Colby's Dozen Grind

[Le_Chiffre]

Hi Colbster, I've read through the post and there seems to be lots of added tweaks and safety breaks.  Please can you tell me exactly how you're playing now with the perfected method?

thanks in advance

[Colbster]

Bet selection: Consider the past 3 spins.  If a dozen appears twice in the past 3 spins, it is activated as the hot dozen and we bet on that dozen every spin until a new dozen is activated by showing twice in 3 spins.

1-1-2 as long as we get wins.

After the first set (1-1-2) loses, we add 1 to our drawdown, divide by 4, and play for 2 sets of 3 spins apiece, using the x-x-2x format for each set of 3 spins with x being the result of our figuring.  Always after losing 1-1-2, it becomes 2-2-4, 2-2-4.  If we lose the first 2-2-4 or get a hit on any step, we begin the second 2-2-4.  After the two sets (which could be as fast as 2 consecutive wins or as slow as 6 spins), we determine our drawdown.

We now add 2, divide by 5, and play for 3 sets of 3 spin using x-x-2x format again.

Next round if we are still down after these spins, add 3, divide by 6, play 4 sets

Next round, add 4, divide by 7, play 5 sets, etc.

At any point, if we are even to the session high or at a new high, we reset to our 1-1-2 betting.

B/R suggestion is Nathanael's, 200 units per session.

I have not lost a session yet, having only had drawdowns equal or slightly greater than 100 3 (4?) times.  I have been playing 150 spins a set but not for any reason.  I find that most sessions pay about 50 units profit per 150 spins, but that has some variance as you would expect.

[Nathanael]

I don't mean to muddy the water and forgive me if this is just a distraction from what is proving to be a very good system, but all 1-1-2 is is the 1st 3 steps in a 2:1 martingale. 

I think that if this will work long term, it should work with any number of steps in the martingale.  How about 1-1-2-3?  1-1-2-3-4?  1-1-2-3-4-6?  Even 1-1-1? or 1-1?  All of these are reasonable options. 

The longer the progression, the larger the number of bets before a re-calculation.  This also means the fewer recalculations required, the larger the jump from one stage to the next, on average.  A progression like 1-1 will require a lot more re-calcs but the increase in the size of bets will climb at a much slower rate. 

The units added and divisor can remain the same.  In other words, 1 and 4; 2 and 5; 3 and 6; 4 and 7 etc...

I only bring this up to trigger some new ways of looking at a system that is well worth trying to hone to a razor sharp edge.

Colbster, have you considered at any of the above suggestions?  Maybe you have already and I'm just wasting a post.

Nate

[Buffster]

Colbster

Congrats on a great system. Like Nathanael, I don't want to hijack your thread, but i do think this is along the same ideas and may help you bring it to the next level ... you never know !

I haven't done as much testing as you, but am getting great results so far.

I don't use your bet selection, but your selection is as good as any other.

I don't use the divisor either.

I use the 4 step Marti ... 1,1,2,3

Once I lost that level, I go to 2,2,4,6 for 2 tries.

Like you, if same or higher than last high, I then reset.

If I don't succeed at reaching a new high ( or even to last high ) after the second try at level 2 I go to level 3 ( 3,3,6,9 ) for 3 tries.

And so on.

Now the one thing I do different is if I get a win at level 2 on either the first or the second series, I add 2 more tries at that level before going to next level. I do the same thing at all levels. So I might end up staying at level 2 for many spins before going to level 3.

Anyways, it might sound a little complicated, but it's not really. Just the way I wrote it up that might be confusing ( Sorry )

All this comes from your system and trying to tweak it some more.

Thank you

B

[Colbster]

Nathanael and Buffster,

Both of your ideas are wonderful.  Yes, the 1-1-2 is strictly the beginning of the 2:1 Marti.  Yes, we could theoretically extend further into the Marti, as there are times when I am betting the first 2 of a 2-2-4 after losing my 1-1-2 and it wins and I am even, whereas your idea would put me at +1.  On the other hand, losing at 3 vs 2 puts me one step farther down and increases what I need to recover,slowly increasing my bets after a series of losses.  I hope you run some tests of your own and let us know if there are any improvements by spreading it out.

Buff, your idea of staying at a level if you have wins is also very solid.  You run the risk of getting your win on one of the middle spins and only gaining 1 unit vs the 2 units you win (times the base bet) on either the first or third.  However, I like it.  I hope you share your results on the thread.

Another thought is, because of the large number of wins in the 1-1-2 range, we could use a 1-2-3 progression which would win us 2-3-3 respectively.  Then drop down to the recovery x-x-2x that I suggested.  There are lots of options here that change the BR needed, but also the potential winnings.  This system is proving to be very solid to me.  I have never had one hold up as well as this one has.  I'm excited but need any input to make it even more solid.  Glad you guys are following along with me on this.

[warrior]

Anyone try the steson idea do d'ambert raise one unit win or lose ,your winning bets should make more money then losing ones when they win keep raising one unit until profit or even.

[Le_Chiffre]

Bet selection: Consider the past 3 spins.  If a dozen appears twice in the past 3 spins, it is activated as the hot dozen and we bet on that dozen every spin until a new dozen is activated by showing twice in 3 spins.

1-1-2 as long as we get wins.

After the first set (1-1-2) loses, we add 1 to our drawdown, divide by 4, and play for 2 sets of 3 spins apiece, using the x-x-2x format for each set of 3 spins with x being the result of our figuring.  Always after losing 1-1-2, it becomes 2-2-4, 2-2-4.  If we lose the first 2-2-4 or get a hit on any step, we begin the second 2-2-4.  After the two sets (which could be as fast as 2 consecutive wins or as slow as 6 spins), we determine our drawdown.

We now add 2, divide by 5, and play for 3 sets of 3 spin using x-x-2x format again.

Next round if we are still down after these spins, add 3, divide by 6, play 4 sets

Next round, add 4, divide by 7, play 5 sets, etc.

At any point, if we are even to the session high or at a new high, we reset to our 1-1-2 betting.

B/R suggestion is Nathanael's, 200 units per session.

I have not lost a session yet, having only had drawdowns equal or slightly greater than 100 3 (4?) times.  I have been playing 150 spins a set but not for any reason.  I find that most sessions pay about 50 units profit per 150 spins, but that has some variance as you would expect.

Thanks for the reply Colbster.  How high have you had to go level wise. And what happens when you hit a losing streak when you're playing sets of 10 for example?

[shaquille3]

Thank you. This is a very good system. The only problem I have is with bet selection. Do you change every time when 2 dozens hit in the last 3 spins? even when you are in the middle of a progression? Can you suggest another bet selection method?

[Colbster]

I am fairly certain I have only gotten to level 7, but there are some wins along the way, just not enough to get all the way back to even with the session high.  Because of the increasing divisor, there hasn't been any real troubles.

Regarding longer sets,  you would expect to have wins during earlier sets, as the number of straight losses is only so many.  You would have more regular winning sets with higher losses when they come.  There may be someone who could optimize this, but I am not that guy.

@Shaquille
I do change every time the dozen changes, even in the middle of a progression.  This allows the system to reflexively respond to the changing situation that random is throwing at us and to catch the streaks that are intrinsic to roulette.

If you are looking for another bet selection, you could play follow-the-last, chase-the-sleeper, or any other number of selection methods.  As long as they give a roughly 1/3 hit rate, they will do well in this method.  I like playing hot dozens myself, but that isn't necessarily the best, just the one that makes me feel the best.

[vladir]

Why not try to increase first lvl bets to get more in the streaks, wich are something that happens a lot? With this progression, it seems we will be betting only 1 on streaks most of the time... For example, maybe we could start with 3-2-3 instead of 1-1-2? On streaks, we would be getting +6 every hit... it also raises the bet for the first lvl to the double.

[jstraa]

Hey ... this is worth to be my first post. Another way to make the dozen selection is to wait for sleeping dozens to trigger. 5 or 6 times might be the magic number? Can anyone test my theory? If not i will test it with my own written software script but that takes some weeks.

THanks,

Jeroen

[Le_Chiffre]

I tried this according to the rules above and it wasn't long before I reached 300 drawdown level 7. I luckily got it back but if wasn't lucky I could have gone really bad as the stakes were quite high at that level.
This could be good at 0.10 but at full 1 unit stakes it need a lot more than 200 bankroll. Even 10x that would be risky.

[Colbster]

As I haven't seen anything even vaguely that level, can you share your spin history so I can confirm?

[Nathanael]

Tough start, awesome recovery!

Spins: 150
Bets: 147
Total profits: 48 units

Profits per spin: 0.327 units

Max drawdown: 100
Lowest B/R: -98
Highest bet: 22 (1 spin), followed by 12 (1 spin)

The 100-unit drawdown solidifies Nathanael's 200-unit suggestion.  This didn't touch anywhere near 200, but 200 gives enough wiggle room to get right.  The drawdown came early this session, with only 13 wins during the first 52 spins.  Despite the early losses, it recovered easily and was off to the races!

I tested these spins from Reply #44 using the 1-1-2-3-4; 2-2-4-6-8; 3-3-6-9-12; etc... progression.
I always go to 2-2-4-6-8 after a loss on 1-1-2-3-4.
I stay at the same level until I fully recover or I if a win on a smaller starting bet will put me in profit, I drop back to that level.
If I am betting 6-6-12-18-24 and I win and all I need to recover is say 4 chips, I drop back to 3-3-6-9-12 because a win on 3 will give me a new profit.
If I lose the 2-2-4-6-8 or higher level, I don't add anything, I just divide by 4, 5, 6, 7 etc... per Colby's method.
I played all 150 spins making the 147 bets.
Highest draw down was 29 units.
Largest level was 6-6-12-18-24 and I got to it by losing 1-1-2-3-4; then 2-2-4-6-8; then 6-6-12-18-24.  I won the 6 unit bet 3 our of 4 spins which put me at a new profit.
Units won were 51.

I'll try one of the other high draw down sessions later.

Nate

[Le_Chiffre]

As I haven't seen anything even vaguely that level, can you share your spin history so I can confirm?

I was doing on play mode of an online casino.  I'll download roulette xtreme again and try it on there.  I'm pretty sure it wont take long to reach high drawdown again unless I'm doing it wrong and misunderstood your way of playing.  Is the below chart the correct way of playing in levels (a set being x-x-x)

1-1-2               (1 set) 

DD+1    div 4  ( 2 sets) 

DD+2    div 5   (3 sets)

DD+3    div 6   (4 sets)

DD+4    div 7   (5 sets)

DD+5    div 8   (6 sets)

DD+6    div 9   (7 sets)

DD+7    div 10   (8 sets)

DD+8    div 11  ( 9 sets)

DD+9    div 12   (10 sets)

DD+10  div 13  (11 sets)