Whitticker Progression for Dozens and Columns

[LuckyLucy]

I found this whilst surfing the net, I quite like this progression and thought I would share it with you. What do you guys think? Is it workable/realistic?
Whittacker Progression for Doz & Col bets

The Whittacker progression for dozen and column bets


Here is an adaptation of the Whittacker progression for dozen and column bets
( twelve number bets ).

If the Whittaker progression is applied to twelve number bets, the following starting sequence is used:
1. bet 1 unit
2. bet 1 unit
3. bet 2 units

If the first bet wins, profit: 2 units.
If the second bet wins, profit: 1 unit.
If the third bet wins, profit: 2 units.
In each of these cases the progression begins new with the sequence: 1 - 1 - 2!

If the first 3 bets are lost, the next bet is determined as follows:
with a negative balance between 4 to 9 units the balance is divided by 2,
with a negative balance between 10 to 21 units the balance is divided by 3,
with a negative balance between 22 to 100 units the balance is divided by 4,
With a negative balance over 100 units the balance is divided by 5.
If the result of the division is not a whole number, then this number is always rounded up.

The progression starts always with a bet size of 1 unit!

·  Bet No. 1: 1 unit, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss:·  Bet No. 2: 1 unit, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss:·  Bet No. 3: 2 units, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss: 4 : 2 = 2·  Bet No. 4: 2 units, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss 6 : 2 = 3·  Bet No. 5: 3 units, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss 9 : 2 = 4.5 =5·  Bet No. 6: 5 units, in case of a win next bet 1 unit, in case of a loss 14 : 3 = 4.66 = 5·  Bet No. 7: 5 units, in case of a win next bet 4 : 2 = 2 units, in case of a loss 19 : 3 = 6.33 = 7

·  Bet No. 8: and so fourth...

[XXVV]

Thanks Lucy


I will apply this as a variation on the D+C reversal bet ( the Loss Bet) which targets 12 numbers.


Will let you know how this shapes up. Thanks for your initiatives.


Cheers
XXVV

[XXVV]

I have developed this into a 20 step progression (300RB) to deal with the reverse bet for D+C.


When in a hole , and an adverse series of outcomes follows, there is a way to solve the problem by further use of this progression and I will give an example in the next couple of days. The example will be from one of the worst situations encountered in over 20,000 spins using this aspect of the D+C method.


It takes some nerve but it does work. Thanks Lucy for highlighting this option. It means that you may never lose, but it may require a larger RB for coverage. Nevertheless the staking required will not exceed reasonable table limits.


Mind you, there's always the flat staking option if you want a less stressful life. More than ten times slower but ten times the unit value and able to compound.

[LuckyLucy]

Thats great news! Ill be interested to see what you come up with!

[vundarosa]

@XXVV
"I have developed this into a 20 step progression (300RB) to deal with the reverse bet for D+C."

----------------

can u pls post the full progression here?!

vundarosa

[XXVV]

Yes I was about to.


The progression is smart and can be further extended. If you made the effort yourself and followed Lucy's instructions then you could do it . Now.


What requires more careful work is the 2 step or 3 step or more process of digging out of bigger holes. There are money management specialists who could probably provide skillful advice when I identify the specific problems and thanks to Lucy's initiative this may be enabled.


Life can be simpler, and as you know I am not a big fan of progressions but the prospect of 100% coverage of exposure is intriguing and has probably sunk many a curious galleon.


Nevertheless if you are patient, then I will publish some detail and examples of play over the next few days.
XXVV

[iggiv]

sorry but progressions won't help   to win.

[XXVV]

Thanks


I am inclined to agree Iggiv but then I try to keep an open mind.


If you can find an area, an opportunity to bet where there is already an edge to your selection, and you would agree at times, this is possible, then by applying a smarter progression to cover only within that range (no more) with a suitable conservative overlap, then you might agree that consistent winning with the help of a progression is possible.


For example if say your progression extends to 20 and beyond, and over a  large sample of testing, say 30,000 live spins, and the worst extent of the required progressions previously has been 14, 16 and max 17 then 20 or even comfortably up to +22 should cover all outcomes.


I know they say anything is possible within roulette, but in this sort of 'special case' then I believe there are reasonable heuristic limits which we can find.


This will wind up some people's views of course but then we are here to extend our experience and knowledge are we not.


The 'special case' I am referring to has lots of examples in this game I am sure. But they exist only in small term, short cycles. Testing will uncover them. Use the Ecart swings with EC and Dozens.


The RB is a mere 300 units at 20 steps on this progression, and as I will demonstrate soon, the progression can resolve the most serious of losses in a short series of steps.


I note the smart reference today by JL on PB. ( To paraphrase) The biggest mistake a player makes on encountering a loss ( of a RB) is to panic. The play to recover the loss can be spread over several steps and over an extended period of time.


You would agree, there are also more favourable times to bet when you read the game well, and there are times to pause.


These two actions alone demolish the negative arguments of continuous play and theory of probability expectations.

The "game within a game" has its own logic. Short term Ecart deviation can be massive.


Thanks for your comments. You may be right, and I would in the past have agreed, but recent research appears to have shifted my views.


Lets see if the example I will give (one of the worst I have encountered) can be resolved using this progression and added variation. I will post this over the next few days.
Best
XXVV

[iggiv]

anything is possible. but winning by applying progression on a long run if flatbets don't work? hard to believe

[XXVV]

Who said the flat bets don't work.


They do.


This is just another approach.


There are flat bets, short progressions and long progressions. They all can work under key conditions. Not continuously though of course ( although with this progression approach that may change).


Lucy has uncovered though a very clever extended conservative progression that suits the character of the distribution in the area of interest to me.


The difference between the methods is unit value, bank requirement, risk exposure and rate of earning. Different plays may also suit different temperaments/ personalities. Why limit ourselves.


I will post the progression set out now and some more detail tomorrow. I dont want to get off the subject on Lucy's thread. I am very grateful to her though for her initiative in locating this  progression. Then I will go back to the Experimental Studies thread for reversal bet options.


Bet 1   1
Bet 2   1
Bet 3   2
Bet 4   2
Bet 5   3
      6   5
      7   5
      8   7
      9   7
     10  9
     11  11
     12  14
     13  17
     14  21
     15  21
     16  25
     17  30
     18  36
     19  43
     20  50     Sum 310 units

Without going into too much detail at this stage, say if you won on Bet 10, and you will have -15 units. You will experience a net loss but then you assign that loss to the next equivalent bet that measures that sum, in this case Bet 6 and play on.


In the area in which I specialise there is an 83% chance of a successful strike in the first 4 attempts of the bet.


So there is an improving chance of a closure of the net loss quite quickly as time goes on.


As always with this sort of approach you look to nullify the debt if possible within 2-3 attempts. Not always possible but this progression is cleverly designed to assist in that cause.


Once again, well done Lucy.


Hope that helps
XXVV

[iggiv]

if flatbet works then who needs progression? if u use progression it must be very short if u have no patience for flatbet to win.

long progressions don't make sense at all

[XXVV]

This thread is about a clever and innovative approach ( the W Progression) to a subject clearly not fully understood.



I have explained that various bet forms have characteristics, both strengths and weaknesses, which may or may not render them useful.


If you have a progression that is capable of mopping up every qualifying opportunity, and in a sequence that would render flat bets and shorter progressions temporarily disadvantaged or stopped out, then why not apply it.


That the progression is capable of considerable length can actually be an advantage when you know the performance characteristics of the heuristic betting outcomes.


At other times, and of course in most cases, the length of the progression is no problem because 8 out of 10 outcomes are within the first four bets.


The trade off is that the progression can not be so aggressively front-end-loaded as say a 2-3-4-5
progression might be.


However, you would agree surely that to have a technique that could harvest ALL qualifying opportunities, has some merit, given that risk of loss is nullified.

[TicTacToe]

XXVV


Am very interested in your thoughts and usage of the Whittacker progression on dozens/columns.




Thanks in advance.




TTT

[amk]

I am very very LuckyLucky to find this thread....

I thought XXVV had left the forum.....

Amazing to see this development....

30,000 LIVE spins analyzed is incredible XXVV and anybody seeing these stats has to agree there is amazing method here.........

[XXVV]

I will pop up from time to time in unexpected areas!


It is quite funny to read that some are so sure of certain facts, ie that progressions just do not work!


Well, I am always looking for exceptions and currently am deep in testing this particular 'lumpy'         ( I am very grateful to a dear friend for coining this term) approach to digging out of holes!


Its a different way of thinking, and the question is, like so much, is it sustainable?


Will let you know shortly.


One part of the equation, neatly presented as always and spelled out by our friends in Germany, :.onlinecasinomastermind.com, (and access whittacker progression on doz/cols), but not quite right in their translation to fluent English : ensure you have a worthwhile bet to start with, and not just playing the last winning bet ( which will not work).


My qualification to those many naysayers regarding progressions, what's your bet?


That makes all the difference to the progression term requirements.


Best
XXVV