back in dozens.
Had new numbers been used it wouldn't have gone  that far. 
There has to be an explanation for it, but I can't explain it.
I can only go by test results.
3 people have been testing this system manually for at lest 6 months and nobody has reported such disturbing results.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 05:07:10 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #464 on: April 24, 2017, 05:37:25 AM »
I have tried this route during tests and it didn't work for me either.
When I use fresh numbers, I never run into so may back to back losses.

Yes, I can also confirm that the back to back losses are lower when using fresh numbers, than they are when using numbers from previous bets. I have tested using both HarryJ's method (which uses triggers from previous bets) and Palestis's, and the losses are greater with HarryJ's.

I think the reason is that when we use fresh numbers, instead of previous numbers, it gives us more time to notice an anomaly and take action.

Quote
3 people have been testing this system manually for at lest 6 months and nobody has reported such disturbing results.

Actually, I have posted worse results. My worse game is 20 individual losses in a row, following your method to the letter, and using all your Red Flag rules. However, they are rare. And the wins more than make up for these occasional losses. I do not think any method will be immune from long losing streaks once in a while. But Palestis's system is definitely one that loses a LOT less than most other systems.