Can't think of a good name system

[GLC]

Trebor,

Thanks for your help in testing.  The draw downs are not really that important until they start getting into very high numbers.  Why?  Well, if the draw downs are never more than say 50, which we know they are, then we can calculate how large our units can be based on the amount of money we have to invest.

Let's say we have $1000 and we're pretty sure that 100 will be the largest drawdown we'll encounter.  That means that we can set our unit size to $10 and be generating $200 dollars for every 20 unit session.

On the other hand, if we have experiences 250 unit drawdowns in our testing we can only bet $4 units which reduces our session wins to $80. 

Really, all we need is to know if you experience a draw down of more than 83 units which is the highest I've had so far.

I guarantee that 83 is far from the largest draw down we will experience.  Unfortunately, in roulette, all things are possible.  For example, in one of my sessions I was down 83 units and betting 12-12 on the dozens.  There's nothing to preclude another very bad strike rate from continuing from this point.  Since we started with 1-1 and progressed to 12-12 reaching -83, we could have a similar bad session starting at our 12-12 and progress to 24-24 which would put us another 996 units down for a total of -1079 units.

This reality is why in all roulette systems, we must have a stop loss to prevent disaster from occurring in worst case scenarios. 

GLC

[GLC]

In reply #6 I had a series of bets in which I lost 15 and only won 21.  Had I been flat betting $5 units, I would have lost 9 units, 15X10=-150.  21X5=+105.  150-105= -$45. 

Instead I won 1 unit from that series using the progression.  That's a $46 difference for a little extra risk and it turns a losing run into a winning run.  Granted we would have been down more than $45 at one point, but in a few good hits, we pull back out to positive.

Remember, we either have to win more times than we lose when flat betting or if we lose more bets than we win, we need to win on larger bets than we lost on.  This truth is the stark reality we're dealing with.

That's one reason why a solid bet progression like the bread winner method, with enough bankroll is one of the safest bet progressions, albeit, when playing that way we can have some horrendous draw downs which can last for quite a while.

Just some random musings.

GLC

[GLC]

For all those interested in this system.  I have been testing it with a little different progression and it is performing well.

Instead of +1 on a loss and -1 on a win, I have been waiting until I lose 2 times in a row to add 1 and also to win 2 times in a row before I subtract 1.  This wins our +1 unit almost as quickly as the +1/-1 after 1 win or loss but it reduces our draw downs by as much as  40%.

I determined this by replaying the above sessions using the safer progression and was surprised to see how the change improves the playability of the system.

Summary: 

1.  We still bet on the last 2 dozens to hit (or your favorite selection method)
2.  We track each dozen separately as far as the progression line goes
3.  We only adjust the bet size of the 2 that we just bet on
4.  We always bet the larger bet size of the 2 dozens we're betting on
5.  We increase by 1 unit only after losing 2 times in a row on that dozen
6.  We decrease by 1 unit only after winning 2 times in a row on that dozen
7.  We shoot for +1 and then reset to beginning of progression for all 3 dozens
8.  If a win and our next bet brings us to even, we reset also
9.  If a win on our next bet will put us at more than +1, we reduce our bet to produce +1 (this is optional.  You can bet whatever the progression calls for and just win the extra units understanding that the risk is if you lose the bet and go into a losing series, you will be starting at a larger unit loss)

Cheers,

GLC

[GLC]

Attached is a spreadsheet with a session to +20 using the new +1 after 2 losses in a row and -1 after 2 wins in a row.

Notice that our maximum draw down was only -20.

Also, only 74 placed bets which keeps in line with our projected win ratio of 1 unit for every 4-5 spins.  Of course, this was not a very difficult session.

I'm still liking this new progression method.

GLC

[jarabo002]

Thank you GLC!

If this system works, it would be perfect if somebody makes a traker.

[dennisbelle]

My first test on double zero spins ended at +20 units in 67 spins using up 1 step after 2 losses and down 1 step after 2 wins.

[GLC]

Thank you GLC!

If this system works, it would be perfect if somebody makes a traker.

It does work Jarabo002.  How well it works is still to be determined.  After all, there's nothing unique about the bet selection method, it's the bet progression that is the strong suit and there are many on this forum that will tell us that you can't overcome the odds with a progression.  I'm just waiting for someone to post a losing run.

Yes, a tracker would make testing go much quicker.  But, so far none of our programmers have seen enough to warrant investing the time in a tracker.  I think we need to provide them with some more encouragement.

I have decided to play to 20 units each day and see how long before I lose my bank of 1200 units.  See if I can make it as far as Chris did with his 10 units per day test for 30 days.

By the way Chris, if you're reading, I hope you're doing okay and everything is getting stabilized in your life.

George

[dennisbelle]

Test #2 on double zero spins.  Ended at +20 units and it took 97 spins.  Seemed like a marathon session.  I hit -51 units twice but it came back and ended at +20!  I did get to the 11 unit bet.

[GLC]

I finally had a session from hell.

My 1st loss of -206
Was betting 12-12 when I passed -200
Only took 55 bets
I had 28 losses and 27 wins
Wow! 55 bets on double dozen with 1 more loss than win when you're supposed to have 36 wins to 19 losses.  That's 9 too few wins and 9 to many losses.

I'm a little dizzy after that session, but it goes to show you that the most unbelievable bad sequence of spins can happen at any time.  That's why you should never bet real money on this game if you can't afford to lose it.

Okay, I'm not too discouraged because I've tested a lot of double dozen systems and I can't remember ever having a sequence of losses like this one.  Now that I've gotten it out of the way, I don't expect to see one like it again the rest of my life.

It was getting late, so I didn't have time to continue to see if it would have recovered before I got much deeper in the hole.

Earlier I said that 200 units should be a reasonable buy-in so I'm going to stick with that.  I'm still up about 30 units since I started testing this including a couple of real games I played at the casino.

I will continue with my 20 unit per day test until I start running into too many losing sessions indicating that this may not be as good of a system as I thought.  I may change the bet selection method to something not so mechanical.

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a double dozen bet selection method that doesn't leave us tracking too long before getting to make a bet?

Maybe a method like Divide and Conquer would be better or Code4.  Any thoughts??

I'm not surprised at anything except how bad the hit rate can get!

GLC

P.S.  There were only 4 losses in a row 1 time so a 5 step double dozen martingale would have won 27 units. 1-1,3-3,9-9,27-27,81-81.  Of course a loss of 5 in a row would set you back 242 units.  Hmmmmmmmmm

[dennisbelle]

Test #3 +20 units in 45 spins.  Easy session.

[GLC]

+10
51 bets
Largest bet 8-8
Largest draw down -34

Had 1 series of 26 bets to reach +1

Ran out of time so couldn't continue on to +20.

Cheers,

GLC

[GLC]

+20
84 bets
8-8 largest bet size
-45 largest draw down

I'm noticing that this is just a gradual increase in bet sizes until we finally hit a run of 3, 4 or 5 in a row to get us fully recovered.  Usually 5 or 6 in a row will recover for us and if we get 3 or 4 in a row a couple of times with only 1 or 2 losses in between it will also recover.  Same for 3 in a row.  Two or 3 three in a rows in close proximity to each other accomplishes the same thing as a 5 in a row.

I'm thinking that the following progression might be just as effective.

1-1
1-1
1-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
etc...

Stay at the current level as long as you are winning until you have fully recovered.  I've tested this a couple of times and it wins the same as our +1/-1 after two losses or wins.  It's a little more volatile but not by much and we don't have to use so much effort tracking each dozen separately.

Still evolving for me.

GLC

[GLC]

Check out my post "The 2nd Plus the Penultimate" in the Notepad section for some additional thoughts on a similar system to this one!

[dennisbelle]

Test #4  I went to the end of the progression.  The loss was well over the -300 unit mark.  Had a lot of zero's come up (double zero spins) plus a lot of other losing spins.

[GLC]

Test #4  I went to the end of the progression.  The loss was well over the -300 unit mark.  Had a lot of zero's come up (double zero spins) plus a lot of other losing spins.

That's 2 killer series to date.  I usually move on to greener pastures at this point.

I'm going to look at Warrior's DC4 system and test it.  If it's as good as he says, it'll be worth digging it out of the mothballs.  He shouldn't be the only one making money on it.

GLC