Hey everyone.

Being new here I thought I'd start a topic of my own to break the ice with the forum.

I find it very odd that most gamblers think they can overcome house odds by changing their betting amounts instead of

trying to pick the wining bet more often with a winning bet selection.

I guess one requires more time and effort than the other.

Your thoughts?

It's the "winning bet selection" that's so often the sticking point for many.

And that's probably why they join forums such as this!

[Hope you enjoy your stay here.]

One of my favourite gambling authors Stetson Bailey says you have to accept the fact that you are going to have more losing bets than winning bets. He then goes on to say that you will need to find a way to have more money on the winning bets to make up for the higher percentage of losing bets. So you would have to use some kind of progressive betting if old Stetson is correct.

One thing I have learned through experience is that there is never really a right or wrong way. (Or maybe a better way of putting that is that it does not pay to have too much of an extreme view one way or the other when it comes to gambling. ie.. bet selection vs progressions) The truth normally is somewhere in the middle. It would be beneficial to understand the benefits of both bet selection and good MM. They can both be used to good effect.

Welcome to the forum HoneyBooBoo. 

BET SELECTION.


With school maths (11 or 12 years), one would say that no bet selection is better than any other in the long run.
With more than that, .... i am still living to learn.
It is my belief that all bet selections should be tested flat betting. After that we can speculate knowing the "usual" fluctuation / variance of our bet.
After the above and taking into account expectation and probability, one can skip bets and try reduce negative expectation.


Cheers

In horse racing, the conventional wisdom is that if a method doesn't make a profit flat (level) betting then it's NOT going to work with progressive/loss recovery-type betting.

Nothing I've experienced so far has prompted me to disagree with that wisdom.

Welcome to the forum HBB,

I agree with Bally. The answer lies in pondering both sides of the spectrum.

If you get your hands on a winning selection, you're basically set for life, but one could say the same if you get a money management which can hold the dispersion of a "regular" selection within the confines of table limits and the personal bank.

Both ways are valid. if one helps the other then one might say the better. In the end it's winning more than losing what counts.

Enjoy your stay around.

Quote from: Bally6354 on December 19, 2012, 11:42:58 PM
One of my favourite gambling authors Stetson Bailey says you have to accept the fact that you are going to have more losing bets than winning bets. He then goes on to say that you will need to find a way to have more money on the winning bets to make up for the higher percentage of losing bets. So you would have to use some kind of progressive betting if old Stetson is correct.

I have a copy of his book "Win $1000/day playing Craps Guaranteed". I like his approach, but the "foolproof" method isn't quite foolproof although it can work very well MOST of the time.     He makes a good case for using negative progressions rather than positive ones, but in my experience you need a good bet selection to make them safe. IMO you can't just slap a progression on top of a bet selection, it needs to be carefully designed to complement the selection and to a certain extent make up for its deficiencies.

Quote from: Bayes on December 20, 2012, 09:55:31 AM
I have a copy of his book "Win $1000/day playing Craps Guaranteed". I like his approach, but the "foolproof" method isn't quite foolproof although it can work very well MOST of the time.     He makes a good case for using negative progressions rather than positive ones, but in my experience you need a good bet selection to make them safe. IMO you can't just slap a progression on top of a bet selection, it needs to be carefully designed to complement the selection and to a certain extent make up for its deficiencies.

I recon that foolproof is one of the best progressions i know off. It suits EC systems with low fluctuation and from my experience, it needs a coherent stop loss to be effective (survive inevitable huge drawdowns). I believe you introduced it to me ago.


We have similar views on roulette (me and Bayes) and that the stacking plan Must be designed for the bet selection is one of utmost importance. From all the advice members can get from this forum, this kind of subjects are not enough explored, and they are the gems of gambling.
Always nice to have objective contributions.


Cheers

Hello guys

I have added Stetson's book to my dropbox account just in case any of you are wondering what the fuss is about.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zmwixa1giyo9rsm/Stetson%20Bailey.pdf?m

Ignore the Craps title. This can be applied to most things! 

I think bet selection is the key...without it you are almost certain to fail.

That being said... progressions have their place.  If a method is normally profitable on a fairly consistent basis (all methods no matter how good have their failures too and most failures wipeout alot of profitable sessions in one big swipe) a small progression with a stop-loss can be pretty effective.

The next logical step would be if a method or combination of methods had a very high session win rate (something of the order that a second or third straight losing session is in the seemingly statistically insignificant classification)  You could flat bet or use the slight negative progression and if a loss (using a stop-loss so it doesn't dig to deep of a hole) then increase your base bet in the next session or two.  Maybe scale the betting to earn back the loss in two sessions in lieu of going big and possibly going home with a big bust.

It's all common sense stuff that's been discussed tons before.

Bet selection and money management...the heart of it all...consider everything and all potential outcomes...then you are almost prepared for the outcomes you failed to even fathom.  Surely if you dismiss any aspect of the entire betting process it will certainly raise it's ugly head to let you reassess your deficiencies in a quite unsettling and financially destructive manner.

Just my opinion

Playing without a method is like playing blindfolded.

The first step is to study the game. The second step is to see what happens together with how to identify them. The third step is to take advantage with good bankroll management with special attention to personal discipline.

If someone is going to play just for playing better stay at home. The player must use the game as a trading activity. Nobody makes trading blindly.

It is my belief that all bet selections should be tested flat betting.
After that we can speculate knowing the "usual" fluctuation / variance of our bet.
After the above and taking into account expectation and probability, one can skip bets and try reduce negative expectation.

There is no other way around.

Quote from: Bally6354 on December 20, 2012, 01:02:10 PM
Hello guys

I have added Stetson's book to my dropbox account just in case any of you are wondering what the fuss is about.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zmwixa1giyo9rsm/Stetson%20Bailey.pdf?m

Ignore the Craps title. This can be applied to most things! 

Thank you.

It was an interesting read once we got past all the "general gambling" stuff.

AD

Both well defined and well reasoned bet selection and money management required to keep winning more and losing less.

"foolproof" is a very stable bet if used judiciously