+ Register

[Eight Iron]

In a $10 table, soxfan progression requires a bankroll of $875. If you bust you are down $875.

You would need more than that.

Using his progression of 2,2,2,6,8,10,15,20,25,35,50 (See June 7, 2015), you would be down 125 units after ten consecutive losses.

In order to make the 50 unit bet after ten losses, you would need a BR of 175 units.

Using that progression, the deficit would be 50 units plus commissions after winning the last 50 unit bet.

[Tomla]

soxfan is making that bulldog fatter and fatter ----he probably has a good enough bet selection to win enough in 11 attempts with some losses included ----nothing wrong with that

[21 Aces]

Last night was full of correct plays being smoked by one for me consecutively.  I was on the winning side of two stolen high payout plays where the high payout lost by one.  A shoe with more naturals than the Amazon that was chopping like a watch.  _hit happens.

I think you either have to bank roll through it or take a break in some way.  Things can turn.

[Jimske]

In a $10 table, soxfan progression requires a bankroll of $875. If you bust you are down $875. Soxfan has  a subjective style of bet selection that gives him back to back wins within 11 attempts most of the time. Unless your bet selection can duplicate this feat, you will be out of money.

2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 units bets.  Don't that add up to $1,750.00?  Yup.

The soxfan prog got to hit at least 90% of prog win to come out ahead.  I say at least because my brief study of several hundred shoes not exhaustive so it's more like an educated guess.  Winning even 85% is a loser from work I've done.

Most of the common bet selections dbl, odbl, fld, old etc. fail in zumma 1600 using soxfan progression. Progression alone can not make you a winner, unless you have a bet selection that makes it a winner. All bet selections have a negative edge of about 1.15% flat betting, and no progression will make it a winner mathematically.

Yup and don't you think it's about time that everyone gets this through their head?  So when you hear "subjective" bet selection please read "guessing."  So how does Jimske do it?  He guesses.  LOL  However he does start with fixed rule bet selections that, in and of themselves, will produce 50%.  If things going south changes are in order.  You got to know your bet selection(s) cold and what they lose to and what they win to.  So you got to choose something that conforms to the shoe and hope that it will stay long enough to get a few wins.  In soxfan case then hope it stays long enough to get back to back which is VERY common.

Simple.

[21 Aces]

I haven't seen it, but will.  Unofficial clothing line of baccarat.  I have always found their ads to be very informative.

[gr8player]

Ah, if only it were truly that "simple", Jimske.  Alas, it is not.  At least, it wasn't for me:

I played, years ago, a similar style to that of the Soxter's.  I needed back-to-back parlayed wins within a certain number of bets.  And I, too, was playing a subjective bet selection process. 

I was doing well for quite a while.  Until:  Bally's casino, mini-bac, I was at the last (read: highest) bet of my progression, and I distinctly remember my hesitation at putting up that bet, even though I was supposed to bet for the "reccurring double" on the Banker's side at that time.  Well, that hesitation cost me dearly that day, as I missed the winning play after watching that Bank win go by, and further exacerbated the problem when I lost my next subjective placement and effectively busted my progression.  That was the last time that I played that style.

You see, at least for me, anyway, that subjective placement becomes a rather "shaky" proposition when you're at the highest level of bet in your progression, and I found that the pressure of that bet caused my "subjectiveness" to wander.  And that, for me, was the end of it.

Now I find that the smaller I bet, the more I win, in the long run.  Yes, winnings are smaller, too; but so are losses, and those smaller losses are relatively easily eradicated through my long term play.

[gr8player]

I feel compelled to add that my post in no way is meant as a knock on Soxster's preferred playing style.  In fact, I find that if you do, in fact, have the "balls" (as Soxster so eloquently puts it) to play that style, than there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Again, I did very well for quite some time with it.  It's just that those higher bets were, obviously, out of my own personal comfort zone and when I found that that affected my bet selection process (which was then and still is a rather "subjective" one), that is when I decided to adjust my bet sizes waaayyyy downward.  In that manner, I can now place my bets without the hesitation that accompanies undue stress.

[RouletteGhost]

Mr majiks money management technique

Need a back to back win one time within 12 tries

[james]

Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.

[Jimske]

Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.

You're making a mistake.  I don't know where you get the second $10 prog that does add up to 875 but the first prog which he wrote gets to 175 units or $1,750.00 at $10.

[Jimske]

Ah, if only it were truly that "simple", Jimske.  Alas, it is not.  At least, it wasn't for me:

I played, years ago, a similar style to that of the Soxter's.  I needed back-to-back parlayed wins within a certain number of bets.  And I, too, was playing a subjective bet selection process. 

I was doing well for quite a while.  Until:  Bally's casino, mini-bac, I was at the last (read: highest) bet of my progression, and I distinctly remember my hesitation at putting up that bet, even though I was supposed to bet for the "reccurring double" on the Banker's side at that time.  Well, that hesitation cost me dearly that day, as I missed the winning play after watching that Bank win go by, and further exacerbated the problem when I lost my next subjective placement and effectively busted my progression.  That was the last time that I played that style.

You see, at least for me, anyway, that subjective placement becomes a rather "shaky" proposition when you're at the highest level of bet in your progression, and I found that the pressure of that bet caused my "subjectiveness" to wander.  And that, for me, was the end of it.

Now I find that the smaller I bet, the more I win, in the long run.  Yes, winnings are smaller, too; but so are losses, and those smaller losses are relatively easily eradicated through my long term play.

Ahhh the Gr8 one is back.  Not simple?  You got the holy grail.  Maybe the rules are not so easy to learn but how hard can it be to follow rules.  Sox says he can't teach his placement because it has an element of subjectivity.  Makes sense.  Your method with a terrific win rate of 54% is not subjective therefore teachable, right?

Why not try to find someone and teach it to them for a nice fat one time pay check.  Wouldn't be too hard to get someone to fork over a couple hundred grand for the holy grail!

[RouletteGhost]

Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.

This is what sox uses?

Needs two wins?

[RouletteGhost]

And here I ain't even Irish but did have the good fortune to buck up against the following excellent L/W cluster, hey hey.

LLLLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLLLLWW

Mr majiks MM beats this

[21 Aces]

Awesome to have big bank to throw and have nominal performance still mean something.  For example, 100 large to win 3 or 5!

[AsymBacGuy]

Imo one, two, three or even more shoes could get us the most tough spots ever encountered no matter how sophisticated our BS or MM will be.
So, imo, we should think the game as a long term proposition, the like casinos will make tons of bucks itlr, accepting the short-intermediate losing periods.

Any single shoe has its own history and there are two main mistakes we can do, a minor and a major one: trying to adapt to the actual shoe (minor mistake) and trying to "force" our expected outcomes by a strong MM (major mistake).
The adjective "minor" and "major" are not intended for the prediction of the future outcomes but just for reward/risk issues. 

Imo we can't give casinos the luxury to catch all or great part of our money just on one, two or three key hands.

As already posted, there must be a general plan and an actual plan.
The wisest move we can do to match those plans is to wait, wait and wait. Not hoping to get the expected when things seem to not coming in our favor (of course the term "our favor" is totally subjective, being the byproduct of what our betting plan dictates).

There's no a f possibility that some expected outcomes of some lenght won't appear after 3 or 4 shoes. Especially if some unexpected outcomes were overrepresented on the last shoes.

Virtually losing some bets, imo, will get the best results.
In the sense that we can start our betting plan after some virtual losses.

Anyone here knows the difficulty to keep the winnings after some played shoes, well we should think the perfect opposite when we're finding us on the losing (virtual) side.

as.