Best double dozen progression?

[doubledime]

Please, some thoughts on the best double dozen progression.

Thanks,  DD

[RouletteGhost]

No such thing as a good one. But best?

Well hows the bet selection? If bet selection is foolproof then 1, 3, 9

If it is so so then great progression
1 1 1 1 1 if up reset if down
2 2 2 2 2 if up or even back to 1 if down
3 3 3 3 3

[ddarko]

No such thing as a good one. But best?

Well hows the bet selection? If bet selection is foolproof then 1, 3, 9

If it is so so then great progression
1 1 1 1 1 if up reset if down
2 2 2 2 2 if up or even back to 1 if down
3 3 3 3 3

If the best selection was foolproof you wouldn't need a progression right ?

[GLC]

I have to agree with DD.  There's no best.  They all have a weakness that must be dealt with.

Even though most of my progressions are negative progressions sprinkled with a few positive progressions here and there I find myself drifting closer and closer toward the flatbet crowd.  Since I don't really think bet selection makes that much difference in the long run, if any, where does that leave me?

Okay, here's my latest thinking.  It's straight from our friend Atlantis.  Never bet after a Loss and always bet after a Win.  This will keep you from a steep drop due to a long series of losses, and of course we're always there when we have a long series of wins.  Okay, so WLWLWLWL is what kills you, but like I said, they all have their weakness.

GLC

[eddy35]

I have to agree with DD.  There's no best.  They all have a weakness that must be dealt with.

Even though most of my progressions are negative progressions sprinkled with a few positive progressions here and there I find myself drifting closer and closer toward the flatbet crowd.  Since I don't really think bet selection makes that much difference in the long run, if any, where does that leave me?

Okay, here's my latest thinking.  It's straight from our friend Atlantis.  Never bet after a Loss and always bet after a Win.  This will keep you from a steep drop due to a long series of losses, and of course we're always there when we have a long series of wins.  Okay, so WLWLWLWL is what kills you, but like I said, they all have their weakness.

GLC

I don't believe in betselections. I believe in statistics in combination with a controlable progression.
If you play with a bankroll of 200 units max.............. then that is your flatbat.

Like the progression I posted in my other topic. I won almost all the sessions I tested. My bankroll almost never went under -200. Sessions of 250 spins gave a profit of 150 units.
So -200 is the point of no return, never continue the progression if you reach 200 minus.  Then consider 200 units as a flatbat.

[GLC]

I can't argue with your logic. It reminds me of a topic of mine titled 'every bet's a flat bet'.

[Chris555p]

@ Eddy35- 1 question concerning: ...''Sessions of 250 spins gave a profit of 150 units.'' Is it flat bet....?

[eddy35]

No, you can see the progression in the topic I began.

I just keep the progression limited till I reach a minus of 200...... then I stop. So I consider my bankrol of 200 a flatbet.

[Chris555p]

I  looked above but can't see the progression in question....

I note that in one post u metnioned that ....."Like the progression I posted in my other topic. I won almost all the sessions I tested...."; Is it possible to
put a link of the progression here thanks..

[eddy35]

I  looked above but can't see the progression in question....

I note that in one post u metnioned that ....."Like the progression I posted in my other topic. I won almost all the sessions I tested...."; Is it possible to
put a link of the progression here thanks..

I tested like this:

- only play the first dozen, this is the way I played it but just chose your own bet selection !
- start to play with 2 units.... but you can also start with 1 unit
- ad a unit after a loss till you are on a new high
- then return to the 2 unit bet
- If you win your bet but your are not on a new high, play the same bet size again. So only ad one unit after a loss.

I saw something like this on the forum already but I made a little twist to prevent big drawdowns.

- adjust your betsize if you are within one spin from a new high...................... example: you have to bet 21 units but you are only 6 units from a new high, then play 3 instead of 21 units. 3 units will bring you to a new high after a win. If you lose that bet you ad one and play 4 units.

I tested this for a few thousand spins already and it goes smoothly. It is also easy to controle the progression.

[Chris555p]

@Eddy35 - oki thanks.

[GLC]

I tested like this:

- only play the first dozen, this is the way I played it but just chose your own bet selection !
- start to play with 2 units.... but you can also start with 1 unit
- ad a unit after a loss till you are on a new high
- then return to the 2 unit bet
- If you win your bet but your are not on a new high, play the same bet size again. So only ad one unit after a loss.

I saw something like this on the forum already but I made a little twist to prevent big drawdowns.

- adjust your betsize if you are within one spin from a new high...................... example: you have to bet 21 units but you are only 6 units from a new high, then play 3 instead of 21 units. 3 units will bring you to a new high after a win. If you lose that bet you ad one and play 4 units.

I tested this for a few thousand spins already and it goes smoothly. It is also easy to controle the progression.

Eddy,  Have you ever tried playing your progression on all 3 dozens at the same time betting differentially.  Your method is between a D'Alembert and an Oscar's Grind.

Could be interesting.

GLC

[eddy35]

Eddy,  Have you ever tried playing your progression on all 3 dozens at the same time betting differentially.  Your method is between a D'Alembert and an Oscar's Grind.

Could be interesting.

GLC

I was thinking about it.  I had the same idea 
One thing is clear to me when using this progression.......... never go further then -200. Till then you recover quickly, but after -200 there is a big deep hole.

[eddy35]

I tested a few sessions this afternoon, about 80/90 spins each. I don't believe in testing 1000's of spins because nobody plays that long at a table.


Number of spins played.............................session result..........................lowest bankroll during session..................... maximum bet used

100..........................................................+ 43.........................................-25.......................................................12
92.............................................................+ 61.........................................-39......................................................15
91.............................................................+ 45........................................-230......................................................39............ hard session!!
82.............................................................+ 63........................................-9.........................................................7................very easy session!!
80..............................................................+15.........................................-312....................................................32..............also very hard session
88..............................................................+52.........................................-24......................................................13

We are not there yet but I think it has potential.

[eddy35]

6 more sessions :

97 spins           +50                  -21                    14
87 spins           + 47                 -12                    6
82 spins           + 41                 -21                     10
87 spins           + 19                 -133                  18
82 spins           + 9                   - 505                  50     ( worst session tested )
93 spins           +58                    0                      14