I make these observations just to qualify my previous post. There's no reason why betting against 1 - 2 - 3 forming is better than betting against 2 - 2 - 2 or 2- 1 - 3 or any other arrangement of dozens. They're all the same odds.
If you wait until you have a series of say 3 wins in a row of any dozen, then bet against 1-2-3, you might have a better hit rate. It also means fewer betting opportunities.
Of course, everything we're suggesting is "gambler's fallacy" but what else is there?
As a thought on the progression, if you lose a 1-1 3-3 9-9 progression, we could go to a 3-3 9-9 27-27 for 7 or 8 wins and then drop back to 1-1 3-3 9-9 to recover the remaining units. If you lose within the 8 wins at 3-3 9-9 27-27 then you can move to a final progression of 9-9 27-27 81-81 for 8 times and then drop back down. More risky, but a loss on the 3rd set of bets should be pretty rare.
If you wait until you have a series of say 3 wins in a row of any dozen, then bet against 1-2-3, you might have a better hit rate. It also means fewer betting opportunities.
Of course, everything we're suggesting is "gambler's fallacy" but what else is there?
As a thought on the progression, if you lose a 1-1 3-3 9-9 progression, we could go to a 3-3 9-9 27-27 for 7 or 8 wins and then drop back to 1-1 3-3 9-9 to recover the remaining units. If you lose within the 8 wins at 3-3 9-9 27-27 then you can move to a final progression of 9-9 27-27 81-81 for 8 times and then drop back down. More risky, but a loss on the 3rd set of bets should be pretty rare.