Hi,
This is my first post here. I have come across on the internet a dozens betting strategy. So thanks to the author of it.
Rules: Wait till one dozen repeat itself...for example H L L then bet on L and continue to bet on the L dozen till you loose the bet. When you lost the bet, then wait for a repeat of the dozen and bet again the dozen to be a winner for the third time.
Progression used is below:
1,2,3,4,6,9,13,20,30,45,67,100 It is a negative progression, so when you loose a bet then use the next number of the progression.
My question would be to the experienced players: Is it possible that the progression will go up to 100?
The other is a request: Is there anybody who could test this strategy on high volume of spins on RNG (10 000, 20 000 spins) and post the result here.
For me so far so good, I have not gone up in the progression more than 9.
Thanks, Bambura
To catch ONE dozen in any form or manner is a tough venture. Those 12 numbers are distributed well over the entire wheel ..........6 on each half of the wheel.
Just check the number sequence of the wheel and you shall see.
My very basic advice is to play 2 dozens instead of one and don`t chase losses rather deploy a positive progression after 2 wins in a row. Example : The Charles Guetting progression
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Bambura
"Rules: Wait till one dozen repeat itself...for example H L L then bet on L and continue to bet on the L dozen till you lose the bet. When you lost the bet, then wait for a repeat of the dozen and bet again the dozen to be a winner for the third time."
If a dozen repeats itself, the logo would be Lww. So you're waiting for a dozen to hit twice and then you're betting for it to hit again?
Let's clarify this point and then move on to your question.
Welcome to the forum.
Sam
Hello, Thank you for all of your reply. Ok to make it more clear
1. wait that one dozen hits two times: L H M H H now you have two H, so bet on H again if win, then bet H again until you lose one bet.
2. It lost, so L H M H H you bet H , but lost, then wait for ANY dozens to repeat, so lets say
L H M H H....you were betting H bot lost it goes to M H L L .stop here you have two L L, so you place two units on L...if it lost then wait again for two repeats....so it continues as M H L M M stop here you place 3 units on M if lost, then wait again for any two repeat, and after every loss, use the progression above...1,2,3,4,6,9,......etc.
Hi Bambura,
In my opinion your progression is of a suicidal variety. My advice is to stop using it while you're ahead. Dozens can sleep for 25+ spins, your progression is only 12. Yes, I know you're not betting on a dozen to show, but any bet selection of 2:1 odds will have very similar distributions of loss and win streaks. In this case you're betting that any dozen won't continue to repeat once and only once over an extended number of spins, so far you've been lucky. Just a matter of time... :'(
Bambura
You might want to read Bayes's post very carefully. From his photo, I'd guess he's been around since about the 17th century and he is learned.
A word in your ear: Around here we use the Lw method of identify winners and losers. Our eyes and brains are accustomed to it. I think you'll get more replies if you change to that.
........When in Rome.............
Sam
Quote from: Bambura on May 10, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
Hello, Thank you for all of your reply. Ok to make it more clear
1. wait that one dozen hits two times: L H M H H now you have two H, so bet on H again if win, then bet H again until you lose one bet.
2. It lost, so L H M H H you bet H , but lost, then wait for ANY dozens to repeat, so lets say
L H M H H....you were betting H bot lost it goes to M H L L .stop here you have two L L, so you place two units on L...if it lost then wait again for two repeats....so it continues as M H L M M stop here you place 3 units on M if lost, then wait again for any two repeat, and after every loss, use the progression above...1,2,3,4,6,9,......etc.
Hello
Wait for 1 DZ hit 3 times in a row then bet against it. Then wait for another DZ hit 3 times and use 3 or 4 step progression 1,2,6 or 1,2,6,18 if you lose first bet and bet 1u on each DZ if you won your bet. Progression lets you break even and you make profit on your first won bet.
Regards
Thanks for the replies. I am playing with 10 pence / unit, so even the hundred is 10 quid only.
The thing what is hard to imagine for me, as I am betting on getting the third repeat in a dozen, that in the flow of random numbers the repeating dozen will be only two for 12 times in a raw, so I miss the third repeats for twelve consecutive times. Thats kind of manipulated for me. It should generate singles, twos, threes, fours, and so on, sometimes a dozen repeating 6 times in a row, so it has to be so callled REGULATED, that it would bring the 12 losing streak.
So you are saying based on your experience, that this could happen? Then will increase the progression with two more numbers, then will be 14. I am not a geek, but the randomness of the game would be lost if it happens this way. Would be the same on red and black as well...like having 2 blacks two reads for 12 times in a raw...can that happen?
Well, I am not arguing with you as you have more experience, just writing my thoughts.
And by the way, my aim is not to attract and collect posts, just sharing my thoughts freely.
Thanks.
For me it is obvious that is much nicer to play after a repeat that it will not happen again
:diablo:
Quote from: Bambura on May 10, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
The thing what is hard to imagine for me, as I am betting on getting the third repeat in a dozen, that in the flow of random numbers the repeating dozen will be only two for 12 times in a raw, so I miss the third repeats for twelve consecutive times. Thats kind of manipulated for me. It should generate singles, twos, threes, fours, and so on, sometimes a dozen repeating 6 times in a row, so it has to be so callled REGULATED, that it would bring the 12 losing streak.
It's tempting to draw such conclusions; most roulette system designers are attracted to the idea that random outcomes behave in a certain way and create systems on this basis, but unfortunately the premise is flawed.
If you take a pattern of fixed length (say 12), it definitely is NOT the case that certain apparently "non-random" patterns are less likely to show than any other patterns. Lotto players often go out of their way to choose seemingly random sequences like 2,7,16,24,29,33 instead of say 1,2,3,4,5,6 believing that the latter sequence is less likely to come up.
"Random" really means that each possible sequence is just as likely to occur as any other sequence, but it seems to be very hard for people to get their head around that fact. This diabolical symmetry is the bane of roulette system designers, who endlessly tweak systems in an attempt to find some Asymmetry. Mathematically, each sequence has exactly the same chance of showing as any other. That and the fact that outcomes are independent is really the definition of what "random" is - not some preconceived idea of what's random and what isn't, which is usually based on our inherent bias to detect patterns. People have very poor intuitions of probability, that's been shown many times in psychological studies.
It IS true that the patterns you identify as "non-random" are usually a small subset of the total number of possible patterns, for example in a sequence of 12 Reds or Blacks, these regular repeating patterns seem to be less likely, e.g.:
R B R B R B R B R B R B
RR B RR B RR B RR B
RRR BBB RRR BBB
etc...
There are far fewer of these kinds of patterns than those which you recognize as "more random", say RR B RRR BB R B RR, so it might seem as though you're warranted in betting that these (apparently non-random) sequences WON'T occur. The problem, however, is when you start using steep progressions. A pattern won't continue indefinitely, but it can and WILL continue (sooner or later) for long enough to destroy any kind of "one win recovers all debt and makes a profit" kind of progression. In 12 spins (or even 24), ANYTHING can happen.
The fact is, is doesn't make a damn bit of difference what sequence you use to bet on (or against), but if you knew this, would you use that kind of progression in the first place? The very basis (presumably) for taking such a risk is the notion that the sequence in question is LESS likely to occur than any of the other possible sequences, but that simply isn't the case.
Quote from: Bayes on May 11, 2012, 02:34:11 AMMathematically, each sequence has exactly the same chance of showing as any other.
And thats the Achilles Heel of roulette. You not only
have to read random, you have to learn to think in
a random fashion. That every outcome has an equal
chance levels the playing field. Reading and thinking
in a random fashion gets you on the same page as
what the wheel is producing.
'Think in random' will be the next in a long line of concepts
Gizmo has stolen from me. I'm used to it.
when you think random its better that think non random?
Quote from: synax.one on May 11, 2012, 11:00:30 AM
when you think random its better that think non random?
For roulette, yes.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 1974, 01:14:13 AM
'Think in random' will be the next in a long line of concepts
Gizmo has stolen from me. I'm used to it.
Why would anyone want to take that or ever want to claim it?
Quote from: crackers on May 11, 2012, 05:33:29 PM
Why would anyone want to take that or ever want to claim it?
Because you can't come up with anything on
your own.
Quote from: cheese on May 11, 2012, 09:28:51 PM
Because you can't come up with anything on
your own.
Poor squat for brains Spike. He claims he never shared anything with me ever. Now I
got all my BS from him. What a conflicting situation now that this now exists. I'm not
done attempting to share. I'm just going to find a way that brings home my points.
Quote from: cheese on May 11, 2012, 05:07:27 PM
For roulette, yes.
What is your definition or an example then as "non-random?"
Quote from: crackers on May 11, 2012, 10:51:58 PM
I'm just going to find a way that brings home my points.
Well, you've proven over and over that actually using
real spins doesn't work. What else is left.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on May 11, 2012, 11:04:25 PM
What is your definition or an example then as "non-random?"
Go here and use this applet.
nolinks://nolinks.gametheory.net/mike/applets/random/random.html
It will tell you how well you understand random outcomes.
I always do 100% on this test, BTW. Gizmo will now say
he does too! No, he doesn't.
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 12:23:37 AM
Well, you've proven over and over that actually using
real spins doesn't work. What else is left.
That's nice smart guy. Was it only today that these demos and contests prove
nothing. I guess you are one of those selective experts that only sounds like
excrament when it pleases you.
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Go here and use this applet.
nolinks://nolinks.gametheory.net/mike/applets/random/random.html
It will tell you how well you understand random outcomes.
I always do 100% on this test, BTW. Gizmo will now say
he does too! No, he doesn't.
Poor cheese. He's got to prove he's the king of randomness.
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 12:35:44 AM
Go here and use this applet.
nolinks://nolinks.gametheory.net/mike/applets/random/random.html
It will tell you how well you understand random outcomes.
I always do 100% on this test, BTW. Gizmo will now say
he does too! No, he doesn't.
Interesting. You are the anti-pattern!, which is what roulette produces the majority of the time.
This should be made note of here. Spike said he would never share anything. But
he just did. I guess I applied enough pressure that he had to bring something to
the table. If you have been around for years then you would know that Spike and
Gizmotron have been discussing randomness for over five years. I came to the
conclusion that Spike was playing a very short termed form of observation. It's
all there at GG. I went at randomness looking for things that continue. This is a
phenomenon of characteristics that tend to be the exception when it comes to
random. It is clear to me that Spike does not see chaos. That is what I thought
he was good at. Anyone that looks at roulette charts knows that things that
continue are fragmented among areas of the charts that don't. But now I know
that there must be characteristics that make it possible to read the parts of
randomness that have always looked chaotic to me. I just ignored these conditions.
It is no wonder why Spike has reacted to what I have shared. He has all but declared
that it is baloney while at the same time claiming that I got it from him by stealing it.
I now see where he gets "thinking in random." Thanks for sharing. Now was that all that
bad? So now I will find the characteristics of the things that don't appear to be in a
condition of continuing. The charts are strewn with these conditions all the time.
With regards to this form of looking at randomness, I will not be sharing information
that I figure out. This is Spikes domain. It's up to him and how dangerous it might be
to discuss it. But now that I know where to look it shouldn't be that difficult.
Quote from: crackers on May 12, 2012, 12:04:40 PM
With regards to this form of looking at randomness, I will not be sharing information
that I figure out.
Oh no. But when you consider that almost everybody in the
contest was way ahead of you when you sprained your brain
and had to drop out, I don't think anybody cares if you share
or not.
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
Oh no. But when you consider that almost everybody in the
contest was way ahead of you when you sprained your brain
and had to drop out, I don't think anybody cares if you share
or not.
FINE, BE A FORKING ICE HOLE. I was willing to give you respect for sharing. Now you
get no regards whatsoever. My first inclination is to test the absence of the trend
condition. BTW dick - it's impossible for randomness to stop being random on a
fare wheel. Any observation of an opportunity therefore must be thinking random.
Your grand achievement is only an achievement in semantics.
For the record, my follow the trend technique includes attacking the opportunities
with much bigger bets. I didn't get to that stage. But that never stopped Spike from
being MOTHER Bi*ch This total clown of a man thinks he's got the upper hand. If
anyone here respects that then so be it.
Quote from: crackers on May 12, 2012, 06:23:04 PM
But that never stopped Spike from
being MOTHER Bi*ch This total clown of a man thinks he's got the upper hand. If
anyone here respects that then so be it.
Odd that your 'heart condition' made you drop out
of the contest, but you can still fly into a rage with
no problems. Shouldn't you be lying down and
conserving your strength? Almost makes me think
you dropped out because you're clueless about
roulette.
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 07:16:50 PM
Odd that your 'heart condition' made you drop out
of the contest, but you can still fly into a rage with
no problems. Shouldn't you be lying down and
conserving your strength? Almost makes me think
you dropped out because you're clueless about
roulette.
I'm not in rage. I'm dealing with an insignificant fuk stick. I do this at my leisure.
Quote from: crackers on May 12, 2012, 07:21:37 PM
I'm not in rage. I'm dealing with an insignificant fuk stick. I do this at my leisure.
After seeing how chipper and feisty you are today,
I'm starting to believe you dropped out of the
contest because you were hopelessly behind.
No, wait, I believed that already. In fact I predicted
it in a PM to Bombus.
Never mind.
Please fellas. :rtfm:
Ken
Quote from: cheese on May 12, 2012, 07:52:44 PM
After seeing how chipper and feisty you are today,
I'm starting to believe you dropped out of the
contest because you were hopelessly behind.
No, wait, I believed that already. In fact I predicted
it in a PM to Bombus.
Never mind.
I gotta say it's seems like a legitimate guess to me.
Quote from: MattyMattz on May 13, 2012, 01:48:20 AM
I gotta say it's seems like a legitimate guess to me.
please explain to everyone why I might have experienced stress and then was relieved
once I stopped the competition. Believe it or not I have nothing to prove. If I have shared
voodoo bull crap then you are protected by your own intellect. If you are pulling any
wool over your own eyes then that is totaly on you. Your opinion of why I quit does not
validate any suspicions of true human nature. Its just you. It's not a fact. But I don't
have to give a hoot. If you want to believe what you do then live with the consequences. You must own it. It's totaly on you. All you're doing is motivating me to validate the opportunities and weaknesses of randomness regardless of the personalities invested in it, pro or con.
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
Believe it or not I have nothing to prove.
Yes, we see that every time there's a competition. You
have nothing. Does this mean no more stressful contests
for you? Being on the endangered list and all..
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
please explain to everyone why I might have experienced stress and then was relieved
once I stopped the competition. Believe it or not I have nothing to prove. If I have shared
voodoo bull crap then you are protected by your own intellect. If you are pulling any
wool over your own eyes then that is totaly on you. Your opinion of why I quit does not
validate any suspicions of true human nature. Its just you. It's not a fact. But I don't
have to give a hoot. If you want to believe what you do then live with the consequences. You must own it. It's totaly on you. All you're doing is motivating me to validate the opportunities and weaknesses of randomness regardless of the personalities invested in it, pro or con.
I have no idea what your talking about... all I said was I can see why someone would think that. You drop out of the competition stating the stress is killing you but have more than enough time to banter back and forth with him in a stressful manner... Heck maybe you don't find the banter stressful, that makes sense too.
I'm not looking for you or anyone to prove anything. Go out and win your millions, I could care less. I'm just here to have some fun and chat with some long lost friends.
MM
This does not make me wake up at 4:30am the competition did. Spike only sees an
excuse. Take notice of this. You are not talking about reading randomness as an
absence of trends. WHY IS THAT HAPPENING?
Did the thing that cheese sharered go right over your head? If you don't know then it did. You really owe it to yourself to know.
I have an idea. Don't look at this. I'm a bullshit artist. I did all this for five
years to get cheese to give it up.
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
This does not make me wake up at 4:30am the competition did.
What was so much disturbing about the competition that it got you so anxious?
Why such eagerness to place a bet when you could put up one once every four days (go see the rules) instead of playing your alarm clock conditions?
You (like me also) had been lingering around here for a long time . Now it seems you are running out of time (for the contest).
For the record: im not annoyed with you, just a little bit disappointed with your attitude leading yourself to step down from the challenge.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quote from: Carpanta on May 13, 2012, 03:54:43 AM
What was so much disturbing about the competition that it got you so anxious?
He plays in the casino for real money all the
time and feels no stress at all. Yet a couple
bets on a forum for no money sends him to
the emergency room.
Think about it. Pretend you're Columbo and
connect the dots.
Here you playing not even for peanuts
ang geting excited,let alone playing in
live casino with real money.What a great
players on paper you guys are.
Lot of bla-bla all these years and you
still here....be better of going to casino
every night instead.....but I doubt that most
of you ever been there at all.Sad but tru.
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
Spike only sees an
excuse. Take notice of this. You are not talking about reading randomness as an
absence of trends. WHY IS THAT HAPPENING?
Did the thing that cheese sharered go right over your head? If you don't know then it did. You really owe it to yourself to know.
Not sure what you mean here, please clarify? It now makes sense that with random, trends can no more be relied upon than the anti-trend. The anti-trend or unbalance is what roulette produces on a consistent basis.
" What was so much disturbing about the competition that it got you so anxious?"
I wanted a good example of my methods demonstrated. It takes at least one or
two really good trends per every 150 spins in order to reach success. That's what
I do when I go to a casino. All this takes place in or around five hours. If I reach
my goal in less spins it's over sooner. That means that any stress is done in a few
hours. Maybe the concept of keeping it all going day after day is too difficult to
understand or believe. You know those math oriented players that think that trends
don't exist. That every spin is an independent occurrence. That past occurrences have
no effect on future spins. These people have nothing in their heads that stays there
more than a minute. I can't expect them to understand complex strategic tactics.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on May 13, 2012, 10:35:25 AM
Not sure what you mean here, please clarify? It now makes sense that with random, trends can no more be relied upon than the anti-trend. The anti-trend or unbalance is what roulette produces on a consistent basis.
Everything coming from the wheel is almost perfect randomness, if you ignore any
possible DS, bias, or physics tracking. When a real bias does exist it only has a less
than 6% deviation from true randomness. That's six spins hitting in five slot wide
section of the wheel in one hundred spins. The anti-trend occurs 70% of the time.
Perhaps even greater than that. It doesn't serve to balance things if you know how
to live with it. According to Spike, he thrives on it. I ignored it by moving on to other
available trends. Spike claims a 72%
Spike claimed an average 72% hit rate on EC's. I've made the decision to try the
sections in my charts that I have ignored for the past five years. How could I
possibly be expected to give an assessment of its value in just one day. I know
this much though. On EC's it's 50 / 50 on average. There's not much equalization
going on there with regards to any opportunities used from trends. I hope that
made sense.
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 10:55:56 AM
Everything coming from the wheel is almost perfect randomness, if you ignore any
possible DS, bias, or physics tracking. When a real bias does exist it only has a less
than 6% deviation from true randomness. That's six spins hitting in five slot wide
section of the wheel in one hundred spins. The anti-trend occurs 70% of the time.
Perhaps even greater than that. It doesn't serve to balance things if you know how
to live with it. According to Spike, he thrives on it. I ignored it by moving on to other
available trends. Spike claims a 72%
Relax. Nobody really cares about this challenge. It only provides some entertainment 4 masses and it will be forgotten soon. Whoever wins will be a king of a jungle 4 a day and no more.
Just treat it as a vanity competition because basically what it is. Would i want a winner 2 be my guru? Not necessarily because a setup here is still sort of random.
It reminds me of picking stocks competition when a monkey was a winner coz everybody can win short term.
Regards
I am more relaxed. I'm just dealing with the fallout caused by quitting. My goal was
to put more focused attention on using trends and giving examples of trend's differing
types of characteristics. It's been about two months and I've succeed in that effort.
I even got a bonus for all this trouble. Spike gave up a huge clue and failed miserably
with his predictions in doing it. I never claimed anything he said I would end up
claiming. There's nothing to get stressed about. Perhaps I'm capable of a better
average than 72%. After all. Spike is not that all very bright.
And crackers and cheese could be such a perfect combination for a quality snack and what we get here instead :agree:?
We get lots of posts that nobody understands except 4 u 2 guys maybe like 72% of a strike rate on EC's. I just want 2 have 60% so i could retire immediately.
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 13, 2012, 11:34:51 AM
And crackers and cheese could be such a perfect combination for a quality snack and what we get here instead :agree:?
We get lots of posts that nobody understands except 4 u 2 guys maybe like 72% of a strike rate on EC's. I just want 2 have 60% so I could retire immediately.
Regards
LOL - And so ends the saga of cheese and crackers with just a little whine.
The only thing Gizmo has shown is he's never played
roulette for real money in a casino in his life. I had
already suspected as much, because what he claims to
do requires tracking wheels for massive amounts of time.
Wait and wait and wait and maybe bet. Then wait and
wait some more. All very stressful. But if he gets so
stressed at a stupid meaningless contest that he can't
sleep, and has to drop out, he can't have ever played
in a real casino. Its ridiculous.
Quote from: cheese on May 13, 2012, 05:36:02 PM
The only thing Gizmo has shown is he's never played
roulette for real money in a casino in his life. I had
already suspected as much, because what he claims to
do requires tracking wheels for massive amounts of time.
Wait and wait and wait and maybe bet. Then wait and
wait some more. All very stressful. But if he gets so
stressed at a stupid meaningless contest that he can't
sleep, and has to drop out, he can't have ever played
in a real casino. Its ridiculous.
--That's what I said for both of you and many others here,
otherwise you wouldn't be 24/7 here but there.
Quote from: mcmonaco on May 13, 2012, 06:10:45 PM
--That's what I said for both of you and many others here,
otherwise you wouldn't be 24/7 here but there.
That's ridiculous.
Who in their right mind would want to be in a casino 24/7/?
I go there because I like playing roulette. That's it, the only reason. I hate everything else about the place.
It's noisy, the food's shit, the crowds annoy me, the aircon annoys me, the lights annoy me, the hookers annoy me. etc.
It's a stressful environment, but that's where the wheels are so I put up with all that crap for short busts, then get the hell out of there,
AS for crackers getting stressed out and leaving the contest, at least he managed to post a few bets in coherent manner. You couldn't even manage one!...What an intellect! :)
He probably should have hardened up a bit and at least left when he got the 3 games into positive territory, just my opinion.
Quote from: mcmonaco on May 13, 2012, 06:10:45 PM
--That's what I said for both of you and many others here,
otherwise you wouldn't be 24/7 here but there.
24/7, are you insane? I seldom log on before 3pm my
time, what do you suppose I was doing the rest of the
day, playing tiddleywinks? Not to mention I go for months
without ever logging on at all.
What I would like to know what was the real reason for this " competition" .Is there a story behind this story ?
N.D.
Bombus I left because of what I was feeling. What the heck. I looked it up from
my last doctor visit from three weeks ago.
ATRIAL FIBRILLATION
SYSTOLIC HEART FAILURE
DIGOXIN (LANOXIN) being used along with a ton of other MEDS.
Now tell me what my chances are. That should be a hoot.
Quote from: crackers on May 13, 2012, 07:14:43 PM
...Now tell me what my chances are. That should be a hoot.
Crackers,
If you avoid things like refined sugars, alcohol, caffeine, chocolate, hydrogenated oils, and nitrated meats, at the same time increase your consumption of organic liver, meats & fish, eggs, whole milk products, rice bran, and snack on fruit, veg, and nuts, etc, you will be much better off.
Add to that some supplementary intake of co-enzyme 10 (Q10 - pumpkin seed oil is great), V-B5, V-E, magnesium, and a little potassium (dried raisins & apricots are great), and perhaps some regular royal jelly capsules.
Start some light stretching and blood circulation inducing exercise (Isometrics are great).
If you do these things then I would give you a better than 72% chance for significant improvement of your condition.
---------------------------------------
Sorry to thread starter for off topic post. :)
Thanks Bombus .
Just finished watching the History Channel's "Hatfields and McCoys" with Kevin Costner.
So, do we have "Cheese Hatfield and Crackers McCoy" here?