+ Register

[HunchBacShrimp]

As I understand it, according to what I've found online...

The first four bets are a one step parlay, and the following 5 bets are flat betting for two wins in a row. The book can be a bit confusing about how to determine your bet size. There is imo a slightly easier and more important way to make that determination if you are going to play it by the book I found online.

The System consists of 1 profit bearing progression, with 2 recovery progressions to get you back to the first progression. They are as follows.

1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 = 100u
2224 | 10 20 30 50 80 = 200u
66612 | 30 60 90 150 240 = 600u

That's 900u. The book says your base unit size should be the first value after the "|" in the first progression, which is the 5. Now this eliminates $5 bettors in a B&M. I imagine even $25 bettors that can play the first progression at a $5 table would balk around the $450 bet let alone the final $1200.

So, look at the entire System laid out in full instead of just the first progression. And use the final recovery progression as a means to determine your base bet for the opening progression. Which is still going to take some pretty deep pockets for a B&M casino.

Personally, I think this system is dangerous for anyone under $250 units and they should still start out with a $5 opening parlay attempt in the first progression.


I'm still not on board with risking 100u for 9 attempts at two in a row. I would think a progression like Soxfan's or one more conservative would be better.

111 22 3 4 5 7 is a 26u bankroll for 9 attempts at winning two in a row with a profit of   3,2,1   2,1   2  2  1  2   Now the profit isn't on par with the Star at 3,2,1,3 | 5 10 10 20 30 However it is at 1/4 the risk. Even if you double it, and then double the whole thing again just like Star is written, you are still at 1/4 the risk with 234u.

There is a slight difference, as the final 5 bets of Star tread water with a WLWLWL pattern. Even so you could stretch out a 1-2 parlay progression 15 places for 153u. Double it after a bust and only risk 306u. (total 459u) That would be 30 attempts to win 2 in a row. And the Star System isn't exactly 27 attempts, because it is written to lump all four parlay attempts into one big bet for the first time you enter into the second and third progression.

There comes an advantage with risk. The Star System does have increased profits for successful coups, so it takes less coups to recover in the second and third progressions. And any successful coups in the first progression reduce the impact of the inevitable bust. But it is a long precarious climb up a 900u mountain to bust safety.

Now, I have over 600 live B&M craps Pass/Don't decisions and not once did I fail to win two in a row in 15 attempts. Though it did go to 14 attempts once. (it's been reverse engineered) I'm not advocating its use, just illustrating just how robust it is. Which brings me to my final point of interest.

Soxfan has a steep 2 step parlay that is similar to the Star System where as he increases risk deeper into his progression he reaps larger profits. I'm not criticizing this approach but want to defend what some may consider a small reward of only 1u-3u for being driven deep into a progression. Where you are down 85u, parlay a 29u bet risking a total of 114 if you lose and only winning 2u profit if you win. Keep in mind it's not 'only' 2u, it's 87u! This approach of winning more the deeper you go does not take advantage of winning 4 6 8 even 10 or 12 in a row. As now with the first successful coup of two wins you are reset to the smallest bet and reap the smallest rewards. If your larger rewards are at the first bet stage, then these times when you win 4 6 8 10 and more in a row you reap the maximum profit.

I know it's not common to win 12 in a row, but 4 in a row isn't really uncommon at all, and it seems counter intuitive, or at least like you are playing with fire, hoping for some losses before you win in order to get the most out of your MM. If you would humor me a bit down gamblers fallacy lane..... If you have been driven all the way into the third and final progression, then things have not been going well for you for some time and you are (possibly) "due" not just some double wins, but (hopefully) more likely 4 6 8 or more in a row. And a progression that yields more with its first bet really shines here, when you need it most.

HBS

PS. I've come across some mentioning of E Star, but could not find any detailed explanation of its design.

[soxfan]

I know two cats who have made good part/fulltime income usin Star, as written at the dice tables. Of course at dice you have lower table min and no tax due on winning bets like with the baccarats. I've tested Star against my buddy's huge dice table result data base and and it performs well, even buckin up against a full progressions buts one per week. But ya gotta pony up a lifetimes bankroll of 4000-5000 units to sustain yer play. So, Star ain't for the faint of heat or light of wallet and in the ya gotta have the balls and bankroll, hey hey.

[HunchBacShrimp]

Hey Soxfan,

I've read several posts praising Star. It is a clever system. I find it odd that no one seems to have the same reaction to it as they do to a 1-2-4 marty. Star actually being a 1-2-6! I do realize that Star is more than a simple marty. But a 900u system!? wow. It's pretty aggressive for 27 steps.

I've been practicing it against simulators. Craps, roulette, and blackjack. I have yet to bust it. It surprises me.

I know you say that any one progression bust shouldn't clip you for too much of your bankroll. One, being the fact that it should make you some money before it busts. And two, if you're playing 900u system you should have as you say a career bank roll of several thousand units.

And you are exactly right. " It ain't for the faint of heart or light of wallet...balls and bankroll"

It takes money to make money, even in a casino, maybe most especially in a casino.

HBS

[Tomla]

GLC just posted this one elsewhere , a three hit star:



This is the Star system expanded to triple hits instead of double hits.

Pre-bets:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
------
5
10
15
20
25
30

The pre-bets are parlay bets which must be won 3 times.  They're also called "let-it-ride" bets.  You bet 1 unit.  If you win, you let both units ride and bet 2 units.  If you win again, you let the 4 units ride.  Another win and you'll have 8 units on the table.  That's 7 units net not counting your initial bet.

Once you get to the 5 unit bet, they're repeat bets.  You still have to win 3 times in a row, eventually, but a loss after a win on the 1st bet doesn't end the attack.  If you lose the 1st attempt, that ends the attack you go to the next level.  If you win the first attempt and lose the second, you break even and can start the 5 unit level again.  If you win the 5 units bet twice in a row and lose on the 3rd attempt, you must win twice again to be ahead three 5 unit bets or 15 units.

This is clear because any three wins in a row brings us to a new high profit.  So three 5 unit wins nets us 15 units and we've lost 14 units on the pre-bets.  That's 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 = 14 units.

Sometimes we find ourselves ahead before we have won 3 times in which case we can reset.  Also, if we find that we can be ahead with a next win without betting the full amount, we can reduce the size of our bet to just make +1.  This is a lifesaver a times.

If you want to use recovery sessions, you just multiply the base progression by 2 times for the 1st recovery progression and multiply the base progression by 5 times, or 6 if you want, for the 2nd recovery progression.

If you lose the base progression, that's 119 units max.  If you play the recovery progressions, that's a total of 1,071 units.  Pretty steep buy-in, but you'll never lose all 1,071 units because units won along the way offset it anywhere from a little to a whole lot.

Remember, all roulette strategies are risky business, so go in with your eyes wide open.

GLC



 
   

[HunchBacShrimp]

GLC just posted this one elsewhere , a three hit star:



This is the Star system expanded to triple hits instead of double hits.

Pre-bets:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
------
5
10
15
20
25
30

The pre-bets are parlay bets which must be won 3 times.  They're also called "let-it-ride" bets.  You bet 1 unit.  If you win, you let both units ride and bet 2 units.  If you win again, you let the 4 units ride.  Another win and you'll have 8 units on the table.  That's 7 units net not counting your initial bet.

Once you get to the 5 unit bet, they're repeat bets.  You still have to win 3 times in a row, eventually, but a loss after a win on the 1st bet doesn't end the attack.  If you lose the 1st attempt, that ends the attack you go to the next level.  If you win the first attempt and lose the second, you break even and can start the 5 unit level again.  If you win the 5 units bet twice in a row and lose on the 3rd attempt, you must win twice again to be ahead three 5 unit bets or 15 units.

This is clear because any three wins in a row brings us to a new high profit.  So three 5 unit wins nets us 15 units and we've lost 14 units on the pre-bets.  That's 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 = 14 units.

Sometimes we find ourselves ahead before we have won 3 times in which case we can reset.  Also, if we find that we can be ahead with a next win without betting the full amount, we can reduce the size of our bet to just make +1.  This is a lifesaver a times.

If you want to use recovery sessions, you just multiply the base progression by 2 times for the 1st recovery progression and multiply the base progression by 5 times, or 6 if you want, for the 2nd recovery progression.

If you lose the base progression, that's 119 units max.  If you play the recovery progressions, that's a total of 1,071 units.  Pretty steep buy-in, but you'll never lose all 1,071 units because units won along the way offset it anywhere from a little to a whole lot.

Remember, all roulette strategies are risky business, so go in with your eyes wide open.

GLC



 
   

I'm just gonna quote that so I don't lose it. I swear someone had responded with an excellent comprehensive E Star explanation earlier.

HBS

PS   Thanks Tomla

[soxfan]

I'm just gonna quote that so I don't lose it. I swear someone had responded with an excellent comprehensive E Star explanation earlier.

HBS

PS   Thanks Tomla

The cat what called his self the john-O came up with the e-star, and you should easily find the thread in the gamblingglen baccarats archive, hey hey.

[Rolex-Watch]

Why are these progressions being labelled STAR, when they have nothing to do with the STAR bet approach?

Some funky Martingale, or weird D'Alembert has nothing to do with STAR or a Fibonacci progression.

Get a grip, otherwise some might assume you don't know your a$s from your elbow.

[Tomla]

well here is a version.

[james]

This is the original version.

[soxfan]

About Star, I wanted to add that the pure double win style in the progression stage is much more robust than the pure dried and cut parlay in pre-progression. That's cuz those long wlwlwl sequence pop up fairly often, hey hey.

[soxfan]

One last thing, in addition to needing the balls and bankroll you need access to a joint that offers a fat spread between min/max bets as you will from times to times have to make that 240 units bet to back up yer play. Before my local joint got stingy with the spread I played a modified Star, using the first stage extended to 11 steps, no recovery, played over, hey hey.

1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 65 105

[HunchBacShrimp]

Why are these progressions being labelled STAR, when they have nothing to do with the STAR bet approach?

Some funky Martingale, or weird D'Alembert has nothing to do with STAR or a Fibonacci progression.

Get a grip, otherwise some might assume you don't know your a$s from your elbow.

There are only two progression illustrated above. One is Star from the exact same link provided by Tomla. The other is indeed a  "Star bet approach". Approached from the angle of winning three in a row as opposed to two in a row. Is it an exact replica of Star? No. If it was it would be Star itself. However, it shares many of the same characteristics of Star. So it is closely related to Star and can be considered a 'variant'.

I see no evidence of a "funky Martingale or a weird D'Alembert" You will have to be more specific.

Star itself does not use a Fibonacci Progression, though you could consider it some kind of flat bet variant no different than the 3 in a row is a variant of Star.
A proper Fibonacci regresses two steps with a win, it does not same bet the value looking for two wins in a row. The 'progression' portion of Star resembles a Fibonacci by little more than coincidence.  I suspect the author was familiar with the Fibonacci Progression, and used its numerical values as a means of presenting a cleaner, easier to explain and simpler to use progression. As opposed to something like....

1112 | 3 5 7 11 16
Pre-stage being a net loss of -5
3x2=6u (+1u profit) if lost the net loss is -8
5x2=10u (+2u profit) if lost the net loss is -13
7x2=14u (+1u profit) if lost the net loss is -20
11x2=22u (+2u profit) if lost the net loss is -31
16x2=32u (+1u profit) etc etc

It's pretty ugly, and I doubt the author was truly interested in providing increasing profits for coups deeper in the progression. The author even states "....An easy way to remember the next bet is that (except for the first two), each succeeding bet is the sum of the two previous bets." on page 22. No mention of Fibonacci. Even though that is a clear description in how part of the Fibonacci works. 


I did read back through the Star System to double check if I had made a mistake. I did overlook one item. And that is the construction of recovery progressions based on net loss of the busted progression. My illustration of the second and third progressions would be, by the book, based on complete failures of the first and second progressions, where there was not a single successful coup.

I suspect you know of and have a great deal of experience with both Star and its variants. A contribution to this thread would be much appreciated.

HBS

edited some unnecessary information

[HunchBacShrimp]

About Star, I wanted to add that the pure double win style in the progression stage is much more robust than the pure dried and cut parlay in pre-progression. That's cuz those long wlwlwl sequence pop up fairly often, hey hey.

I agree. A pure parlay approach is a win or progress situation. There is no stopping it.

The progression stage of Star is a bit more durable as it treads water with a WLWLWL pattern. And after composing my last post I sit here and wonder why the Fibonacci look alike progression isn't actually executed just like it is supposed to be. It would be equally durable in a double loss pattern of WLLWLLWLL which would proceed to bust Star the way it is written. And a WLWLWL pattern long enough would reset the whole progression.
I imagine it is the way it is because it is designed to be profitable in any WW situation. *shrug*

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

One last thing, in addition to needing the balls and bankroll you need access to a joint that offers a fat spread between min/max bets as you will from times to times have to make that 240 units bet to back up yer play. Before my local joint got stingy with the spread I played a modified Star, using the first stage extended to 11 steps, no recovery, played over, hey hey.

1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 65 105

Hah! 

I knew you wouldn't stop at the 40 bet. The way you talk about balls and bankroll. 

I've never had to utilize it but I like how the spread on a craps table is 1-1000. I'm not understanding why the Bac tables are only 1-200, 1-200 and 1-120 spreads for $5, $10, and $25 respectfully. I can understand tighter restraints on Blackjack but why Baccarat?

HBS

[Rolex-Watch]

There are only two progression illustrated above. One is Star from the exact same link provided by Tomla.

In another thread some kind of double step marty 1-1-2-2-4-4-8-8-16-16 was referred to as STAR.

Above

This is the Star system expanded to triple hits instead of double hits.

Pre-bets:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
------
5   =1u
10 = 2u
15 =3u
20 =4u
25 =5u
30 =6u

More like a D'Alembert to me, nothing to do with STAR.  All the STAR system is, is a delayed Fibonacci, nice to see the same old same old waffle being resurrected at least once per decade.