Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 149834 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.


« Reply #1080 on: November 06, 2018, 09:39:11 AM »
If you factor in a  negative the result will ALWAYS be a negative .IMO of course  :D
The following users thanked this post: roulettefan, Stratege


« Reply #1081 on: April 13, 2019, 06:34:55 PM »
I wish to bring to this discussion of 73 pages (!) Some precise notions to reduce the gaps on the dozens. The model of palestis (XXY + attack on 3 or 4 spins) is a very correct base. We are waiting for the model 2X + Y and we play 3 or 4 spins to hope Z. If Z comes, we will close the part always after the coming of a Z (example: // XYX (YYZ) //; // YXX (YZ) //; // XXY(YXX) XYYXYXYXZ //). It is important to wait until the end of the gap with the coming of a Z to close the part, that is what diminishes the deviances in the accountancy of the player. Of course, if // XYZ // the game is closed, we cannot play it. With this principle of play, we take spins that have a weaker deviance.

But we can improve this principle by using "staggered games". We take for example the sequence // XXY (YXX) XYYXYXYXXZ //. A first staggered will take 1 spin on 2 // XXY (YXX) XYYXYXYXZ //. We have here // XYX (XYY) YX //. It will be necessary to use shifts of 1 out of 2 and also of 1 out of 3, etc. We can thus follow several staggered games and play only the spins that indicate several times Z to play. The gaps will be further diminished.

My opinion on a negative progression is not favorable, because it is playing against the gap (too long). It must be emphasized that the negative progression assumes that we can beat roulette with the force of money. But the "black swan" will always remind us that the only triumphant force against roulette is the discipline based on statistics. Personally, I advise to follow this strategy in "staggered games" with unreal bet and of course to play according to the concept "deviance-compensation" (or another concept if players have a reliable knowledge). I know that players do not like a little complicated method. But it is necessary to make a choice, to enrich the casinos or to defend oneself correctly, with a technical level adapted to “the reality of the laws of the hazard”.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 06:41:46 PM by Stratege »
The following users thanked this post: Sputnik


« Reply #1082 on: April 14, 2019, 09:02:27 AM »
You said one useful thing in your mumblings above. The fact that you should wait for the completion of the cycle. This was covered in the dozen drive and yes, it does tend to soften deviance experienced.

A good approach, don't you think.


« Reply #1083 on: April 14, 2019, 03:36:49 PM »

Stratege I like the way you describe the imbalance-compensation or should we name it wave-compensation.
There is a time when you are up and times when you are down and we need to get out of the sequence when we are up.
Is very rare that you get a bad sequence without reversal, back to back.

You get reversals 86% with all sequences that start with a negative result and 17% stay negative with no compensation.
The expectation is at least one reversal or wave-compensation

This is true if you play 100 placed bets sample flat betting for 60.000 trials.
68% do you get at least two reversals.
Pretty interesting if you ask me.

Problem is that if you aim for +1 unit or +0 reversal for each and every session.
The average loss is around -8 units and eat up the profits.
I once won 100 sessions with a gain of +66 units and -8 units, but that was fluctuation and luck, next 100 sessions did not go as well as the first one.

I think Brett Morton Money Management Strategy would be a good way to tackle this issue.
Average loss -8 and average win +6

This statement is statistically proven.

The following users thanked this post: Stratege