Whitticker Progression for Dozens and Columns

[VLS]

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

Hello dear XXVV, perhaps the fact should be reworded to "Progressions do not work in the long run" as a certainty.


Remember, the spins worth a human lifetime of betting can easily qualify as not being neccesarily a "long run" and hence a progression may actually be a helpful thing!


It is also a fact people can win for long periods of time with losing methods due to luck, as well as the oposite; sinking all their lifetime bankroll when playing a certified winning method -i.e. BIAS, Visual Ballistics, Card counting- mostly due to the most large losing gap happening on the first stages of bankroll building. Be certain they work with "Risk of Ruin" accounted for.


Nonetheless, most players will be accounted as being within the "belly" of the expected distribution and hence experiment "normal" fluctuations (in layman term's: luck).


I do agree with you. BET SELECTION IS KING.


Cheers!


Your friend,
Victor

[XXVV]

Thanks for that Victor.


Yes, the bet makes all the difference.


If we can find a bet that has parameters that are not too challenging in theory regarding worst loss outcomes, reinforced by heuristics, and then locate a progression that eats chunks or lumps at a time, then maybe we can dig our way out of most, or dare I say, all, holes.


Karma is.


It just is. I had a juicy peach of an earlier post and had logged in but made the fatal mistake that all preachers make. They talk too long, and I got timed out. Refresh and re-boot, and turn the clocks back. Call in Doc Who! Could I access my words of wisdom ? No.


Then it must be so, and this message will be mercifully shorter.


Here is a sample of one of the 'tough' sequences that my bet - a reversal bet - throws from time to time.


Remarkably, these passages never last that long!  The corrective forces always arrive, just like the cavalry, just in time.


So for the doom prophets and the naysayers, this is for you!


I will post other challenging sequences in the days ahead and we will work it out and see!


Its great being an optimist!


This is the sequence and its immediate context of 50 spins prior and after. The passage in highlights is an eight bet sequence that is troublesome. It was the only really 'difficult'  passage in a 500 spin (14 + hour) live bet sequence taken from the Ritz Casino, London.


Now that's continuous play!


The reversal bet ended the session well in profit. Details later.


The bet numbers are the bets taken to achieve a winning hit.


4
1
2
1
4
6
1    all those bets handled in profit by the W progression.


10
1
10
3
6
2
1
1

2
2
1
4
2
6
1
1


It is extremely rare to have three double digit losses in close proximity.


The beauty of the W progression is that it digs you out of the hole 'lump' by 'lump'.


Straight lines are rare in Nature but often the fractal curves meander a path that can be sometimes two steps back and three forward, and sometimes vice versa, but as I emphasise with this bet and with this type of progression the effects of an adverse situation can be mitigated and eventually nullified by patient staking in the sure knowledge that the Ecart will swing in your favour soon.


In the next few days I will post some longer excavations.


But the outcomes will all be positive.


Here is the essential logic of the W progression play...


10    outcomes then a hit results in -15 units
        we start with a 5 following the progression rules
1      a quick reaction first hit where we play 5 units and the win reduces debt to -5 units
        we play a 3 unit bet to close this out but no we swing to 10 outcomes
10    result is a net -33
        we play a 9
3      results in a -12 overall
        so we play a 4
6      after 6 outcomes this results in -22
        so we play 6 units
2      this quick result ends in -14 remaining outstanding
        following the rules we play a 5
1      it hits first attempt and debt reduces to -4
        now we play a 2.
1      the hit nullifies the debt.


Then we continue on another run of simple wins.


I play 1 through to 6 as simple wins, and I include 0 in that.


Again, playing the zero can be a parallel strategy for success. I do that, but this method and progression does not need that level of support to succeed.


I should add that the flat staking bets in dealing with this passage were temporarily stopped out, and on re-joining had some catching up to do, which can be frustrating.


Some progressions have their uses.


Hope this assists
XXVV


       
       
       


10

[LuckyLucy]

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 don't 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

Thank you for your kind words XXVV.

I look all around the internet for ideas, which I hope someone on the forum might pick up on and develop further. Good luck with it, lets hope this progresses into something really good, I love long progressions!

Lucy x

[iggiv]

i strongly believe long progressions don't help. short progressions may  help you save some time on short runs, but don't help on long runs hence results proportionally will be just the same as flatbet.
Long progressions may get you into a real trouble.

the only logical thing I really agree with -- is a regression on a winning. That's "up and pull" John Patrick's approach. For example you won an EC bet -- you make it 50% again. If you won again, you won 150% of your previous stake (vs 200%), if you lost second bet, you still won 50%.


in my opinion (and Victor basically agrees with that as I know, I would better say that I took this idea from him, that would be more correct to say) this logical approach: "if the expected event doesn't happen now, it should happen soon" (that is what the idea of  progression is based on) -- IS WRONG. As long as you wait for some event to happen soon (be it on 20th spin or 30th spin) -- you ask for a trouble, you will definetely encounter cases, when this even will happen on 35th or 40th spin. that's what gambler fallacy is about, and that is what makes people with such approaches lose their money. And tricky aspect of it is (like Victor said) that this approach may really work for some time! and thous luring you into thinking that you found winning method, yes!

that's why I am against long progressions...Though I know that even  some professional (?) players (claiming making big money and wrtining books about it) advocate it.

[TicTacToe]

Hi XXVV




I've been using your adaptation of the Whittacker Progression on a ( 1doz-1col ) system that I use.


I adjusted the bets as follows:




I use separate progressions on each ( doz-col ) and sum up the 2 bets and play them equally on both.


Seems to handle bad streaks ( 3-10 no hits ) quite well.


My bet selection usually doesn't get  past 4 without a hit.


So far very good success rate.




Bet selection is primordial.






Thanks




TTT

[XXVV]

Thanks Iggiv


I am sure John Patrick's approach has much merit, amongst many smart professional plays, of which I am sure we are aware. It would be an interesting new thread to start if you wanted to list and re-examine these for us all, their strengths and weaknesses.


In the meantime let's re-state the position with regard to the Whittacker progression.


Regarding use of 'long' progressions. The merit/ danger has to do with the bet that is applied.


My work is based on practical application of experimental live testing that is rigorous and checked by others to ensure objectivity. I use only one type of bet in this current work, although I am certain that there are many others out there that could meet the sensible criteria of risk/ return and effective clustering in response to the Ecart.


In the specific case to which I am applying this clever Whittacker Progression, the results within large samples support the view that by applying the 'lumpy' principle of applying part settlement of a debt and then dealing with the reducing debt in discrete parcels, is totally effective.


What more do you want?


Let us move away also from the blinkers of Probability Theory expectations.


In discrete packages behaviour can be relatively extreme in deviation.


Over a long period, this ratio diminishes to more frequently recognised standard deviations.


I am interested only in 'short term' application in bet selection and application.


A series of 'short' passages with results added will give very different results to that of a continuous bet application and 'long ' progression applied ( such as the flawed 'play the last winning doz/ col' or some such mix).


There is such a big difference and thinking/ perception has to change on this. Generalising on 'long' progressions is pointless.


I will publish a further example and detail later this morning, and once again thank Lucy for her initiative in accessing and publishing this material.  I like her idea of ongoing research. Then its up to the individual to take it further if they are interested, and I have completed here what needed to be stated and considered. Despite what I say, many will retain their preferences.


The 'long' progression is, as I have stated just one of several ways to play the bet.  That it is capable of crunching through sessions without loss is remarkable. The price paid is an overall rate of earning that can slow through dealing with more challenging sequences, although most of the time the earning rate is good.


Specifically, the progression pays out on bets 1-6 without complication and they account for 90% of all outcomes, with 83% being in the more lucrative 1-4 bets.


Outcomes


1  +2
2  +1
3  +2
4    0
5    0
6  +1


Some chops can be dealt with easily, say


7
1   resolved in the two bets.


The sample I will use to illustrate an extreme will follow shortly and it was dredged from the middle of a three session sum taken from live Macao spin data.


It is one of the most difficult I have encountered.


Should there be worse and unplayable outcomes, time will tell.


If you like playing progressions and apply this one intelligently, and even with some extra notes I will provide in the next example, then this will bring success. Like all methods however there will be an eventual safety stop valve, and even if worst case scenario it took a rare hit, then say 350 units can be recovered in a couple of sessions. However I emphasise in my testing to data I have not seen that happen, and that is because the bet selection and application has been smart.


cheers
XXVV

[iggiv]

thanx XXVV


by the way i could not see MANY authors like John Patric, his methods are really proven, i know some people  use them on a consistent basis to win. not too many authors are like this.

[XXVV]

Here is an interesting passage from a sequence that spreads 850 spins at the same table on a continuous monitor 24 hour a day from Macao live.


First though the overall result on the application of the W. Progression on that Ritz sample.
+124 units without any loss.  450 spins.


The Macao sample was the worst I have seen in its duration. However I can offer some comments on that in a moment.


10
1
3
8
1
7
4
8
1
1
10
7     six difficult bet sequences within twelve bet phases
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
6
4
2
2
-----


this resulted in a nil balance


I wont go through all the workings but by following the rules we ploughed through it, and it took some time, over 150 spins in reality to deal with it by the book.


However here is an observation in breaking the sequence into other (smaller) parcels.


Earlier play in the 850 spin sequence was profitable and once this hurdle was overcome all subsequent play flowed almost without any need for further progression, as a demonstration of the swing in the Ecart.


10
1
---
3
---
8
1
----
7
4
8
1
1
---
10
7
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
----
6
----
4
---
2
---
2
-------------


By doing this and writing off sometimes -5 as being close to a resolution and then taking standard profit ( the 3 bet gives +2), the length and bulk of the progression can be shortened and simplified.
Otherwise what can happen is that the debt is nearly cleared and then blows out again, prolonging the game.


850 spins


Overall result  +198 units.  two progression passages nullified loss. 350 unit RB required.


Key when playing these out by the book is to remember to follow when and where to apply the varying divisor ,ie  2,3,4, or 5 at the net debt levels to calculate always the next bet size.


Do not be restricted by the earlier general guideline, but re-calculate as you go and always round up to the next nearest whole number.


Applying this to the D+C reverse bet will give you time to do your quick calculation as you are not betting every spin.


As an optional extra I cover zero as a parallel technique which when sensibly applied when necessary can provide bonus earnings.


That's enough on this subject and then its up to each individual to conduct their own testing and application of this resource if desired.


If you are developing your own bet do a sensible statistically adequate sample where your strike rate on Dozens or Columns or combinations should consistently approach +80% on bets 1 to 4 incl., and say +88% on bets 1-6 incl.  Then the pressure on the progression is less.


These results will vary with Ecart swings, so take the mean from say +10 samples of say +100 spins, or preferably three times that amount.


Lastly here is an overview of 3500 spins made up from 30 sessions of +100 spins and here are the ten most challenging sequences - really nothing too scary :


A.
1
2
1
9
7
2
10
1
1
3
1
2
1
----
B.
6
4
1
10
2
1
1
1
-----
C.
7
6
3
1
1
2
1
-----
D.
6
2
8
1
3
3
1
1
-----
E.
7
5
2
3
3
1
1
----
F.
9
1
4
1
----
G.
7
7
1
1
2
1
1
----
H.
5
11
7
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
-----
I.
10
8
3
1
6
2
1
1
----
J.
1
1
3
3
12
1
1
1
---


Overall the Whittacker progression has been a fascinating and remarkable subject for study.


Hope that assists
XXVV

[XXVV]

Some further thought on this very useful Whittacker Progression technique.


The first six steps of the progression are very useful and avoid complication, and depending on the bet selection, can deal with approximate 90% of outcomes ( using the reversal bet I have discussed earlier).


The steps of the progression ( units bet) in this phase are


1  +2
1  +1
2  +2
2    0
3    0
5  +1 


5  by this seventh step if won the net loss is only -4 and can written off or a 2 unit bet can attempt
    to resolve the debt.
7


The progression can be used further or the debt written off and the play method is reset at step one.


This to me is one of the best combinations of staking plans and bets I have come across, and it amazes me that only 430 views of this thread have been registered.

[LuckyLucy]

Im very impressed, I love your work!  Just shows the value of sharing of ideas and what can come of it

Lucy

[XXVV]

Nice to update that to 520 views.


Yes completely agree Lucy, sometimes the timing and circumstances are right, so that there can be a 'synergy' of energy. In other words win-win!


We like that.
Best XXVV

[iggiv]

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

my friend, it is hard to be sure about anything when it comes to roulette and probabilities.
i just think in terms of likely or unlikely. But I am not completely sure. Maybe you are right for some cases.
SOME CASES. exceptions. If it is working with you -- I can't deny the fact. And I have no reasons not to trust u.

but for me progressions did not work. Not only for me I guess.

[XXVV]

Yes Iggiv


I think a lot of progressions can lead to trouble, and I have earlier stated this very sternly because I have seen the dangers, and in some cases the extreme results.


However, and finally, with regard to Lucy's excellent initiative here; she has provided a very worthy subject for discussion and more importantly has provided it for practical test.


I must emphasise what Victor has commented upon, and that it is the bet selection which makes so much difference. Some bets are better than others!  It's not hard to see. Also the timing of the bet and the duration of the bet and the session are also major factors to consider.


And then the subtlety here is that I am suggesting that you don't even need to use the full progression to succeed, but it is a proven fallback option. Where possible, like an experienced sailor, you steer clear of storms. You don't bet against the tide. I have done the hard work in testing this methodology in this context and have probably invested already several hundred hours, and suitable multiple statistical samples. That is just in the context of the Whittacker Progression applied to the reversal bets.


This was the best possible investment I could have made.


Healthy scepticism is fine and always recommended, but don't miss real opportunities without your own investigation first.


I wish you well, and  can advise that I have recorded sufficiently adequate and consistent net positive unit income earnings per spin over copious randomly selected samples.


Roulette must be treated with infinite respect, and false beliefs will be severely punished.


Recall what Arvis said, that ' the true nature of roulette ' permits (only) short cycles of relatively small gain/ small edge. We know that with Ecart study.


It is with that understanding, respect and remarkable and trusted insight that I proceed with my work. I am not stumbling in the darkness and I have earned the right after many many years of practical play and research, and this past 18 months, full time professional dedication.


That really will be my last post on this subject in this context, and these remarks really sum it all up.


Best XXVV.

[Wally Gator]

Absolutely exceptional job XXVV.  Thank you.

[GLC]

I wish you well, and  can advise that I have recorded sufficiently adequate and consistent net positive unit income earnings per spin over copious randomly selected samples.


Roulette must be treated with infinite respect, and false beliefs will be severely punished.


Recall what Arvis said, that ' the true nature of roulette ' permits (only) short cycles of relatively small gain/ small edge. We know that with Ecart study.


It is with that understanding, respect and remarkable and trusted insight that I proceed with my work. I am not stumbling in the darkness and I have earned the right after many many years of practical play and research, and this past 18 months, full time professional dedication.


That really will be my last post on this subject in this context, and these remarks really sum it all up.


Best XXVV.

You have given all of us more than enough to keep us busy learning how to apply this to reversal bets and believe me when I say we are very grateful for your help.


GLC