Iceman's system adapted to dozens/columns

[GLC]

This is a system for dozens/columns based completely on Iceman's even chance system.

It's played exactly the same way.  With 2 dimensions.

Frist dimension is based on Follow-the-last dozen and 2nd dimension is every other bet and is opposite the last result in the 1st dimension.

We will be betting on 2 dozens each time we bet.

First dimension is the usual virtual bet dimension.

Second dimension is our real bet dimension.  The only reason this may work is if in fact Iceman's insistence on the value of betting for a loss at times rather than always for a win can really shift the odds in our favor.

Let's try a flat bet for now.  If we need to, we can go to a mild progression later.

Here's a real example though short, I had today.  Single zero wheel.

1
1  +       No real bet this time but we won so real bet to lose for next spin.  Since a 1 would cause us to win, we must bet on 2 & 3, 1 unit each.

3  -   +   Win our real bet.  +1.  No bet next spin.
1  -       We lost our virtual bet so we bet to win our next real bet.  Since 1 dozen spun, to win it must spin again but since we are betting 2 dozen each bet, we must bet the 1 dozen and then pick either the 2 or 3 dozen to go with it.  I will bet the last and the farthest back each time we have this decision to make. We bet 1 & 2.

3  -   -   Unfortunately we lost.  No real bet next spin.
3  +       We win our virtual, so we bet for a loss next.  Bet on dozens 1 & 2.
3  +   -   We lose again.  No real bet next spin.
2  -       We lose virtual, so next real bet is to win.  Must bet 2 and 1 dozens.   
2  +   +   We win. +1  So we have +1-2-2+1 = -2.  No bet next spin.
2  +       We win virtual so bet dozens 2 & 1 next.
1  -   +   Win   -2+1=-1  No bet next spin
1  +       Win, so next bet to lose on 2 & 3 dozens.
2  -   +   Win   -1+1 = 0  No bet next
3  -       Next bet to win so bet dozens 3 & 1
1  -   +   Win   0+1 = +1
1  +       Bet 2 & 3
2  -   +   Win   +1+1 = +2
2  +       Bet 1 & 3
1  -   +   Win   +2+1 = +3
2  -       Bet 2 & 3
3  -   +   Win   +3+1 = +4
1  -       Bet 1 & 2
1  +   +   Win   +4+1 = +5
3  -       Bet 3 & 2
2  -   +   Win   +5+1 = +6
2  +       Bet 1 & 3
1  -   +   Win   +6+1 = +7

I have only begun to test this, but this first trial seemed to work okay or should I say excellently.  I'm sure there's a rattlesnake behind the next rock ready to strike.

The above results can be attained with any dozens bet selection method, so no reason to get to jubilant just yet.

Any observations from anyone?  Maybe some tweaks to consider like betting a single dozen when we're betting for a win.  If we did that, we might have to have 2 progressions since we would be betting 2 dozens when playing for a loss and 1 dozen when playing for a win.

All constructive criticism or suggestions welcome.  Will even tolerate some not so constructive comments if necessary.

Cheers,

George

[ScoobyDoo]

I haven't got my mind around it yet GLC but it might be something to look at deeper. Give us some more test results. It might encourage us to join you in the testing.

Scooby Doo

[warrior]

GLC DO WE SHARE THE SAME BRAIN I DID A TES T ON THIS 2 DAYS AGO, i finished with +15 after 200 spins but i used the levller prog.

[GLC]

GLC DO WE SHARE THE SAME BRAIN I DID A TES T ON THIS 2 DAYS AGO, i finished with +15 after 200 spins but i used the levller prog.

Warrior,

Do you use the same selection method I did? 

Mine was just an off-the-cuff explanation without a lot of prior testing.

Regards

[warrior]

yes it is the same selection.

[GLC]

Another session.  Pretty much a replica of the last one.

2
2    +               Virtual win.  Bet 1&3 for a loss
2    +       -       Virtual win.  Lost 2 units           -2
3    -                Virtual loss.  Bet  3&1 for a win.  Remember for a win bet last and farthest.
3    +      +       Win.                                          -2+1=-1
3    +                V W   Bet for loss 1&2
1    -       +       Win.                                          -1+1=0
2    -                 V L    Bet for win 2&3
1    -       -        Loss.                                         0-2=-2
1    +                V W   Bet for loss 2&3
3    -       +       Win.                                          -2+1=-1
1    -                V L      Bet for loss 1&2
1    +      +       Win.                                          -1+1=0 
3    -                V L      Bet for win 3&2
2    -       +       Win.                                           0+1=+1
3    -                V L       Bet for win 3&1
3    +       +      Win                                            +1+1=+2
3    +               V W     Bet for loss 2&3
2    -       +       Win                                            +2+1=+3
1    -                V L      Bet for win 1&2
1    +       +      Win                                            +3+1=+4     
2    -                V L      Bet for win 2&3
2    +       +       Win                                            +4+1=+5
2    +               V L      Bet for loss 1&3
1    -       +        Win                                            +5+1=+6
2    -                V L      Bet for win 2&3
2    +      +        Win                                            +6+1=+7     
3    -                V L      Bet for win 3&1
3    +       +      Win                                             +7+1=+8
3    +               V W    Bet for loss 3&1
1    -       +      Win                                             +8+1=+9
3    -                V L      Bet for win 3&2
2    -       +      Win                                             +9+1=+10

Another lucky session.  It's interesting so far that we get so many wins in a row.  I like that.

I'm actually playing longer sessions than I intended.  I was going to go with Iceman's +4 or -8.  Then wait a few spins and play another session. 

I'm sure that I'm just having very good luck.  But if it looks like a win, smells like a win, sounds like a win and they give you money, it must be a win!

More later,

GLC

[GLC]

Nest session.  Not so good.  That's to be expected.

2
2   -   +
2   +   -    -2
3   -
3   +   +   -1
3   +
1   -    +   0
2   -
3   -    +   +1
3   +   
1   -    +   +2
3   -
1   -    -    0
2   -
3   
1
0
2
1
2
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
3

I have run out of time for now.  Anyone interested in this system should be able to finish playing the above series of numbers.  I ended up breaking even.  My lowest point was -12 and then it did a good comeback.  The 2 zeros that caused losses were no fun.

Sessions like this are totally expected.  The good thing is that we recovered our losses.  In this case for sure, no loss is a win.

Playing by Iceman's rules, we should have taken a loss when we reached -8.  I kept playing to see if it would recover and it did.

Remember when you finish playing the above sequence that when we are suppose to play for a win, we play the last dozen to spin and the farthest back dozen.  In this sequence middle dozen that we didn't bet on kept sneaking in.

I'll keep testing.  See if we can stay ahead of the losses.

GLC

[Tomla021]

i will also  test this a bit--good luck george

[GLC]

Remember that I asked in my 1st post if we should be betting for 2 dozens each bet or should we bet for a single dozen when we are betting for a win.  I think I have found the answer.  If we are to remain true to Iceman's system applied to dozens, we must only bet a single dozen when we are betting opposite a virtual loss.  Our real bet will be for a win and the purest way to bet for a win is to bet for the same dozen to repeat.

I originally suggested that we always bet 2 dozens which meant when we were betting for a win, we had to bet the last dozen but we also had to fulfill our requirement for betting 2 dozens so we had to pick one of the other two dozens to bet with our last dozen.  I suggested that we bet the farthest back dozen, but we could have just as easily bet the 2nd from last dozen.  This left us with a decision that was based on a whim.

After further thought, I think we need to bet only on the last dozen when we are betting for a win.  If we have the following:

r
b  -
r  - 
b  -       Right here we have a virtual loss.  Our next real bet is for a win which is to bet black.
b  -   +   This is a win because it's opposite the previous virtual loss

The following is the above applied to dozens:

1
2  -
3  -
2  -       Right here we have a virtual loss.  Our next real bet is for a win which is to bet 2.
2  +   +   This is a win because it's opposite the previous virtual loss in it's purest form.

I went back and re-played the 3 sessions I had posted above.

The first session previously ended with +7.  After playing the numbers with the new method, it ended at +6.

The second session previously ended with +10.  After playing the numbers with the new method, it ended at +15.

The third session previously ended at zero.  After playing the numbers with the new method, it ended at +12.

Here's the third session:

2   
2   +       I'm betting for a loss next so I bet 1&3       
2   +   -   Loss   -2
3   -       I'm betting for a win next so I bet 3
3   +   +   Win     0
3   +       I'm betting for a loss next so I bet 1&2
1   -   +   Win     +1   
2   -       I'm betting for a win next so I bet 2
3   -   -   Loss     0
3   +       I'm betting for a loss next so I bet 1&2   
1   -   +   Win      +1
3   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 3
1   -   -   Loss      0
2   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 2
3   -   -   Loss     -1
1   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 1
0   -   -   Loss     -2
2   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 2
1   -   -   Loss     -3
2   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 2
0   -   -   Loss     -4
1   -       I'm betting for a win next time so I bet 1   
2   -   -   Loss     -5
2   +       I'm betting for a loss next time so I bet 1&3
1   -   +   Win      -4
1   +       I'm betting for a loss, bet 2&3
1   +   -   Loss     -6
1   +       I'm betting for a loss, bet 2&3
3   -   +   Win      -5
3   +       I'm betting for a loss, bet 1&2
2   -   +   Win      -4   
1   -       I'm betting for a win, bet 1
2   -   -   Loss     -5
3   -       I'm betting for a win, bet 3
2   -   -   Loss     -6
2   +       I'm betting for a loss, bet 1&3
2   +   -   Loss     -8
3   -       I'm betting for a win, bet 3
3   +   +   Win      -6
3   +       I'm betting for a loss, bet 1&2
2   -   +   Win      -5
2   +       Bet for loss, bet 1&3
3   -   +   Win      -4
3   +       Bet for loss, bet 1&2 
3   +   -   Loss     -6
3   +       Bet for loss, bet 1&2
1   -   +   Win      -5   
3   -       Bet for win, bet 3
3   +   +   Win      -3
2   -       Bet for win, bet 2
2   +   +   Win      -1
3   -       Bet for win, bet 3
3   +   +   Win      +1
2   -       Bet for win, bet 2
3   -   -   Loss      0
1   -       Bet for win, bet 1
1   +   +   Win      +2
1   +       Bet for loss, bet 2&3
2   -   +   Win      +3
2   +       Bet for loss, bet 1&3
1   -   +   Win      +4   
2   -       Bet for win, bet 2
2   +   +   Win      +6
3   -       Bet for win, bet 3
3   +   +   Win      +8
2   -       Bet for win, bet 2
2   +   +   Win      +10
1   -       Bet for win, bet 1
1   +   +   Win      +12
1   +       Bet for loss, bet 2&3
3   -   +   Win      +13
1   -       Bet for win, bet 1
2   -   -   Loss     +12


I think this is a much better way to play the system.

Not that there won't be losing sessions no matter how we play, but this looks a little more stable.  We'll see.  There's a little back engineering here so I don't expect the results to mirror this always.

It's not that difficult to play, but it does take some tracking.

G

[GLC]

After further testing, I can't endorse this system as a long term winner.  It does have good streaks where it wins nicely and then it has bad streaks where it loses nicely.  A progression makes it much better but doesn't overcome everything.  A separate progression on each bet works best. 

Single dozens bets 1-2-3-4-6-9-14-21 etc...
Dbl Dozen bets 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; etc...

I can't honestly say this is any better than other dozens systems.

Cheers,

George

[esoito]

"It does have good streaks where it wins nicely and then it has bad streaks where it loses nicely."

Thje thought struck me as I read that:  Could that not be a neat summary of just about every system around?