+ Register

[Babu]

See attached file.  I would have wished to make it visual on the post but I have forgotten how and it's late.  I've made a promise to two members of this form to post this money management that I have came up with recently. 

The first row, which shows 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is the number of parlays.

The first column shows the mount loss if 10 attempts are made unsuccessfully. The 2nd column is the base bet which you will use to parlay.  You will make 10 attempts with each base units.

The pink in the first column, is the total amount loss total.  I'm sure you can all figure this out with a little time.

The last column shows the amount gain after completing the 5 parlay.

At the bottom, it shows that a successful cycle of parlay on the 47th attempt results in even.  On the 50th attempt, it's a loss of $70.

If you are unable to successfully complete a cycle of parlay and go bust, the total amount loss is $1000.


The idea is to complete one cycle, within 47 attempts.  Once you successfully complete a cycle, you start over with the base bet being $10.

The bet selection can be anything you choose at the moment.

I prefer to choose to catch the alternating wins, or chops as most would call it.  However, I have been randomly selecting.  So far, I have had two successful sessions winning $500 plus.

This is not a method for the impatience as I found out.  I did it just to see how it went at the casino.  I have tried it numerous times at home.

If you're going to follow a mechanical bet selection, I suggest virtually run 10-15 attempts.  This will give you an extra 10-15 attempts in.


I have been playing Baccarat for over 10 years and have played more regularly in recent years.  My strategies have changed due to circumstances at the casino.  So I have come up with over 10 different style of play because each system is not practical in every scenario.  In recent years, I have been playing a random game in terms of money management and bet selection.

The success is due to years of perfecting the bet selection and managing of bet size, which is hard to explain.  The best analogy that I can use to explain this is sculpturing.  In time, you will learn to perfect it.  I hate making these sort of post because it gets no where.

Since this parlay is mechanical and leaves no room questions, I decided to share this.  Hope you all enjoy.

[Johno-Egalite]

I'll make this quick, as I have to walk my dog.

It is so hard to win 5 in a row, and incredibly frustrating to win 3 or 4 and lose the 5th.

If you want to bet positive, have you ever considered the Guetting progression, it will protect you more when you only hit 3 or 4 wins a row?

[Babu]

I'll make this quick, as I have to walk my dog.

It is so hard to win 5 in a row, and incredibly frustrating to win 3 or 4 and lose the 5th.

If you want to bet positive, have you ever considered the Guetting progression, it will protect you more when you only hit 3 or 4 wins a row?

Thank you Lugi for posting the progression.  I am not heavy with the Math so I have never heard of Guetting before.  I'll analyze it a bit more and give it a try.

Yes, 5 in a row is incredibly hard to do. Although I have done it many times before.  The most recent was 13 correct random bets.  During the two sessions, I loss most on the 2nd and 3rd parlay.  There were a few 4th parlay that I loss on and one where I loss on the final parlay. 

I went with random selection because I hate to force myself to a mechanical bet selection of catching a streak of something or chops.  Then there were times where I had to push on dragon 7 bonuses(my Achilles heel of most of all my systems).

When I ran this on the shoes that I have collected in the past and on the Wizard's site using the chops, it worked real well.  It would be great if others can test this out as I tend to use what's been working for me.

Again, thank you Lugi for a new avenue.

[alrelax]

All good info from you guys, thanks.  Best of all, others can get ideas and pick and choose and tailor to there own comfort levels.

I have written about these subjects and they are vast, once you really get into them, IMO.  I would like to comment on the following:

"If you are unable to successfully complete a cycle of parlay and go bust, the total amount loss is $1000."  I personally have found it is easier for me to complete parlays and maintain comfort levels without having to rely on those same parlay wins to stay in the game or to proceed with wagers.  Meaning, I first win a small amount flat-betting or with a simple flat bet plus one parlay or perhaps a flat-bet plus one parlay and then a second half parlay.  But regardless, set aside a certain amount of winning to start my (1 + 4 Side Parlay) which really allows me to profit and put away and get into my 1/3rd=1/3rd-1/3rd Money Management Method. 

Back to my parlay wagers.  It was also said here, 5 parlays are extremely difficult to win. YES!  They are, coupled with the fact you are needing those to stay in the game or proceed, etc.  That is why I call my 1 + 4 Parlay wagering a SIDE WAGER.  I am still wagering on whatever it is with flat betting or other parlaying, I am just not doing a wager with a 4 or 5 step straight parlay and certainly not every hand. 

Say I won $400.00.  I then dedicate that $400.00 to at least 4 chances to complete my 1 + 4 Side Parlay wager block.  If it wins, that is a home run for me.   

$100.00 first wager
$200.00 first parlay
$400.00 second parlay
$800.00 third parlay
$1,600.00 fourth parlay

Profit if completed would be $3,200.00 or $3,100.00 if you deduct the first $100.00 you won and allocated towards it. 

I do this as it allows me a clearer way of thinking and wagering.  Call me crazy, but it works several times and when you compare the overall amount of your wins to the amount of times you failed at it, you make a nice bit of change.  I still wager other B or P wagers with my buy in or other allocated win money, but those have nothing to do with the Side Parlay block I am attempting.

You can tailor it anyway you like.  Sitting there and grinding it out is difficult and a time bomb to break even or make a few units.  Sitting there and relying on a dedicated positive progression with your buy in money is also difficult on the brain and for most players stressful. 

I do use my 1 + 4 Side Parlay in sporadic wagering attempts, meaning it might sit sideways of my buy in chips for several or many hands until I see something I like or count on, but in no way do I wager that Side Parlay every single hand or even every single wager I choose to place.  I would say I complete 3 to 4 of my Side Parlay blocks out of 15 attempts, meaning I do get to my 4th parlay wager and win it, sometimes I do chicken out as they say and complete 3 parlays and stop that 1 + 4 Parlay block and just put the winning from it away or divide it up.  One attempt would be the dedicated amount that I win and set aside solely for the purpose of the parlay, no matter how many attempts I divide those win chips up into each time. 

And finally as Lugi said, "It is so hard to win 5 in a row, and incredibly frustrating to win 3 or 4 and lose the 5th."  BOOM!  Something fricking magical about that 5th parlay, no matter if spaced out or not.  Even if I took all 80 hands of one shoe to complete the block or the attempt.  That 5th one will kill me, been there and proved it.  4 Parlays are tuff, but doable for me.  Most players will think if you can do 2 or 3 or even 4 parlays, you can do 5 or 6 or 8 or 10, but sorry, there is a casino Voodoo God that is watching (joking!) but lots of it is stress, frustration and reliance on the parlay to make needed money, etc.  Lots of things IMO come into play that effect the outcome, not just the cards.  Another subject for another thread. 

[Johno-Egalite]

During the two sessions, I loss most on the 2nd and 3rd parlay.  There were a few 4th parlay that I loss on and one where I loss on the final parlay. 

I went with random selection because I hate to force myself to a mechanical bet selection of catching a streak of something or chops.  Then there were times where I had to push on dragon 7 bonuses(my Achilles heel of most of all my systems).

I've looked at at parleys extensively many years ago, sound great in theory. But in practise they can be mentally draining.  Guetting helps a bit, I've never tried it.   Players tend to investigate them after a bad negative progression session.

The main issue, is which bet selection is more likely to give me a stream of wins, DBL? Long chops, streaks of 6, not frequent enough.

What I did discover however; is to record a shoe randomly, use columns of 3's, top to bottom, next column.
Bet FLD from left to right whichever column is winning.

Here are 3 example shoes.

[attach=1]
(shoe 2, column 13, row 2, is a win, wrongly indicated in the shoe as a loss)

If one of the decisions in the column wins, no-bet the others, because not all rows will comply to FLD.

In regards to the Parley, I used a 'Contra D'Alembert', basically a D'Alembert in reverse, increase by 1 unit after any win.  Losing shoes won't cost you that much, even long choppy ones. Good shoes return average of 20 units. 

I played it once, I won after the 2nd or 3rd shoe, the first I found very frustrating because I wasn't ahead, then things kicked in.  It takes a lot of composure to play this way.

To be honest, I don't know why I didn't persist with this method,  I only played it once and it worked, I tested 20 shoes, the first 10 returned a 53.4% hit rate, the next batch of 10 shoes 52.1%.  But that is not the point, rather the frequency of winning runs.

As you can see from the image, the 1st shoe has a run of 6 winning bets, to off-set the losses.
The 2nd shoe, 3 runs of 3's (not so good)
3rd shoe, a run of 7 winning bets.

I dislike Parleys for the basic reason, n I win 1 unit, I want to hold that unit, I suppose I could bet 1-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, but this places more pressure on the number of wins required.

Anyway thanks to Alrelax and Badu reponse for this thread  because it has re-ignited my interest and I will look into things further.

Here are shoes 4 ~ 7 (these are real world shoes, not Zumma)

[attach=2]

This is the best option I found, without relying on FLD, DBL or OLD, also 3 columns seems to throw longer runs of wins, than columns of 2's or 4's.

Just so readers understand it.

Shoe 4, column C, we win C14, therefore no bet C15 or C16.   We lose E14, therefore bet B E15 which is a win, therefore no-bet E16.

Because we are following E15, we no bet F14, rather wait for F15 which we win.  It was a long time ago since I put that together, so there will be mistakes, so long as you understand the gist of it. 

[alrelax]

From Lugi:  "This places more pressure on the number of wins required", and also, "It takes a lot of composure to play this way."

IMO, people that play bac tend to concentrate and rely on scoreboards, past, current, stats, math, their losses, their wins, and every other tangible or almost tangible thing they can grasp onto in the game while they are actually playing.  All of this fuels their motivation and excitement and they tend to forget about or are oblivious to the mental side, the pressure, the stress, the false positives, the theory they convince themselves of that will make up for all their losses and begin to prosper, and on and on and on.  The list is long. 

Maybe best said, we tend to doom ourselves.  Think about it.  There is more to wagering, any type of bets, winning, cashing out and walking away with it, then a plan according to a theory. 

[Jimske]

Good prog.  Pretty tedious but safe.

[Johno-Egalite]

I've just spent the last few hours catching up on "betting positive".

There are a few threads on Gamblersglen regarding this, to sum things up, they simply do not work and offer nothing over flat betting, unless you hit something like 7WIAR.

Strange as it may seem.  A positive Fibonacci. Contra D'Alembert are no better than flat betting for short wins, the research has already been done.

Contra D?Alembert;

1-2-3-4-5 < bet amount
2-4-6-8-10 < number of chips on table
0-1-2-3-4 < chips removed
0-1-3-6-10 < running total of chips removed, profit

Positive Fibonacci

1-2-3-5-8 < bet amount
2-4-6-10-16 < number of chips on table
0-1-1-2-3 < chips removed
0-1-2-4-7 < running total of chips removed, profit

Martingale / Contra Hybrid v1

1-2-4-2-3 < bet amount
2-4-8-4-6 < number of chips on table
0-0-6-1-2 < chips removed
0-0-6-7-9 < running total of chips removed, profit

Martingale / Contra Hybrid v2

1-2-4-3-4 < bet amount
2-4-8-6-8 < number of chips on table
0-0-5-2-3 < chips removed
0-0-5-7-10 < running total of chips removed, profit


Ok, lets clear a few things up. Unless you expect to encounter SEVEN straight wins every session, then the Contra D?Alembert out performs a up as you win Fibonacci, it is not until you start achieving successive wins greater than seven, does the Fibonacci begin to bring home the bacon.

Using a Contra up 1u as you win and return to the base bet after any loss, I noticed the following;

For every WWWL run playing positive you make 3 units.

What?? Yes unless my maths is wrong, see tables above, you lose the 4th bet, you make 3 units.

Hence the consideration for the Marty/Contra hybrid alternative options above.

A positive Fibonacci is worst, WWWL +2, worst than flat betting.


Winning more decisions than losing can't be guaranteed, therefore wins have to be parlayed to compensate and here lies the problem. WWW using anything but a Martingale offers no advantage whatsoever, hence losing the parleys will impact.

Amazing that an up as you win Contra, Fibonacci perform the same as Flat Betting for a WWW sequence, and only come into their own with WWWW~

I knew there was a reason why I didn't use them, just a case of I had forgotten the why.

The "Contra D'Alembert" operates differently depending on the number of units of the original bet.

Example;

If the first bet is 1u and you get WWL, the end result is a push (+1+2-3=0)
If the first bet is 2u and you get WWL, the end result is +1 (+2+3-4=+1)
If the first bet is 3u and you get WWL, the end result is +2 (+3+4-5=+2)

Obviously all other WL sequences behave differently dependant on the first bet size, if you do not fancy starting off betting 2 or 3 units, let's say you are at a $10 table, you could treat the unit value as $5, so even though your first bet is $10, it is in fact 2 units (or as mentioned in another thread, you are using literally a 1 > 1.5u progression, it amounts to the same thing.

If you play $25 units, treat the first bet as 5u, then after WWL we end up with; (+5+6-7=+4)

You have to compare how various progressions stack up against each other against various combinations of W's and L's, WL, WWL, WWWL, WWWWL etc. A simple two step (1u > 2u) will fare better against a WWL run than a "Contra D'Alembert" started at 1 unit.

I've dabbled with positive progressions off and on over the years and Parlay's failures will screw your head more and quicker than losing hands 9-8 or 7-6 ever will. Which is why I always try and protect the initial win whenever I use them.

Other options would include, combining a limited positive Martingale and Contra D'Alembert (+1+2+4+4+4+5+6+7), or even a positive Fibonacci, starting at 1u or 2u.

If your thinking about positive progressions, there are two issues to resolve; firstly what are you going to do after many parlay failures? Quit or switch to a negative progression to recoup , then back to betting positive (you are now playing Star), secondly; the bet selection you are going to use, which may be the biggest stumbling block.


A few years back I took a method to the casino for a live test run, I was down in the first two shoes and not feeling happy, on the third shoe, I recouped everything and also bottled out of the positive progression and missed out taking more from the tray. I was just happy to get my money back and a small profit after the prior 30u~ish unit draw-down, this is what you are up against the mental anguish.

Plus handling something like;

#5=LLWLWLLWLWWLWLLWLWWLWL

[Bally6354]

Hello Lugi! Remember the old and wise member Swami from way back in the old ''Gamblers Glen'' days.
If I am not mistaken, he was a great fan of the Mongoose positive progression.
The book which it came from told a tale of how a friend of the author used a version of Mongoose which had never failed him.
I did a post on here several years ago and stretched it similar in a way to how you elongated the star progression.
When testing it, I failed. However looking back on it, I was betting every hand and maybe it could do a job for someone who was more selective in their betting strategy.

[Johno-Egalite]

Hi Bally

Sure do remember Swami, he is still around, over at Izak's site LTW.

I recall the mongoose, found it very complicated, I'll dig it up and take a read....

Damn, read the thing, still find it too complexed.  So did a Google search,and up pops VLSRoulette???  HUH

Victor's site??  So Vic the owner of this board, has not only betselection.cc, wow...

It's on this board already
https://betselection.cc/money-management/the-30-step-mongoose-mongrel-mm-strategy/