I wait until a dozen does not get hit for 8 times, then I begin betting on it. Actually, I could have two consecutive dozens I am betting on going at the same time, but it doesnt happen often. So for my strategy I wait for any dozen and then begin betting after 8 misses.
I have a piece of blank paper in front of me and I record which dozen is hit. 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
12213123332322 (now I start betting on the 1st dozen) 23331 (win)
I like this system, although it is a bit manual, it has worked for me.
That's what I thought you were doing.
I totally agree with a system like that. It is based on the premise that when a dozen is missing 8 spins, it is very unlikely that it will continue missing beyond 21 spins. Maybe on rare occasions, but I can reassure you that it won't happen frequently (going from 8 to 21)
. As far as progression, it's only 12 numbers so you don't need to double each time. The progression is a matter of personal choice.
. Do you want profit at any point you hit it during the next 13 spins?
. Would you settle for getting all or most your money back if you pass 8 progressions and is getting too risky to continue all the way to 13?
Also, you have to figure out how many sessions (cycles) you would need to recover the loss of 13 progressions, if it ever came to that.
You said you've seen 26 spins where a dozen is missing in live and 30 in computer simulation. I'm sure that's the ultimate limit and chances are you are not going to run into such scenario any time soon. I've seen it missing 28 times in live roulette, but I can count in my fingers the times that I have seen that, in hundreds of thousands of spins and many years of observation.
I play the same system when I observe a dozen going missing from 8- 10 spins, but I use only 4 progressions. The reason is to save money by avoiding the risk of going too far. If I don't catch it this time, I will in the next cycle. And if not in the 3rd cycle. I just can't see a dozen missing 8 spins and then go on to be missing for 15 spins in 3 consecutive situations.
Right now I'm checking a system with 1 dozen (or column), and looks very promising. I pick a dozen randomly
, 1 or 2 or 3 and pretend that I'm going to bet on it for so many spins. And see what happens. To my surprise it's not long before it shows up. Usually within the next 5 spins. I wish I had a simulation program where I can check how many spins does it take to hit the randomly chosen dozen. Once I know the average maximum number of spins that it takes before I hit it, then I can negotiate the number of VIRTUAL LOSSES(no money lost), with the number of actual money bets.
If for example I found that a randomly chosen dozen can go up to 10 spins before it shows up, I can let it ride for 5 spins without showing up and then bet the next 5 spins with an appropriate progression. But so far it looks like it shows up in less than 10 spins. Many times within 5.
But it will take many observations before I can come up with maximum limits.
The same idea can apply in picking B or R randomly, but I don't like the idea of running into expensive progressions too fast.