Double Shot on Double Dozens

[GLC]

This could go under Money Management, but I think it's such a good system that I'm going to put it here under "full systems".

Use any bet selection method you like to determine the 2 dozens you want to bet on.

Progression is: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 5-5; 7-7; 9-9; 12-12; 16-16; 21-21.  You could continue   the progression if you wanted.  Just add the 2nd and 3rd number from the last number and that's your next bet.  Example:  the last bet is 21.  the 2nd from last number is 16 and the 3rd from last number is 12.  16+12=28 so the next bet in the progression would be 28-28, then 37-37 etc...

Bet 1-1 to start.  If you win, double it and bet 2-2.  If win the "double shot", re-set to 1-1.

If you lose either the 1st or the 2nd "shot" move to the next level in the progression.  At each level, we're not finished with it until we have lost the 1st bet at which time we move on to the next level, won the 1st bet at which time we bet the "double shot" and either won the "double shot" bet or lost the "doubled shot".   If we win the "double shot" we evaluate where we are and we either stay where we are, re-set to 1-1 or re-set to a level between where we are and 1-1 that will just cause us to reach a new high bank.

Once you reach a level in the progression, you don't move back down the progression until you reach a new high bank amount (or within 1 or 2 units of a new high bank).  Two exceptions to that rule is if you are at say the 9-9 level, and you only need 4 units to reach a new high bankroll, you can drop down to 2-2 or 4-4.  If you drop to 2-2 it's because you are going for a double win.  If you choose 4-4 it's because you are going for a single win.  I prefer the 2-2 because if I lose, I'm at a lower level and I always like to keep my bets as low as possible.

If you can get on Betvoyager non-zero roulette, that's obviously the best place to play this.

I've been testing on non-zero and I've won 500 units and the most I've every had to bet was 21-21.

I just bet on the 1st and 2nd dozens exclusively since I've never been able to determine that bet selection methods make any difference in the long run.

I don't doubt that there's a streak from hell with this systems as with all systems, so set a reasonable stop loss to protect your bank.

The most I've every been down is 120 units.  I think a reasonable stop loss is 200-300 units.  But you could choose 100 - 150.  You would reach this a little more often, but hopefully not too often.  The larger the stop loss, the less often you will reach it, but when you do, it will take a big tax toll.  If you are using a large stop loss, you just have to have the proper mentality that recognizes that you will win a lot of units without ever having a losing day, but when you do have a losing day, it will be a big one.  But, with a little luck, you hopefully will be far enough ahead of the game that it won't be devastating. 

When I set a large stop loss, say 1000 units.  I only consider about 10% of what I'm winning to be true wins.  The other 90% I set aside as the cost that will have to be paid eventually for winning the 10%.  This seems to work out psychologically and financially for me.  You say 10% is too high, then make it 5% or 2% or if you think you have a really good system, you might make it 20%.  You be the judge!  I'm just trying to help you not get emotionally devastated when you've won 1200 units with ease and then you have a 1000 unit loss and it feels like a raging bull just kicked you in the gut.

Remember, if there's a number that the ball can land on that will cause you to lose your next bet, eventually enough of these events will happen close enough together to cause you to go into a really big downturn.  I've never seen a system yet that had a bet that there was no number that could cause them to lose that bet.  That means that no system is guaranteed to win every time.  Keep it in mind that every time you sit down to play, you may be getting ready to start the "session from hell".  So be prepared for it; emotionally and financially.

This is a very solid system.  Test it before you play it for real money and you'll see what I mean.  It's simple to play.  No tracking, no manipulations of spin results, just a simple little trot that wins as well or better than any other system I've tested.

If anyone chooses to test it, let us know how it works for you.

LOL,

G

[buffalowizard]

Thanks for the method George,


I really like the look of this one.


So if we are on progression level 5, we bet once, win and then double it to 10?


If we lose this double bet, then we move on to the next step of progression level?


Thanks mate


BW

[GLC]

Correct.  Bet 5-5 and if you win you bet 10-10.  If you lose either bet you
Move tomthe 7-7 level. 

If you win both bets you evaluate your position.  If you are at a new high, you reset to 1-1.  If you are still down more than 15 then you replay this level, both shots.  If you are down less than that, you can bet less than 5-5.

G

[buffalowizard]

That's great, thanks


I'm gonna go give this one the runaround.


The more I look around these boards, the more it becomes clear that MM is the key to success.


Buff

[Chrisbis]

So true!

[Jointu]

That's great, thanks


I'm gonna go give this one the runaround.


The more I look around these boards, the more it becomes clear that MM is the key to success.


Buff

MM , a good bet selection and a smooth progression.

However, no matter how you play it- in the end all tend to the averages.
A good bet selection avoids significant deviations from the averages.

[buffalowizard]

I agree and would put MM up there at the top of what's most important.


I think with good MM you can do better with poor betting selection than
vice versa.


BW

[Colbster]

Getting back to this specific bet method, here are my calculations as best as I can get them:

We lose when we do not get a double hit on a 2/3 bet.  We are (2/3)^2, or 4/9 likely to get a double hit, meaning we will miss 5/9 of the time.  To get to level 49-49 (Max on BV NZ), we have 13 chances.  This means we figure (5/9)^13, which becomes 1,220,703,125/2,541,865,828,329 or approximately 1 in 2,082 chances.  We only risk 388 units to get this high.  This seems like a huge advantage to me with proper MM as the rest have been discussing.

I think it was GLC, although I might be incorrect, that had a MM plan where a percentage went to winnings, a percentage went to your large bankroll, and a percentage went to building additional banks.  If anyone remembers where this is (I couldn't find it with my 30-second effort), that might be just right for this method.

Nice work!

[Colbster]

I found the MM system I was looking for over on the other board.  This is it:

link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=1534.0

[birdhands]

Ah, Colbster; I was hoping to see you on this thread. 


So you think a 388 unit bank optimizes our chances?  I was hoping to get away with a smaller one.

[Colbster]

I just realized my mistake regarding the staking for BV NZ.  The maximum bet on BV NZ for dozens is 60, so the maximum bet can only be 28, allowing us to double up if we win.  This changes our bank requirement to 208, instead of 388, although it also increases our likelihood of bust to (5/9)^11, 48,828,125/31,381,059,609, or about 1/642.

I did just run into a problem, though, and I ultimately am not sure how to handle it.  Maybe we can get some feedback from GLC.

When we lose at higher levels, we are down enough that our wins at the next level of the progression are nowhere near enough to cover the losses.  When I consider what level I should place my next bet at, it is actually higher than that where I just had my win.  For instance, if I win at 16, I am down enough that I need to bet at 27 to get back to breakeven.  We only have about 1/5 chance of hitting a double win at 27 after getting the double win at 16.  I busted, even after getting some good wins.  Somehow, the progression needs to be steeper to offset our losses, but then we run into the usual trouble of table limits and risk tolerance.  I'm at a loss.

[catalyst]

dear George
i printed the 'forced win progression' other day. isnt this system based on that?
thanks
catalyst

N.B. I WANTED TO PM TODAY. BUT NOW THINKING TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS FIRST.

[GLC]

I just realized my mistake regarding the staking for BV NZ.  The maximum bet on BV NZ for dozens is 60, so the maximum bet can only be 28, allowing us to double up if we win.  This changes our bank requirement to 208, instead of 388, although it also increases our likelihood of bust to (5/9)^11, 48,828,125/31,381,059,609, or about 1/642.

I did just run into a problem, though, and I ultimately am not sure how to handle it.  Maybe we can get some feedback from GLC.

When we lose at higher levels, we are down enough that our wins at the next level of the progression are nowhere near enough to cover the losses.  When I consider what level I should place my next bet at, it is actually higher than that where I just had my win.  For instance, if I win at 16, I am down enough that I need to bet at 27 to get back to breakeven.  We only have about 1/5 chance of hitting a double win at 27 after getting the double win at 16.  I busted, even after getting some good wins.  Somehow, the progression needs to be steeper to offset our losses, but then we run into the usual trouble of table limits and risk tolerance.  I'm at a loss.

Colbster,


Thanks for taking the time to do some analysis on this system.  I think the problem you are running into, and this will change the math substantially, is that at whatever level in the progression we have a win on, we continue to play at that level until we lose again without recovering completely, or we fully recover at which time we re-set.


We can play around with the progression all we want.  I was originally going to just use a standard D'Alembert, but I know that the bets need to escalate in the later levels if we are ever going to get back to a new high bank.


We could consider a Fibonacci progression or for a real heart pounder we could use a martingale.  I haven't played around with different progressions yet.  I've had such good results with the 1st one I thought of that I haven't taken time to tweak for maximum efficiency.


All help to make this a better method is very much appreciated.


GLC

[GLC]

dear George
i printed the 'forced win progression' other day. isnt this system based on that?
thanks
catalyst

N.B. I WANTED TO PM TODAY. BUT NOW THINKING TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS FIRST.

Yes Catalyst,  this system is a tweak to that system.  Both of them have been doing very well in my testings.


I've been trying to think of a way to use a labby with  this method.  That'll make our friend Tomla021 happy.  It gets a little complicated on a double dozen with a parlay added to use a labby.


G

[Tomla021]

George did you say Labby and Parlay---I'm excited....... But for this I really like the way you do it right from the start... and if the Tucson Thunderkid is testing it and it looks good this East Coast kid ain't ruining it