My last post, it was just a theory, I do not like this type of  very  deep negative progression where you need a very large bankroll for  session, this  is  not  playable method.

Nice in theory and research but absolute unrealistic reality at any table, especially with first wagers of anywhere from $75.00 to $300.00.  Totally unrealistic.

If there is no edge in bet selection process, or even long term expectations to zero, this kind progression dosent work.
Thinking further if we have good bet selection, Mayby VDW by Nickmsi, when we have very good selection with medium drowdawns, we can utilize this type of progressions for EC bets in the rise stakes after - 20 units from highest bankroll, next Increase will be after we lose 40 bets from highest point it be -60 units, and so on on.Steakes table do not grow very fast, highest willbe 9 units, virtual limit is 180 losing bets from highest point.

Returning to the name of topic.
This time we take EC bets.
Bet selection
Always we play when we see single chop for continuations, BR ........
The second pattern  we play is when we see double formation and next is single, example BBR .. now  Play That formation of doubles will continue BBRRBB ...., till the lose.

Regression
As far as I remember, it will be
2-1-2
In this play only 3 attempts to finish this Sequence, if we lose 3 times first bet is the end of session.

Today. I tested this method with betselection from post 11
On the idea of clues me bleep24 from another forum
We always play last 3 DS if we will get hit in Play That 3 DS to the first loss, then take the last 3 DS and play the same way. every spin we have bet.

In this way, always playing the hottest DS as an even bet.
I do not know how it will look in the long run, but if in a similar way in the double dozen, Mayby be even beter with EC.

I had pretty good results, with regression
2-1-2 and 3 attempts to end the sequence


I know that this sequence can be longer, but the posts Sputnik say, that this will catch 3 spins of domination, maybe this is the solution.
Regression seems to me, that the longer the more difficult to achieve.

It is not bad to try a theory in the real world. You just need to have a lot of patients and exert a lot of effort to prove it. When a theory is proven then this became a strategy you can use in real world playing.

I read recently last posts of Sputnik.
To determine best profit target and stoplose for the method.
I think all the time That BV no Zero Roulette is somewhat manipulative.
Because again by playing flat rate I have a profit.
Play method was 3 DS as EC, chasing the trend. After 4 losing  bets wait  for  virtual  win.
Set a target profit of 10 for wining bets, +30 units, stop lose -60 units, 20 losing bets
I won 7 sessions, 2 lose.
UP 90 units, all flatbet.

I tried to play a game full regression sessions with UP and pull
2-1-2-2-3-4-5-1, but after 300 spins it was zero and I finished

Today I played with some modification of regression.
2-1-2-4-8-16-32 stop
I know RNG is joke, but today and reach first 7step win after 720 spins, I finished after the game because I was in a big hole with a bankroll, I want test further the kind of staking, but the results on RNG BV nozero are funny, if you start to play progressive staking strategy is destroyed in a moment, by a series from hell. Even if your strategy should work for some time . Not  go  straight   down.

For the last few days I played something like this.
Bet selection was one dozen.
Always follow the last to catch the trend, and a series of 4 or more.
Progression
Positive 3 step 1-2-4 after win the third step reset.
What happened to my surprise
This is spins / results
1000 +151
1000 -63
1000 +102
1000 +72
500 +97
1000-6
200 +23
1000 + 18
1000 +81
500 +58
1000 + 33
1000 +2
1000-78
1000 -77

Here's a question for more experienced players, whether this 3-step positive progression can generate an edge?
All spins played on Nozero roulette, the results of the first 10 k spins are amazing, but the last two sessions are not so much,
Is it possible that RNG specially manipulated the results and now will be a series of many losers of the session, whether such progression can generate profit in the longrun and it is just a deviation?

My friend sent me a simulation of the last two dozen on a wheel without a zero.
Stake 10 units

From my old manual simulations, it appears that playing 2 last dosens is very stable selection, even if it does not give an edge in longrun, very rarely the graph goes below zero.

In addition to this I have a positive progression, which wins in the longrun on a wheel without zero, but unfortunately is not able to overcome the border of 2.7% house edge.

 Nice to see read your writing about Regression Up & Pull and Positiv Progression.

The way i test to catch two dominate dozen was to bet the first dozen that hit to repeat, if not then i have two dozen hits in front of me and would bet both and then i would catch domination where two dozen hit within three attempts. Now if we don't follow the first dozen to repeat, then we don't know what combination we get or we get two dozen to hit, so being part of the domination you need to follow the first one to catch any combination with domination within a cycle of three.

Same with even money bets - assume singles are dozen 1 and series of two is dozen 2 and series of three and higher is dozen 3.
Then when you see a single you bet it to repeat, if not then you will have a single and a serie of two or you will have a single and a serie of three or higher.
If you get two of them to hit within three attempts - one cycle - you have bias or domination with two events hitting three time.
When you lose all three bets is when all three events show once each, same for dozen and even money bets.

I test this selection method and could not get it to work flat betting or with regression up & pull ...

What is amazing with Sputnik's March is that two events as i describe above sometimes hit for 20 times in a row and that is a winning bet or a break even bet no matter what combination they events that is bias or strike as domination - i have seen 34 singles and series of two once - that is the same thing as dozen 1 and dozen 2 hitting 34 times in a row with same probability - but this time it was me playing even money bets.

Cheers