Positive Progression vs Negative Progression

Albalaha · June 19, 2021, 06:24:49 AM

Well, I m not into writing pages long posts but this debate is one of the hottest debates for gamblers. Many assert that as the name suggests itself a positive progression like Parlay is the way to play. It ensures big wins and loses least in the worst times. Looks impressive, isn't it?
Problem area with a positive progression is twofold:
1. It either requires more wins than losses or clumping wins or both
2. You can't guess when more wins than losses or clumping wins will occur.

Normally, with every game having house edge, getting more wins than losses or getting clumping wins when you are betting for it could be as much difficult as trying to win with a ten steps martingale. You might win till you lose.
Rather, negative progressions are based upon more realistic premise. Even Martingale or Labouchere are mathematically guaranteed to win(irrespective of how many chips they might need) but there is not even a single positive progression known to win in the long run simulations.
Mostly believers of trends or patterns believe in positive progressions too. They have a gut feeling(however they can't illustrate them ever) that they can identify patches where they can ride on winning streaks and come home winner daily.
Being real, in an EC bet, at worst times, getting a WW(two consecutive wins) could drag upto 60 trials. In no manner, you can predict anything in a random game and daydreaming of being safe and keep winning with any positive progression alone is childish.
Negative progression might not be as sharp or dangerous as a martingale or labouchere. There could be many variants which could safely work to win avoiding big losses and winning despite lesser wins than losses both.
Positive progressions will help only if someone can ensure more wins than losses which is impossible in a random game.

More later...........

Positive Progression vs Negative Progression

Albalaha