Roy Ward Dickson System

[Bayes]

This is quite a well known roulette system which some people swear by. I haven't actually tested it myself, but this is the method explained by a member of another forum (sorry I forget his name). Hope he doesn't mind. 

Roy Ward Dickson said a playable hot number is...
a. One that has not come up for at least thirty consecutive spins. ie. 30 spins or more never less.
b. One that after such an "establishing period of absence" finally came up.
c. And which did so twice more during the next 19 spins or less, subject to the special exceptions
below.
That is three shows in 20 spins or less after an absence of 30 spins or more.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
A number is NOT playable if it comes up three times in a row.
A number is NOT playable if the DIFFERENCE in the 'gap' between the first-and-second
appearance and the 'gap' between the second-and-third appearances consists of more than six.
Say the qualifying numbers' initial two shows were on the first and seventh spins, that is a 'gap' of 6
and the third qualifying show came up on the 19th spin, that is a 'gap' of 12 spins, then the
DIFFERENCE in the 'gaps' of 6 & 12 = 6. The number is playable!
Again, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and third spins, that is a 'gap' of 2 and the third
show is on the twelveth spin, that is a 'gap' of 9, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of 2 & 9 = 7. The
number is unplayable!
Another example, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and tenth spins, that is a 'gap' of 9
and the third show is on the twentieth spin, that is a 'gap' of 10, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of
9 & 10 = 1. Playable!
BETTING STRATEGY.
Back a playable qualifying number for UP TO 9 spins NOT counting spins where zero shows.
Of course zero itself can qualify to be playable.
Bet one unit on the first to the sixth playable spin and two units on the seventh to the ninth playable
spin.
If the string of nine bets all fail to achieve a win stop betting that number immediately.
Stop backing that number immediately a bet wins, that is the hot number shows for the fourth time.
As soon as one such playable hot number bet has won stop that playing session at that wheel, even
if it was your first bet. No more bets that day at that wheel.
Should three successive playable strings each of nine bets all lose stop that playing session at that
wheel.
If you have lost two strings of nine bets and are playing a third when a second number qualifies as
playable DON'T commence betting on it. Either you win your currently active string and walk or
you walk away after losing three consecutive strings of nine anyway.

[TwoCatSam]

-

[Nathanael]

-

Does the minus sign mean you don't like this system?

[TwoCatSam]

Nathaniel

Sorry about me.  I put that - there by some silly mistake.  Started to post, then didn't.  Didn't know I hit "post".  It's me age, you know!

Would like to discuss this with people, especially the gaps. 

Some of the stuff in that post seems wrong to me.  I have the book; I've read it a lot.

Anyone want to discuss?

Sam

[Nathanael]

As we all know, Bayes is no slouch when it comes to roulette, probability, math etc...

He posted this 2+ years ago which means he either thought there was something about the system that was intriguing or he has a lot of respect for Mr. Dickson.  Else, why would he post this?

My observations on this system are:

Roy Ward Dickson said a playable hot number is...  This must by Dickson's definition of a hot number.
a. One that has not come up for at least thirty consecutive spins. ie. 30 spins or more never less.  I find this a little unusual because according to gambler's falacy, it isn't even due yet.
b. One that after such an "establishing period of absence" finally came up.
c. And which did so twice more during the next 19 spins or less, subject to the special exceptions
below.
That is three shows in 20 spins or less after an absence of 30 spins or more.  I don't know why the 30 spin nap before the 3 hits in 20 spins is better than just 3 hits in 50 spins, especially if they're evenly spaced.

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.

A number is NOT playable if it comes up three times in a row.  I guess that would make it dead.

A number is NOT playable if the DIFFERENCE in the 'gap' between the first-and-second
appearance and the 'gap' between the second-and-third appearances consists of more than six.  This means that the 3 hits are fairly evenly spaced.  It would be moving away from the killer sequence of 3 times in a row.

Say the qualifying numbers' initial two shows were on the first and seventh spins, that is a 'gap' of 6
and the third qualifying show came up on the 19th spin, that is a 'gap' of 12 spins, then the
DIFFERENCE in the 'gaps' of 6 & 12 = 6. The number is playable!
Again, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and third spins, that is a 'gap' of 2 and the third
show is on the twelveth spin, that is a 'gap' of 9, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of 2 & 9 = 7. The
number is unplayable!
Another example, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and tenth spins, that is a 'gap' of 9
and the third show is on the twentieth spin, that is a 'gap' of 10, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of
9 & 10 = 1. Playable!

BETTING STRATEGY.

Back a playable qualifying number for UP TO 9 spins NOT counting spins where zero shows.  This would make sense because we're betting that there will be a fairly equal spacing between hits.  I don't know why we wouldn't count the zero since it's just like every other number.  I don't know why 9 bets is sacred.  I suppose the number 6 is critical.  We could have about 6 spins between all 4 hits.  Increasing to 2 units on the last 3 bets seems arbitrary.  Why not bet for 12 times and bet 1 unit on the first 6 and 2 units on the 2nd 6 spins?  Or why not just bet 1 unit on all 9 (or 12) bets?

Of course zero itself can qualify to be playable.

Bet one unit on the first to the sixth playable spin and two units on the seventh to the ninth playable spin.
If the string of nine bets all fail to achieve a win stop betting that number immediately.  How do you stop betting a number any way other than immediately?

Stop backing that number immediately a bet wins, that is the hot number shows for the fourth time.
As soon as one such playable hot number bet has won stop that playing session at that wheel, even
if it was your first bet. No more bets that day at that wheel.  Might you be leaving a hot wheel?

Should three successive playable strings each of nine bets all lose stop that playing session at that
wheel.
If you have lost two strings of nine bets and are playing a third when a second number qualifies as
playable DON'T commence betting on it. I suppose this can help keep things from getting too complicated, but I don't see why we need to pass up another betting opportunity. 

Either you win your currently active string and walk or
you walk away after losing three consecutive strings of nine anyway.  There is room to interpret  this to mean that we qualify a number.  Bet on it 9 times and if we lose those 9 bets, we bet on it another 9 times and finally a 3rd 9 times.  Or, this means that we have lost 9 bets on 3 different qualifying numbers.  This latter is probably the case.

I don't really see anything in this system that causes a light to go on.  But then I may have a blown fuse...

[TwoCatSam]

All

I have spent the last month exclusively studying this system while my wife was in the hospital and at home recuperating.  I feel I know it inside out.  However, there are errors in that post Bayes copied.  He did not author it.

Nathanael

I feel you are wrong when you say the hits are "evenly spaced".  They are anything but.  I have created a sheet which uses Dickson's own words and you will see what I mean.

I do not have time to do this tonight but I will tomorrow.  If I am wrong, I'd love to have it pointed out to me.

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

Attached is my study chart.  I have used DOT 1/7 & DOT 10/9 as examples.  You can see there is nothing even about the red and black lines.

What puzzles me is this lack of uniformity.  Anyone understand this?

Sam

[ugly bob]

If you think about these qualification rules logically, they don't really make much sense.

Take Sam's second example with the 10/9. So that's a difference of 1 and a playable hot number.

However an 8/1 notation is not a playable hot number because of the difference of 7. (more than 6)

So let's just use the number 34 as an example and look at the 10/9 and 8/1 notations....

34,7,15,22,1,11,18,36,29,5,34,3,6,32,33,17,16,0,4,34. (10/9 notation)

34,7,15,22,1,11,18,36,34,34. (8/1 notation)

I would argue the 8/1 notation looks 'hotter' than the 10/9. But not according to RWD.

[TwoCatSam]

Mr. bob

Such was exactly what I was thinking!!  Could it be we have ALL read the book wrong?

Sam

[ugly bob]

We are definitely reading it right Sam....

If you look at his example of numbers on page 97.

It reads from spin 42 onwards 11,34,17,11,33,14,16,31,11.

So the second 11 comes up 3 spins after the first 11.

The third 11 comes up 5 spins after the second 11.

This gives a notation of 3/5 and a difference of 2. So a playable hot number.

I should add that I studied and played this quite a bit in the 90's. I could never replicate the results that RWD achieved in his book. However like Bayes has said.....There are a few people who have posted on forums for years who swear by it. I was normally swearing at it as I hit another next door neighbour to the hot number I was playing. A bit of good luck can go a long way I suppose. 

[TwoCatSam]

Yes, I have used that DOT 3/5 as my standard using the 11s.

Also, if you look at his playable vs non-playable numbers on page 100, it seems we ARE doing it right.

Anyone else?

Sam

[Nathanael]

Listen guys, as my brother, the legendary GLC, has pointed out to us on numerous occasions, if a system works on one payout bet location, it should work on all of the payout locations.   RWD's system is based on straight up numbers, but it should also work on 3 number streets.  Just divide everything by 3 and you should have the same ratios.  It should work.  If it doesn't, why not.  Same logic/method for both.  This applies to lines and dozens also.  Even Chances??  Why not?

Nate

[ugly bob]

I like your thinking Nate!

A starter for ten....

1) A street must not appear for 12 spins.

2) Look for that street to then appear 3 times in 8 spins.

3) The difference in notation can be no more than 2.

example.....

11,5,6,7,11,2,11.  The notation is 4/2 and therefore a playable hot street.

4) Play for 3 spins.

Well it's a start anyhow    But the parameters are roughly equal to RWD.

I will check it out.

cheers

[ugly bob]

A quick example from some numbers I just got from Spielbank.

01) 16 = 6
02) 09 = 3
03) 21 = 7
04) 30 = 10
05) 14 = 5
06) 07 = 3
07) 28 = 10
08}14 = 5
09) 12 = 4
10) 22 = 8
11) 24 = 8
12) 27 = 9
13) 24 = 8
14) 18 = 6
15) 17 = 6 (1)
16) 20 = 7
17) 17 = 6 (2)  1/2 qualifies...difference of 2 or less. (play the 6 street for next 3 spins)
18} 04 = 2
19) 33 = 11
20) 33 = 11 (1)
21) 06 = 2
22) 34 = 12
23) 21 = 7
24) 26 = 9
25) 22 = 8
26) 32 = 11 (6) 1/6 does not qualify... the difference is 5.

and so on.....

edit: looking at the days results...changing the difference from 2 to 4 produced better results. It's probably too tight having just a difference of 2. You are then hoping for 4 streets almost back to back. 4 works a lot better.

[TwoCatSam]

What it might be, I don't know..........but I feel we are missing something.

I will stick with the single-number idea and see if I can figure it out.  As bob pointed out, some that do not qualify look much better than some that do.  This seems to be an error and Dickson does not see that type a man.  OR...maybe I can find the logic!!  If there be any...

Sam