The Gizmotron Progression for 2/1 bets in Roulette

[Gizmotron]

Here is my Very Rare to Kill Progression.  It's was inspired by reverse engineering the crackpot Charles Hampshire's spoof of an idea he called the Zone.  His only problem was he actually had something a real player could make use of.  He didn't even know it.  So I thought about it for fifteen minutes and turned his lame idea upside down and inside out.  Guess what? It really works.  After thousands of spin tests it has held up as a winner.  It does this because the pattern or sequence it takes to kill it is so very rare that it tends to work.  Charles never noticed that feature even in his own spoof of a Holy Grail he has been harassing forums with.

It uses 4 steps.  It avoids the zeros.  It's completely rule based.  It has a few wait points that usually resolve in just a few spins.

The point is to bet on the two dozens or columns that did not hit last.  It's almost that simple.  The other point is to wait for the next single to occur in the dozens after the last repeat.  

So if d1 (dozen 1, 1 to 12) hits you bet on d2 and d3 for the next spin.

If d1 hits again then you lose.  You now wait for d1 to stop hitting.  As soon as d2 or d3 hits you have a single in series.  So then you start step two of the four step progression.  I takes a perfect set of repeats and singles to kill this progression.

Here are a few spins tracking the dozens and the columns at the same time.

| 1 2 3 | L M H |
|   X   |   X   |   -- 23 --  1
|   X   |     X |   -- 24 --  2
|     X |     X |   -- 33 --  3
|   X   |   X   |   -- 23 --  4
| X     | X     |   --  1 --  5
| X     |   X   |   -- 11 --  6
|     X | X     |   -- 25 --  7
| X     |     X |   --  9 --  8
|     X |     X |   -- 36 --  9
|     X |   X   |   -- 35 -- 10
|     X | X     |   -- 28 -- 11


Here is a stretch that kills it.  It happens in the dozens beginning at spin 122.

| 1 2 3 | L M H |
| X     |     X |   --  6 -- 120
|     X | X     |   -- 28 -- 121
|     X |   X   |   -- 29 -- 122
|     X | X     |   -- 34 -- 123
|     X |   X   |   -- 35 -- 124
| X     |     X |   -- 12 -- 125
| X     |     X |   --  9 -- 126
| X     |   X   |   -- 11 -- 127
| X     |   X   |   --  2 -- 128
|   X   | X     |   -- 19 -- 129
|   X   |   X   |   -- 17 -- 130
|   X   | X     |   -- 19 -- 131
|     X |   X   |   -- 32 -- 132
|     X |     X |   -- 33 -- 133
|---------------|   --  0 -- 134
| X     |     X |   --  6 -- 135

The progression is 1,1 - 3,3 - 9,9 - 27,27.  You place a bet on each of the dozens that did not hit last.

The cost is 80 units if you lose.  You win everything back plus 1 unit on any win inside the four steps.

The thing that makes it work is that you never place bets on any repeats after the first repeat is discovered.  So runs of repeats don't take out your progressions.  Only the exact sequence of repeats after singles, four directly in a row has the power to break this progression.

For the sake of clarity here are step by step instructions.

d1 hits on spin 1.  Bet 1 on d2 and 1 on d3 for spin 2.

d1 hits on spin 2.  Don't bet on spin 3.

d1 hits on spin 3  Don't bet on spin 4.

d3 hits on spin 4  Bet 3 on d2 and 3 on d1 for spin 5.

d1 hits on spin 5  Bet 1 on d2 and 1 on d3 for spin 6.

d2 hits on spin 6  Bet 1 on d1 and 1 on d3 for spin 7.  

d3 hits on spin 7  Bet 1 on d1 and 1 on d2 for spin 8.

I generally lose one time in 300 spins betting both dozens and columns independently for each spin.  That's typical too.  Once in a while you get two losses.  And once in a while you get no losses.  With both progressions going on at the same time you tend to win about 20 units for every 30 spins.

If this is a holy grail system then three or more losses must take place most of the time for it not to be, in 300 spins that is.  On a five dollar minimum table this should cost $400 for each loss.  So a $1200 bankroll would be considered minimal to try it.

There are some refinements not mentioned regarding the zeros.  I just did not want to cloud the explanation at this time.  I'd hate to be blamed for changing this after the fact.  That's what Charles does.  He's a liar.  Some how he gets his jollies for leading people on.  I just don't want to be in his low class.  So there it is, now go change the world forever.  Just remember I thought this up.  To all those that think it won't change things just watch this gold rush.

[Bayes]

Hey Gizmo,

Thanks.  I wouldn't use this as a main system, but if I noticed a loss (or perhaps 3 series) I would definitely have a punt on it, although the progression is too steep for my taste.  I would rather use something like, 1,2,6 on each dozen and cut my losses if that failed.

[hamsup_sotong]

Here is my Very Rare to Kill Progression.  It's was inspired by reverse engineering the crackpot Charles Hampshire's spoof of an idea he called the Zone.  His only problem was he actually had something a real player could make use of.  He didn't even know it.  So I thought about it for fifteen minutes and turned his lame idea upside down and inside out.  Guess what? It really works.  After thousands of spin tests it has held up as a winner.  It does this because the pattern or sequence it takes to kill it is so very rare that it tends to work.  Charles never noticed that feature even in his own spoof of a Holy Grail he has been harassing forums with.

It uses 4 steps.  It avoids the zeros.  It's completely rule based.  It has a few wait points that usually resolve in just a few spins.

The point is to bet on the two dozens or columns that did not hit last.  It's almost that simple.  The other point is to wait for the next single to occur in the dozens after the last repeat.  

So if d1 (dozen 1, 1 to 12) hits you bet on d2 and d3 for the next spin.

If d1 hits again then you lose.  You now wait for d1 to stop hitting.  As soon as d2 or d3 hits you have a single in series.  So then you start step two of the four step progression.  I takes a perfect set of repeats and singles to kill this progression.

Here are a few spins tracking the dozens and the columns at the same time.

| 1 2 3 | L M H |
|   X   |   X   |   -- 23 --  1
|   X   |     X |   -- 24 --  2
|     X |     X |   -- 33 --  3
|   X   |   X   |   -- 23 --  4
| X     | X     |   --  1 --  5
| X     |   X   |   -- 11 --  6
|     X | X     |   -- 25 --  7
| X     |     X |   --  9 --  8
|     X |     X |   -- 36 --  9
|     X |   X   |   -- 35 -- 10
|     X | X     |   -- 28 -- 11


Here is a stretch that kills it.  It happens in the dozens beginning at spin 122.

| 1 2 3 | L M H |
| X     |     X |   --  6 -- 120
|     X | X     |   -- 28 -- 121
|     X |   X   |   -- 29 -- 122
|     X | X     |   -- 34 -- 123
|     X |   X   |   -- 35 -- 124
| X     |     X |   -- 12 -- 125
| X     |     X |   --  9 -- 126
| X     |   X   |   -- 11 -- 127
| X     |   X   |   --  2 -- 128
|   X   | X     |   -- 19 -- 129
|   X   |   X   |   -- 17 -- 130
|   X   | X     |   -- 19 -- 131
|     X |   X   |   -- 32 -- 132
|     X |     X |   -- 33 -- 133
|---------------|   --  0 -- 134
| X     |     X |   --  6 -- 135

The progression is 1,1 - 3,3 - 9,9 - 27,27.  You place a bet on each of the dozens that did not hit last.

The cost is 80 units if you lose.  You win everything back plus 1 unit on any win inside the four steps.

The thing that makes it work is that you never place bets on any repeats after the first repeat is discovered.  So runs of repeats don't take out your progressions.  Only the exact sequence of repeats after singles, four directly in a row has the power to break this progression.

For the sake of clarity here are step by step instructions.

d1 hits on spin 1.  Bet 1 on d2 and 1 on d3 for spin 2.

d1 hits on spin 2.  Don't bet on spin 3.

d1 hits on spin 3  Don't bet on spin 4.

d3 hits on spin 4  Bet 3 on d2 and 3 on d1 for spin 5.

d1 hits on spin 5  Bet 1 on d2 and 1 on d3 for spin 6.

d2 hits on spin 6  Bet 1 on d1 and 1 on d3 for spin 7.  

d3 hits on spin 7  Bet 1 on d1 and 1 on d2 for spin 8.

I generally lose one time in 300 spins betting both dozens and columns independently for each spin.  That's typical too.  Once in a while you get two losses.  And once in a while you get no losses.  With both progressions going on at the same time you tend to win about 20 units for every 30 spins.

If this is a holy grail system then three or more losses must take place most of the time for it not to be, in 300 spins that is.  On a five dollar minimum table this should cost $400 for each loss.  So a $1200 bankroll would be considered minimal to try it.

There are some refinements not mentioned regarding the zeros.  I just did not want to cloud the explanation at this time.  I'd hate to be blamed for changing this after the fact.  That's what Charles does.  He's a liar.  Some how he gets his jollies for leading people on.  I just don't want to be in his low class.  So there it is, now go change the world forever.  Just remember I thought this up.  To all those that think it won't change things just watch this gold rush.

Ill give this a run on my test and see how it goes

CHeers for providing it giz
Hamsup

[CashGrowth]

Hi Gizmotron and thaks for sharing.
I like the sound of this and I'll definately consider this method.
Best wishes,
CashGrowth.

[strato1985]

giz I read a similar thing only real diff

bet last dozen that come out + the opposite of the one before that

If you get steak on same dozen stick with it untill it hits 3 times then jump to both opposites.

and very interesting fact i could not get past a 6 progession. . . . . .  unless multiple zero's

although 6 progession on 2 dozens is hefty. .  you said wait for 3 miss,,,  then it becomes good! or lankys 6 point divider??

See this is the sort of thing interested ,, work in progress

[Gizmotron]

Hey Gizmo,

Thanks.   I wouldn't use this as a main system, but if I noticed a loss (or perhaps 3 series) I would definitely have a punt on it, although the progression is too steep for my taste.   I would rather use something like, 1,2,6 on each dozen and cut my losses if that failed. 

It's a four step progression.  Three steps will produce too many loss sequences.  Also 1,3,9,27 produces wins for approximately 33% of the time.  Your progression would not.  I might as well tell you about the zeros.  Don't use this progression when the zeros are very active.  Don't place a bet after a zero hits.  Wait until a first single occurs.  The entire success of the progression comes from it being rare enough to be effective.  Three steps is not rare enough.  Everything I have learned about progressions is that they can't work.   Yet this progression tends to work in testing.  It's because the repeats are waited on while requiring a very strong stretch of bunched together repeats combined with singles in an exactly spaced pattern.  It's not magic.  It's not attempting to defy basic arithmetic.

[Gizmotron]

giz I read a similar thing only real diff

bet last dozen that come out + the opposite of the one before that

If you get steak on same dozen stick with it untill it hits 3 times then jump to both opposites.

and very interesting fact i could not get past a 6 progession. . . . . .  unless multiple zero's

although 6 progession on 2 dozens is hefty. .  you said wait for 3 miss,,,  then it becomes good! or lankys 6 point divider??

See this is the sort of thing interested ,, work in progress

There is no rule to "wait 3 miss." So I never said that. If you want to discuss another progression or your own impression of this progression then please go ahead in your own thread. This one needs to be discussed so that anyone trying it understands it will have a chance. I've noticed that many systems go through 100's of pages of discovery because the rules are misunderstood.

[Kattila]

Thanks  Gizmo for share  this method with us.
I removed others progressions.

[Gizmotron]

Regarding other progressions. The point is to have a very rare pattern that kills it. One of the winning points is that at each eventual win you win 1 unit. On spins that you do win on you win 1 unit. The problem with trying other progressions is that then you try other rules. This killer sequence is four steps based on avoiding the repeats. The only thing that kills it is a stretch that has them connected perfectly. Different rules means that the progression no longer avoids the complex sequence that kills it. So far only a few say they will test it. But many want to make it their own by changing it. I say fine. Please  go to your own thread to make it your own. Please remove the off topic progressions. Perhaps their inventors will get the message then.

[WhiteKnight]

thanks for sharing this progression/system. . . will test it when i have a chance and see how it fairs on my live wheel spins from DB

[WhiteKnight]

Hey Giz, did i play this right?  was up to 182 spins 77 unit profit before i hit this loss (was testing by hand first to see how it does before i program a bot to play it in rx; these are DB live wheel spins):

175   18   Bet   2   3   -2   1   1077
176   23   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   1075
177   1   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1075
178   12   Bet   6   0   -6   -6   1069
179   19   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1069
180   24   Bet   18   0   -18   -18   1051
181   25   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1051
182   34   Bet   54   0   -54   -54   997


hmm. . .  continuing on the session, another loss at spin 222


182   34   Bet   54   0   -54   -54   997
183   12   No Bet   0   0   0   0   997
184   19   Bet   2   3   -2   1   998
185   36   Bet   2   3   -2   1   999
186   35   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   997
187   19   No Bet   0   0   0   0   997
188   7   Bet   6   9   -6   3   1000
189   4   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   998
190   3   No Bet   0   0   0   0   998
191   33   No Bet   0   0   0   0   998
192   28   Bet   6   0   -6   -6   992
193   14   No Bet   0   0   0   0   992
194   21   Bet   18   0   -18   -18   974
195   14   No Bet   0   0   0   0   974
196   36   No Bet   0   0   0   0   974
197   24   Bet   54   81   -54   27   1001
198   28   Bet   2   3   -2   1   1002
199   17   Bet   2   3   -2   1   1003
200   31   Bet   2   3   -2   1   1004
201   31   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   1002
202   6   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1002
203   20   Bet   6   9   -6   3   1005
204   0   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   1003
205   0   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1003
206   31   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1003
207   31   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1003
208   32   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1003
209   22   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1003
210   28   Bet   6   9   -6   3   1006
211   13   Bet   2   3   -2   1   1007
212   13   Bet   2   0   -2   -2   1005
213   22   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1005
214   7   No Bet   0   0   0   0   1005
215   7   Bet   6   0   -6   -6   999
216   33   No Bet   0   0   0   0   999
217   27   Bet   18   0   -18   -18   981
218   26   No Bet   0   0   0   0   981
219   30   No Bet   0   0   0   0   981
220   31   No Bet   0   0   0   0   981
221   4   No Bet   0   0   0   0   981
222   6   Bet   54   0   -54   -54   927

[Gizmotron]

Hey Giz, did i play this right?  was up to 182 spins 77 unit profit before i hit this loss (was testing by hand first to see how it does before i program a bot to play it in rx; these are DB live wheel spins):

I wrote a program that just posts the chart, like the examples that I posted above. It spins out 300 spins and shows the results. In that way I can scroll down and see immediately what happened. So I kind of test by hand. It's not easy to put the correct wait sections in a program. You must also include when any zero is a loss in a step too. Sometimes zeros hit but they happen during a wait. So they have no effect on this progression at times. I also recommend not playing this progression when the zeros are over active. I'll take your spins and program them into my charting system. It will be easy to see if I get similar results, hand testing it that is.

Will your rx simulation produce bet by bet results that can be posted here? It would be nice to see the correct bet selection process carried out by computer simulation.

[WhiteKnight]

Hi Giz,

To answer your question, the RX simulation will show the results spin by spin, it's a feature within RX to export the data.   Since my tests are all done with real live wheel spins that are broken up into separate files by date, i test each one individually.   For instance, just ran a test of 775 spins and this turned out to be a loser.   I also tested with the 6 point divisor which also lost, but my modification of the 6 point divisor where it reduces the betting, is faring somewhat better, didn't bust the bankroll, went down to 50% but then has recovered again to a new high. . . but max bet was 122unit which is too high for my liking, so i'm not convinced that this is a long term winner and that the bet selection is that good, i mean, this is pretty much the bet selection (which is quite simple):

#####
prev_doz := next_doz

if nextspin in 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
   next_doz = 1

else if nextspin in 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
   next_doz = 2

else if nextspin in 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36
   next_doz = 3


if (nextspin != 0)
{
  if (next_doz != prev_doz AND prev_doz != 0)
     goto StartBetting
}
#####

[Gizmotron]

Can you post a comma delimited set of your spins that you charted above. From first spin to last spin like: 3,12,35,16,23,34,... etc?

[WhiteKnight]

i can send you the spin file, it has each spin on a separate line.  .  .  it is just a txt document.  .  .  top to bottom oldest to newest spins.  .  . 

email sent.