### Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 170975 times)

palestis and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### palestis

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1110 on: May 15, 2019, 12:20:58 AM »
If the trigger is 3-1-1 (30-2-9), and the next 3 #'s are 2-1-2 (20-3-19)
it means that the first level has lost.
Initially when this system was first posted, you continue with the original trigger to the 2nd level and then (hopefully not) the 3rd level.
But it is also a good idea to switch to a new trigger if the first level of 3 bets has failed.
I have tested it that way and it is equally successful.
You can even use a much lesser steep progression by changing triggers, (maybe flat bets), and depend on the much higher frequency of hits to make up for the occasional failures.
I recommend you to test it further using your idea. It might be better.
As I have said before its' much harder for varying triggers to lose back to back ,as opposed to staying with the sane trigger for prolonged bets.

The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Stratege, sweaterszn

#### palestis

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1111 on: May 15, 2019, 12:25:39 AM »
I forgot to mention that if the next 3 #'s do not form a trigger, then you start with a new trigger as soon as it is formed. But it is a good idea for the new trigger to have a different target dozen.

The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Third, sweaterszn

#### Stratege

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1112 on: May 15, 2019, 06:20:38 PM »
I do agree the law of thirds is not exclusive to roulette but when we discuss roulette the law must be seen in the context of roulette and its application serves players best over 37 spins.
Dice can be viewed as double streets, each with six outcomes but applying the law of thirds to double streets is really not wise play. By watering down the law of thirds to 3 variables in your case is not a sound approach. Its Mumbo Jumbo crap!

Initially, I talked about "law of the third" in the context of roulette, but you have to explain things in many ways to MickyP so that he understands simple theories. Coarseness is not the context of roulette.  I respond to MickyP's quirky comments:

1) The rude word is the vocabulary of people without education.

2) the "law of the third" isn't limited to 37 turns or "at best a little more" according to him, since theoretically 37 spins = 12 or 13 absent, 74 spins = 3 or 4 numbers absent among the 12 absent (so 1/3), after 111 spins, among these 3 or 4 absent, 1/3 remains absent.

3) "the law of the third applied to 12 numbers would not be a good approach"! It should be understood why MickyP opened the topic "Dozen Drive" for a short game on 12 numbers!!!

4) He thinks that it will "dilute the law of the third" with 12 numbers but not 6. This is a reasoning without value, because this law or rather the "binomial law" is very general, it is a law who is "first", she never brought an advantage to the player, but MickyP says the opposite!

Explanation on point 4: a) "a law taken alone brings no advantage, it is the combination of several laws that allows to meet limits and observe phenomena that will bring a favorable probability" (definition of Stratege).

b) The law of the third has nothing to do with 6 issues out of 37. The concept of "heat" and "law of the third" should not be confused. Heat (or other concept) is based on secondary laws, which depend on the "binomial law". When MickyP understands his mistakes in just a few lines, he will be able to start studying roulette laws and then try to discover the useful features of these laws, so he can bring us a coherent discourse.

Explanations on point 3: I said in a message that the few spins played after XXY represent only a "first fundamental criterion", therefore, I absolutely did not affirm that the "law of the third" was a way to win on D and C. MickyP imagines things to come to pollute the discussion.

We expect a member to bring his technical essays, politely, to build a community and not to destroy the social bond.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 06:36:53 PM by Stratege »

#### MickyP

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1113 on: May 15, 2019, 07:10:32 PM »
The law of thirds in the context of roulette, 37 numbers states that "approximately" one third of the numbers will not show. 37 spins/results is one cycle but if you break it down to dozens then one cycle will be three spins/results.

What you are saying is that irrespective of the number of variables the outcome will always reflect close to the law of thirds. I say this is not true.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 07:20:31 PM by MickyP »

#### Third

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1114 on: May 15, 2019, 08:07:24 PM »
In my mind "heat" is a function of the Law of the Third because there is no spin sequence (of sufficient length) that will elude it and therefore, "heat" must be produced in every spin sequence; the result of specific numbers falling into the Repeater category, with one group (of any size) always being the hottest.

So, since the above is true, why do I need to know the binomial distribution forumula to understand "heat"?  How can knowing and applying it, help me work better to take advantage of "heat"?  Can't I simply ignore it?

Can the binomial distribution formula predict when "heat" will end and begin?

#### kav

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2336
• Thanked: 1315 times
• Gender:
##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1115 on: May 15, 2019, 08:30:01 PM »
This topic with over 150K views deserves respectful and constructive replies. Anything else will be deleted. Thanks for your understanding.

The following users thanked this post: Stratege

#### Stratege

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1116 on: May 16, 2019, 06:49:35 AM »

Third, maybe I would say rather that "heat" is a consequence of the binomial law, and that heat has a function for the player. I play a little with the words to separate the manifestations of the hazard / what the players "seek". What you say next lets me think that "heat" is a game concept, a vision of the player. For example, a player will say that 3 times the same number = heat, but another player (as well as me) will say no, heat = 4 times the minimum number. But all this does not say the number of repetitions / duration of the sequence; this is another parameter that will define even more precisely the "heat concept of a player".

But do not forget that 37 different numbers on 37 spins will arrive one day, there is a lot of possible combinations, even the "ordinal" (1, 2, 3 ...). When you say that "heat must be produced," you mean that the "law of repetition" must occur. Yes, but on 30 or even 37 spins this is not an absolute certainty. The "law of repetition" can bring a number two times in a row but it is not a "heat phenomenon" because there is no persistent effect that allows us to say that in less than 37 spins we will win on this same number.

One could say that the "heat" is an excess of the "law of repetition" because the binomial law allows it, and because the "delay" also favors the effects of the "law of equilibrium" which allows repetitions to equalize (sufficiently) the numbers between them.

In summary, your questions: What is the purpose of the "binomial law", or for players the "law of the third" to understand the "heat" and win the roulette? To construct the criteria of a method on heat, we must understand as much as possible the laws that act as main forces within the "law of the third". I posted a message in my topic "philosophy" which explains the constraints between forces on the EC but, that this is exactly the same general way on the straight up. I add that we need to look more broadly at the SU, how the repetitions are distributed, as well as the delays, in general to cross several secondary laws. It is on the limits (sufficient values) of the laws, at their points of intersection, that the hazard (the unpredictable binomial distribution) will favor the repetition of certain numbers (a number is a sector of a box).
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 06:59:13 AM by Stratege »

#### Third

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1117 on: May 16, 2019, 07:03:36 AM »
Third, maybe I would say rather that "heat" is a consequence of the binomial law, and that heat has a function for the player. I play a little with the words to separate the manifestations of the hazard / what the players "seek". What you say next lets me think that "heat" is a game concept, a vision of the player. For example, a player will say that 3 times the same number = heat, but another player (as well as me) will say no, heat = 4 times the minimum number. But all this does not say the number of repetitions / duration of the sequence; this is another parameter that will define even more precisely the "heat concept of a player".

I hold that as long as we have at least 37 spins, there is no such thing as "a heat concept" that is dependent on subjectivity; its an objective and persistent fact.  The statistical chances of a single series of 37 numbers is statistically beyond the span of all of our lifetimes -- now what about it repeating twice in a row (74 spins)?  So we have no need to talk about the fact that hotness is not guaranteed because that is a practically theoretical consideration.

What is interesting is that the same statistical probability that forces heat, also limits its duration through gaps.  Since the Law of the Third is the manifestation of this forced heat, the question is, what is the Law that determines how/when this forced heat is limited and returns; i.e. the Anti-Law of the Third.

We already know the force that causes the heat; it is simply that 37^37 is so profoundly rare that it is practically impossible for any of us to see.  That's easy to understand!  However, hidden in this statistical picture is the fact that since heat must be produced, it also must be produced in groups of numbers (of any size) as the hottest, simply because the same winnowing force of 37^37 must also produce it!

So we will always have our Ultimate Heat to work with in every sequence of at least 37 spins and it will always defy statistical probability for the sequence but THERE IS AN ANTI-FORCE THAT LIMITS HOW FAR BEYOND PROBABILITY IT WILL GO.

If we can learn to measure this Anti-Force, we will simply break the code of roulette and any other randomly generated sequence.  How do we even identify it so we can study it?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 07:28:11 AM by Third »

The following users thanked this post: Stratege

#### MickyP

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1118 on: May 16, 2019, 08:27:02 AM »
Good question you ended off with Third.

The current conversation holds no value and adds nothing to improving this remarkable system. As the system stands including all the constructive posts and questioning of the variety of approaches, it remains a masterpiece that forms the foundation of many methods. The rather uncomplicated trigger system is the gem. What players do with it determines their success in the game.

The whole idea of philosophizing about the effectiveness of the triggers is, I presume, to try and harness an advantage beyond what the triggers already provides. Palestis has taken the time to really test the effectiveness of the triggers and he has on numerous occasions discussed the use of virtual play to counter negative variance. Losses do occur with playing every trigger and Palestis has found a practical approach to limit the losses thus keeping the player in the game and hopefully in profit as well.

You can not take random distribution and expect to create a method that will consistently provide an advantage to the player. No such system or method exists.

I think it best if the conversation returns to normal with worthy contributions about the system.

The following users thanked this post: Third, UnlikelySam

#### Stratege

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1119 on: May 16, 2019, 08:29:11 AM »
For the first part of your message, Third. I agree with you, I just said that the "heat concept" will be different depending on the players, because they will play in different spin limits, so the effects of heat may have more amplitudes or less strong depending on the number of repetitions but, what matters is to find the right limits to start and stop playing. This isnâ€™t talking about subjectivity but concrete parameters. I also pointed out that there were exceptions from the "repetition law", which are possible for 30 or more spins. Indeed, we will not see them at the scale of a life. I added this absolute math, because there are limit possibilities. This is very important to emphasize for practice, because many players think that there are limits much shorter than reality. This is why progressions will be made from risky assumptions in practice. It is these impossible limits to face that "must" oblige the player to stop his game as soon as a gap begins to grow. The biggest bankroll will always be too small in a face-off, because even situations far from extremes will make you lose. It is also often a set of situations, absolutely not extreme, that can be enough, by sequence, to lose a bankroll. What I am saying about the extremes is very realistic, because it is the road to bankruptcy, even though we will never approach extremes. I spoke about this by answering a member who wanted to know the maximum direct series (question on the absolute). I said that in practice smaller incremental gaps were even more dangerous.

Mako, in his variant YXX, suggests that his progress may be lost. It sets at "-150" the loss. But recovering 150 units will be very long, if he loses another 150 units soon. With YXX, there are some improvements that can be made so that progression also works as a reducer of deviance.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 08:32:22 AM by Stratege »

The following users thanked this post: Third, UnlikelySam

#### Stratege

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1120 on: May 16, 2019, 10:52:00 AM »

...The current conversation holds no value and adds nothing to improving this remarkable system. As the system stands including all the constructive posts and questioning of the variety of approachesâ€¦

The whole idea of philosophizing about the effectiveness of the triggers is, I presume, to try and harness an advantage beyond what the triggers already provides...

I think it best if the conversation returns to normal with worthy contributions about the system.

Although such a message should belong to palestis, if that's his opinion, I take advantage of the situation to tell MickyP, who thinks there is nothing to add to the "palestis's March", that I'm going to open a new discussion on this topic of "micro-balances". MickyP will not need to come and read the messages, since he says that everything is here and that to say more is only philosophy. Yes, palestis did a great job and, thanks for not coming into my discussion you know beforehand useless. Sincerely, I give you reason, you will not find anything interesting in my next discussion, thank you again for not coming there.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 10:54:57 AM by Stratege »

#### palestis

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1121 on: May 16, 2019, 01:17:49 PM »
I like to keep things simple. And leave it up to extended tests to provide answers as to whether or not a system can be successful to play.
First of all, the basic idea of this system came from the late HARRYJ when I was asking him to advise me on a system using outside bets with as fewer numbers as possible.
And he came up with the single dozen system, basing his reasoning on the fact that single dozens have the tendency to disappear for a few spins. That could be a derivative of the law of the thirds.
So when you have twice the same dozen and once another single dozen in the last 3 spins, it is obvious that that single dozen has to appear once more to abide by this fact. At least most of the time.
That's how the idea of the XXY was born.
But it took some other members (mostly a then member REYTH), who contributed on the value of the triggers like XXY, YXX, XYX plus some red flags to be avoided, to make this system more robust.
HARRYJ would play this system on airball machines with a very low starting chip.
And he took advantage of every trigger that was forming, without qualifications.
Even using already spun numbers if they formed a new trigger. To ensure continuous play.
He was counting on the higher frequency of wins vs. losses to make a small profit, and not wasting any time to examine every trigger or relying on progression to make a hit.
But when higher value chips are the only choice in a live casino, you have to qualify every trigger, to increase certainty. Plus using some virtual losses, to avoid the dangerous back to back losses that show up once in a while.
Those virtual losses can be a step or 2 within a level, or an entire level of 3 spins, or even an entire level plus a spin or 2 in the next level. You can observe score boards keeping an eye on what
Also the idea of moving on to another trigger, if the first level failed is also a very good strategy

« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 01:21:08 PM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Third, UnlikelySam, Astutillo, sweaterszn

#### Rich

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1122 on: June 03, 2019, 04:31:21 PM »
@palestis

like your system but have 1 question.
you said you give the system to a friend and has almost a 100% hit with 3 vitual losses.
do you mean dat he first lost 3 virtual bets and then start with the 3 bets.
example:

33
8
30
14 virtual lost
10 virtual lost
30 virtual lost
28 bet no hit
18 bet no hit
3   bet win

richard

#### palestis

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1123 on: June 04, 2019, 02:38:45 AM »
No Rich.
When I said 3 virtual losses, I mean 3 entire TRIGGER losses ( 3 steps per trigger= 9 steps in total).
Not the 3 losing steps following the trigger.
But for the impatient, that works well too. You lose the first 3 steps virtually and bet 3-4 more steps.
I expect the target dozen to show up in 6-7 steps ( including the first 3 steps that lost virtually).
But with 3 entire trigger losses, it is the best way to obtain a certain win.
It takes time but it's worth the wait, if your only option is to win.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2019, 02:40:46 AM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Third, Astutillo

#### MickyP

##### Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #1124 on: June 04, 2019, 03:36:11 PM »
If there is about a 90% chance that the dozen being bet on may show up in 6 spins and about 70% of showing in the first three spins then why not adjust the game to these expectation values?

I took the above and did a small test of 100 spins playing the first dozen to land for 6 spins. On a win I simply allowed a new spin to determine the next dozen to bet. I also created a static bet selection mixture of single streets, quads and splits for the exercise. I created four static betting patterns and played each one over the same 100 spins. Needless to say the final totals were very different with all four samples showing a nice gain but what was nice to see is that no mini-game was lost. I had a few that won on spin 6 but not more than a six spin game was required in the exercise.
Just my way of seeing if what "Third" posted in another thread holds true. The assumption is valid based on the results of the exercise. Remember that there was a 10% chance of a betting sequence exceeding 6 spins and losing.

If I were to take this static system in my exercise and include a strategy based on more testing, I could make a serious dent in the approx 10% chance of losing.
Palestis has done this using virtual losses with his method and there are also red flags to indicate a no betting situation. Players have molded the Single Dozen System into a winning method.

A point to consider is the % chance of a dozen repeating in 6 spins but only shows once in the first three spins. This is what we have with the Single Dozen System (approx 70%). The spin counter begins with the first spin of the forming trigger. The trigger takes up three spins and the betting part a further three spins (6 spins total). My exercise gave a full 6 spin opportunity for one showing of the target dozen.