dozens

[prodec2]

Hi all ,i have thought of a system for dozens , dont know if its original or not but here goes

I play the last come dozen (hoping for a repeat) and also the sleeping dozen , (doesnt matter if sleeper has slept for only 1 spin)

eg.

10 22 33 last 3 spins

bet is dozen 3 (last come dozen) and dozen 1 (sleeper)

say dozen 2 black 20 comes in we lose (as we know)

The money management is a bit strange but works ,

When a spin is lost and was black add 1 unit to the bet on the right

if red 1 unit to the left,


10 22 33 20


the next bet is 2 units for 2nd dozen (as its the bet on the right )


and 1 unit on 1st dozen (the bet on the left)


keep adding 1 unit on losers and start over at 1 unit when in new profit


Its my first post and would like to know what you guys think ,


Its doing quite well for me , average 20 units per hour , NO RNG !!!!!!!! live only

[prodec2]

I have only played this a short while and would like to know if it works for others , regards J

[Anthony]

Some people might discourage you, but don't let it get to you. You are having fun and being creative with your bet selection. We're all on this board to help each other out and become better players (most of us). You have been doing well with whatever you are doing so please keep us up to date as I would like to see your success continue.

[GLC]

I totally agree with Anthony.  We just never know when an idea can be the one we've overlooked that's the key or it triggers another idea that's the key.  That's assuming there is a key.  Since, as far as I know, no body's found the key, so we don't know for sure if it exists.

As far as your system goes, the bet selection has been tried on other systems but to the best of my knowledge the progression method hasn't been posted before. 

My initial thinking is this, we know that if we follow a strictly mechanical bet method and progression that eventually we will hit the spin sequence that causes it to bust our progression no matter how long our progression and when the bust comes it kills our units won per bet ratio.

It's always a good idea to test the system on paper looking for the sequence that will cause it to lose every time.  In other words let's say we have dozens 1 2 1 3 in the last 4 spins.  We will be betting dozens 2 and 3 at 1-1.  We pick the next dozen to be one that causes us to lose so naturally it would be dozen 1.  Next bet dozens 1 and 2 and we pick doz 3 to show which causes us to lose.  1 2 1 3 1 3 Here's our line betting 3 & 2 so we pick doz 1 to show which causes us to lose.  1 2 1 3 1 3 1 Next bet doz 1 & 2  and doz 3 shows. 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 is our line.  So now we know that the sequence that kills our bet selection is for a dozen to continue to sleep while the other 2 dozens take turns. 

Even a sequence like this doesn't help a whole lot: 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3.  As long as a dozen continues to sleep it will hurt our progression. 

The other thing that can hurt us some is for the above dozen line to show and at the same time a color streaks.  So if we are betting 1-1 and a black number spins in the dozen we're not betting, we bet 1-2.  Another loss with a black number 1-3; another loss/black 1-4; etc...

Now the question is, "Do these sequences come up often enough to eventually ruin the system?  Or are they so rare that we will win plenty of units before one of these hits and brings us back to reality?"

It looks to me like this will win a lot and then have a bad session.  This is the nature of all systems that use a progression.  It takes a while to finally have a losing session and when it hits it usually causes us to get discouraged and we move on to another idea.  But, one losing session doesn't mean the system is no good, it just reminds us that winning 1 unit every spin or 1 unit every 2 spins is pretty difficult to maintain over the long haul.

That's why I often say that we should expect to give back 90% of our winnings periodically when using a progression like this one.  I could be wrong but I don't think so.

The next step would be to switch from bet last and furthest dozen to last and penultimate dozen after say 3 losses in a row or 2 losses in a row (not counting zero).  This gives us a moving target, but in the long run I don't think it will eliminate losing sessions.

If there's a spin that can cause us to lose, why won't it come up?  And if it comes up enough times in a row, it will hurt us.

I know this is a lengthy response to your idea and I'm not knocking your idea at all.  I'm just trying to help you see where it will more than likely go.

I will say this.  I think playing your system on roulette gives someone a much better chance to walk out of the casino a winner than playing any other game or playing roulette by just throwing chips on the table willy nilly.

Good Luck to You,

GLC

[prodec2]

cheers guys that replied , will keep trying this and will keep you all informed , regards J

[prodec2]

Hi GLC , do you think that with a bit of tweeking it could be a winner

[GLC]

Hi GLC , do you think that with a bit of tweeking it could be a winner

Prodec2,


I hate to be too negative toward anyone's system because it is very difficult to decide if a system is a long term winner or not.  You can test it until you're blue in the face and it can prove to be a winner, at least for the spins you just ran it through.  Even if it was a 3000 spins it won't prove that it is a winner.  The next 3000 spins could prove it to be a loser.  Because of the ebb and flow of spins in roulette there can be a favorable deviation for thousands of spins and finally they will correct and move back to and even past mathematical expectations.


I feel that the 3,000 bet rule is valid.  If you test/play your system for 3,000 bets and it's a winner, then it is a good bet.  Does that mean it's absolutely a winner?  No!  It just means that it's a darn good system and if you observe all the fundamental rules of gambling, the foremost being to never gamble with money you can't afford to lose, you have an excellent chance of making a few bucks playing it.


Consider what I wrote to Niksa in his topic about Willam Hill casino.  He shows, maybe not beyond any possibility of doubt, that he is winning consistently playing a system using a 5,000 unit bank.  What if you tested your system with your progression against a 5,000 unit bank roll to see how it holds up.  If you can win twice the 5,000 units, or 10,000 units, then you can be pretty sure you have a winner.  If you test it and can't get 10,000 units ahead, then you probably don't.


The scary reality is that because we all know that any system can lose even if it wins more in the long run than it loses, we can't know for sure that early in our play for real money we won't run into a losing session before we have won enough to weather the storm.


For this reason we often have system sellers suggest that you have 3 banks of let's say 5,000 units just in case you do start out with bad luck.  The odds of having such bad luck that you lose 3 each 5,000 unit bankrolls with a system that is a long term winner is pretty remote.


Nevertheless, 15,000 units is a pretty large chunk of money unless it's pennies.


5000 unit bank is arbitrary.  You can of course drop it to 1,000 units.  Then all you need is to have 3,000 unit bankroll.  And I will tell you that it takes very little bad luck to go from -1000 units to -5000 units because by the time you reach -1000 units your bets will be so large that it only takes about 20% as much bad luck to go from -1000 to -5000 as it did to go from -1 to -1000.


Consider this.  With a martingale you lose 8 in a row and you are down -255 units.  Now lose 10 in a row and you are down -1023 units.  So it only took 2 more losses to go 3 times deeper in the hole than the first 8 losses.  This is the worst case progression and yours won't that dramatic, but the principle is valid nevertheless.


This should give you something to think about.


GLC


P.S.  Remember also, there are some members of this forum who would say that everything we are talking about is total hogwash and based on gambler's fallacy which has nothing to do with reality.  Obviously I don't adhere to that position.  At least not just yet, but it's still a possibility.