+ Register

[Dutchie]

 For me ,money management is more important. it's a 50-50 game and the difference between a good bet and bad bet is very small. I like Stetson Baileys ideas betting more on a winner than a loser because generally more losers. 

[gr8player]

I like Stetson Baileys ideas betting more on a winner than a loser because generally more losers.

Good one, Dutchie.  I like that idea as well..."betting more on a winner than a loser".

BUUUTTT, here's the problem with that notion:

When we're raising our bet, how in the heck do we ever KNOW that it's going to be a winning bet?

Or, to put it another way:  What do we do if that raised bet loses?  Bet even more?  Does this "Stetson Bailey" play with an unlimited bankroll, and, even more important, have the faith in his selections to pony up big bucks on this next even chance decision after his losses mount.

I mean, think about it....that's what you're saying when you're attempting to "bet more on a winner than a loser".  If you're going to adopt that silliness, you'd darn better KNOW the difference between a losing decision and a winning one....oh, and here's the kicker....you've got to know it in advance.

Silly, isn't it, when you really think about it?  And that very notion gave birth to these long, suicidal negative progressions.

No, the real answer to the "bet selection v. money management" dilemma lies in the CORRECT USAGE of both.  And that means having a proven bet selection process (with a proven "tight variance") AND a proven money management plan BUILT AROUND the variance of that bet selection process.

One last thing:  In my original post in this thread I forgot to mention another VERY IMPORTANT piece of any serious player's money management arsenal:  the "No-Bet".  Very important to "back-off" those shoes (or portions thereof) where your preferred plays are simply not hitting.  See that....I said "back-off", as opposed to "loading up" on our bets, hoping that we're doing so on a winning decision.  The player that keeps "loading up" is the player that simply will not last at this game, especially over the long term.

You see, even when you win those larger-than-normal bets, it's sending you the wrong message.  A message like..."everything will be alright, no matter the losing jag, because you're only one (or a couple) of "big bets" away from bailing yourself out".  That, my friends, is NO WAY TO LIVE at this game.

Much better to keep your bets small.  Unit-wise, I'd say 3 (4 at absolute most) units for any bet.  And, even at that, I'd bet that amount only as a parlay, where, at least, I won the last bet and now my plays might (I say "might") be coming alive.

So I basically use a combination of both a conservative negative prog combined with a conservative positive prog.  And I utilize them as I see fit, based both upon certain stats that I keep and exactly how the current results are going for me.

I play a very subjective game.  A game based upon my vast experience.  For it is ONLY in that that I will trust putting my money onto the felt.  Nothing else.  No "magic" bet placements and no "magic" bet sizes.  Just me and what I think will happen next in this portion of the shoe.  When I'm right, I'll lock up some sort of profit.  When I'm wrong, I'll "back-off" and await my next betting opportunity.  But the absolute last thing I'd ever do is "load up" on my next bet, because I've no true idea if I'd be "betting more on a winner".  Patience....discipline....conservative mm combined with conservative goals....now THAT'S the true/real way to live at this game.

And, as always, I wish it for all of you.  Stay well.

[soxfan]

If the bets selections was the primary then I would bet flat with orange chip looking to capture just four of those pumpkin for my daily bread. But, it is my experience that different bs style produce different w/l cluster within the context of the 50-50 proposition. For example say two cats both gonna use the double ZZ but one cat starts with bbpp and the other cat start betting ppbb them two cats are gonna buck up against different w/l cluster. So, you need to match up the right progressions/mm scheme with the right bs style as it ain't a one size fit all proposition, hey hey.

[Dutchie]

 Hi gr8,thanks for the response,I respect your views.A few things I,'d like to clarify. One I do not continuously bet maybe15-20 bets per shoe. I increase like this 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4 etc so basically a half unit increase until i am  ahead,then I go back to 1 unit. Half unit is not overloading. I don't know when I will win just like you. I have a stop loss.God  Bless the Gr8.











bets per shoe.I increase like this 1-1-2-2-3-3 etc so its basically a half unit progression until I am ahead

[marinetech]

If the bets selections was the primary then I would bet flat with orange chip looking to capture just four of those pumpkin for my daily bread. But, it is my experience that different bs style produce different w/l cluster within the context of the 50-50 proposition. For example say two cats both gonna use the double ZZ but one cat starts with bbpp and the other cat start betting ppbb them two cats are gonna buck up against different w/l cluster. So, you need to match up the right progressions/mm scheme with the right bs style as it ain't a one size fit all proposition, hey hey.

your stating you win 4k a day? i would say impossible, no offense

[soxfan]

your stating you win 4k a day? i would say impossible, no offense

I never claimed to make 4 ks per day, hey hey!

[Jimske]

What do we do if that raised bet loses?  Bet even more?

Yup.  And that is exactly what you do.  Whether you are using your Gr8 progression 1111111222222333333, etc. or double your bet after a losing shoe as you mention.  Just because you happen to keep your increased bet low doesn't mean you are not a progressive bettor.

Silly, isn't it, when you really think about it?  And that very notion gave birth to these long, suicidal negative progressions.[

Long or short progressions it's all the same principle.  A short progression is not intrinsically more effective than a long progression.  Simply risk vs. reward and table limits.

I play a very subjective game.  A game based upon my vast experience.  For it is ONLY in that that I will trust putting my money onto the felt.  Nothing else.  No "magic" bet placements and no "magic" bet sizes.

Exactly, just a guess - an educated guess if you will.

If the bets selections was the primary then I would bet flat with orange chip looking to capture just four of those pumpkin for my daily bread.

Right.  And this is the whole point as to why MM is paramount.  Progressing ones bet is a necessity.  How one progresses is all about MM.

But, it is my experience that different bs style produce different w/l cluster within the context of the 50-50 proposition. For example say two cats both gonna use the double ZZ but one cat starts with bbpp and the other cat start betting ppbb them two cats are gonna buck up against different w/l cluster. So, you need to match up the right progressions/mm scheme with the right bs style as it ain't a one size fit all proposition, hey hey.

Yes, combining both is the most efficient but since it is a 50-50 proposition one could theoretically have a blind bet selection and just use a MM progression technique to simply bet the W/L results.  The idea of the BS is to break up or avoid the nemesis of that particular selection.

[Jimske]

Good one, Dutchie.  I like that idea as well..."betting more on a winner than a loser".

BUUUTTT, here's the problem with that notion:

When we're raising our bet, how in the heck do we ever KNOW that it's going to be a winning bet?

You parlay on occasion, correct?  That is betting more on a winner than a loser.

[Garfield]

Bet selection based on what had happened in the past. Some will said that it's misleading.

IMO MM also based on the same condition. And as the past is misleading to the future result in BS, so will it be in MM.

I should've put the 3rd option / factor which is timing. Jimske will state that this is also useless for it isn't going to change everything.

But IMO, the same BS or MM, applied in different time will bring different output. I meant the result if we played it on hand#xx, will be different with the result on hand#yy.

But the bottom line, everything is 50/50 actually. Our BS / MM might work in some time, migh not work in other time.

And all the bacc do is sitting there, just with one question to solve. Will the next be opposite, or repeat? 

[HunchBacShrimp]

Well, Jimske, I got to give it to you there. Those are some excellently constructed posts.


GR8, you surprise me with choosing BS. Until I have reason to believe otherwise I can only believe that you are mistaken here. Aside from benign repetition of the importance of composure, you also stress the importance of a strict MM inside ones own comfort zone, and knowing when to take a win, and/or walk a loser (before losing it all). You may have mentioned choosing a bet selection and sticking with it, avoiding the pitfalls of second guessing yourself, but you have never insisted one find a bet selection that wins more often than it loses.

How could you? It doesn't exist. Even with your 54% win rate, it still doesn't exist. In a complimentary tone, it is your trending of a small handful of bet selections that produces your above average win rate. Phenomenal to say the least, especially considering the amount of time you've been successful with it. You've been pressed before, to provide the mechanical method of your winning. Yes, yes even if you had one it would be absurd to publicize. But you don't have one, you never have, nobody does.

OTBL doesn't hold a positive expectation, neither does a sleeper, or a dominate side regardless of your win rate betting in these conditions. It's your successful trending, or more accurately 'guessing'. It's a guess like Jimske said, nobody knows with certainty. Tracking your variance is smart play, from it you have expectations in the long run, or should we say the medium run. And you still employ a MM scheme. A seven bet mini series.

If bet selection was so important, there would be no MM. We would all flat bet, or bet random amounts, it wouldn't matter, with a positive BS we would eventually win more of an equal distribution of our small, medium, and large bets given enough action. And no, that secret BS would never remain a secret.

Jimske, what you said about theoretically betting a blind BS working an MM off of a W/L registry is exactly correct. Barring Soxfan's input of recognizably different W/L configurations inside the confines of a 50/50 proposition for certain bet selections, it may not be theory at all. I've colored up the same time another punter has colored up with profit and we certainly did not bet the same. Every day people win money at the same game, they aren't all choosing the exact same selection. So it is certain they experienced different W/L string configurations, but were still able to wrest a profit from it. Only MM can be responsible for this.

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

This  whole argument depends on how effective you are at each.

The true magic of gambling is the force that prevents us from guessing more than 50% of our bets correctly. The "Yang" of this is the same force also prevents us from guessing more than 50% of our bets incorrectly. There is no argument about how 'effective' anyone is at making a bet selection. WE ARE ALL EQUALLY ADEPT AT IT. It is the one constant all bettors can be measured against for determining how effective you are at utilizing MONEY MANAGEMENT.

Someone that states money management isn't assuming they are to be a 1-3 on a scale of 1-10 in bet selection and vice versa.

We are ALL a FIVE (5) on a scale of 1-10 for bet selection.

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

Bet selection based on what had happened in the past. Some will said that it's misleading.

IMO MM also based on the same condition. And as the past is misleading to the future result in BS, so will it be in MM.

I should've put the 3rd option / factor which is timing. Jimske will state that this is also useless for it isn't going to change everything.

But IMO, the same BS or MM, applied in different time will bring different output. I meant the result if we played it on hand#xx, will be different with the result on hand#yy.

But the bottom line, everything is 50/50 actually. Our BS / MM might work in some time, migh not work in other time.

And all the bacc do is sitting there, just with one question to solve. Will the next be opposite, or repeat? 

One more thought of mine,

As many stated that any "mechanical" BS will eventually lost itlr, wouldn't be fair to say that any "mechanical" MM will suffer the same too?

The quest for the holy grail often reffered to BS method, could it be found in MM method? Is there a holy grail for MM?

IMO, I don't think so.

In BS,the factor that affect the most is to have a BS that win more than it lose. Maybe that how we could measure our BS performance in the particular shoe.

For MM, what is the factor to measure? Do we measure our MM by observe how many LIAR it could handle?

Some very interesting points you've brought up here. Some worth of their own threads. I've spent a little time dwelling on the difference or similarity between a mechanical BS and a mechanical MM. Also, many trenders are belittled for making gut decisions, but I can fathom no difference in making gut decisions with an MM. What prompts a non mechanical parlay recoup? What prompts a non mechanical 'stop bet'? What prompts a non mechanical defensive measure in a lab? It's either mechanical, and therefore programmable, or it's randomly based on instinct.

Now I don't know if you are laughing at me, or laughing at the simplicity of it all. But yeah, strip it all down and see it for what is is. It is either a single event, or a repeated event. KISS comes to mind. I just heard a quote " If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" (Einstein) That can be changed a bit to " if you can't see the simplicity of it, you cannot understand the whole of it". Trees and forests and whatnot. Fruitless to expend so much energy creating complicated ways to chose either B or P. You will eventually meet your nemesis, and he will have packed a nice lunch of three standard deviations for you to eat.

Measuring MM is also worth of its own thread. How many liar can it handle? Maybe. But I think how many surplus units will it produce before a failure is a better yard stick, irregardless of the number of liar overcome.

HBS

[Garfield]

Now I don't know if you are laughing at me, or laughing at the simplicity of it all.

HBS

No way man. I respect all the constructive reply. Should we start the thread you mentioned above?

[Lung Yeh]

I noticed that Rolex-Watch has not been posting for some time now. What happened?

[HunchBacShrimp]

No way man. I respect all the constructive reply. Should we start the thread you mentioned above?

Yeah, that'd be great. I'll be back on sometime tomorrow. It's late here now, I'm about to head to bed.

HBS