BetSelection.cc

Forums => Baccarat Forum => Topic started by: HunchBacShrimp on July 24, 2015, 07:14:36 PM

Title: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 24, 2015, 07:14:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 24, 2015, 11:50:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 01:44:30 AM
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
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Tomla on July 26, 2015, 02:50:00 AM
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



 
   
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 02:55:46 AM
Quote from: Tomla on July 26, 2015, 02:50:00 AM
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
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 26, 2015, 03:15:13 AM
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 02:55:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 26, 2015, 08:29:04 AM
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.

Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Tomla on July 26, 2015, 06:31:10 PM
well here is a version.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: james on July 26, 2015, 06:51:00 PM
This is the original version.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 26, 2015, 08:35:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 26, 2015, 09:03:14 PM
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
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 26, 2015, 08:29:04 AM
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

Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 09:56:21 PM
Quote from: soxfan on July 26, 2015, 08:35:52 PM
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
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 10:13:51 PM
Quote from: soxfan on July 26, 2015, 09:03:14 PM
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!  :nod:

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
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 01:16:58 AM
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on July 26, 2015, 09:46:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
rolex watch---is this star? 1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 = 100u
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
Quote from: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
rolex watch---is this star? 1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 = 100u
Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: alrelax on July 27, 2015, 10:05:17 AM
I occasionally visit the casinos in the Midwest without high-limit rooms.  One I do has a midi table with a $25 to $2000 or a $50 to $3000 or a $100 to $5000 limits.  The other table there is a mini with a $10 to 1000 limit usually.  The masses of players generally are buying in for $300 to $500 and playing $25 or $50 a hand unless they are up.  Yes, some players do go there with a few thousand to buy in with as back up money.  Seen many players continually do the marty/progressions until they get wiped.  Unfortunately it seems, and no I am not there every day, that they usually do get wiped as soon as the 5 to 7 hole repeaters come out.  It just seems as though (in the Midwest anyways) the players generally believe in the cut.

The point many fail to understand is the progressions can only achieve money management if (and only, IF) you can quickly get back to the right/winning side.  As Rolex said, what happens to the bulk mass of the players that have the $500 or so dollars wagering $10 or $25, 10/20/40/80/160/320/640.  Or, $25/50/10/200/400 which the latter comes only on the 5th attempt to recover. 
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 03:01:26 PM
I really don't know what your point is?

Are you lambasting those that "bet the cut", progression players or maybe both?  Because your points clearly show poor judgement on both aspects.

Firstly I need to state, MM, i.e the progression is paramount and more important than any bet selection.

You seem to have a beef with those players "Betting the cut", there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'betting the cut', certainly considering we can not predict any streak.  Statistically it makes perfect sense to "bet the cut", all tests, computer sims prove conclusively that streak length distribution (FOO) adhere to mathematically expectation.  The tales which you post frequently are rather poor examples of how to "bet the cut", and it is no surprise that you witness an abundance of failures, which further re-enforces your mistaken belief it is a bad tactic, I assure you it isn't and makes statistical sense once you know what you are doing!

Secondly the progressions you post when you lambaste these OLD and AS players that you observe are using a Martingale!!  Deary deary me, it doesn't matter what bet selection you use, the Martingale is an absolute no-no and is doomed no matter what the bet selection.

So let's set you right, before you continue spreading misinformation regarding "betting the cut".  When using OLD expect to see lots of action regarding your BR, huge swings, plenty stress.  Playing AS on the other hand, not so much action, more controlled swings.  What about those unforeseen steaks of 10, 12, 16 hands etc, that send the "bet the cut" players to the wall that you enjoy telling us about.   

Well any experienced Baccarat player who is disciplined will naturally STOP after X amount of losing bets, only the unintelligent keeps betting after losing many bets.  You never reference anybody stopping, only those playing until the monster 12 hand streak appears then they give it all back and go broke, therefore the conclusion must be, you continually witnessing rank amateurs at the tables who know no better. Discipline / control has a significant role at the tables, but that is another topic.   

Any decent player will apply the brakes, they would already be armed with knowledge, that while anything is possible, streaks ending between 4 ~ 7 or 8 will be more frequent than the sum of streaks greater than 7 or 8. Take any sample of shoes and you will this rings true every time.

Of course there are those moments (shoe) that rain streaks, possibly few streaks greater than 8 or whatever you determined your nemesis streak length is going to be, with a minority of winning bets in-between.  So quite obviously using a Martingale puts too much strain on both the player and their BR. Again all your reasoning why "betting the cut" is a bad strategy all appear to Marty bettors, are all the players you witness cousins I'm wondering? 

They need to find a progression that can withstand "losses in a row" without needing a second mortgage, until the norm "expectation" kicks in, therefore needs to be highly manipulative and as Victor once posted, one progression stand head and shoulders above all else, that is the Labby.  However you should never, ever play the Labby as it is written, you need to experiment with it.  Find the flaws then invent fix options. 

Finally, yes it is much better to ride the streaks and make a load of cash, via possible part and full parlays, only problem with that concept is, we can't predict jacksh1t and some shoes it simply just doesn't happen and one can go broke trying, which is usually determined by players resorting to betting on fantasy wishful thinking based on prior hands.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 03:46:15 PM
Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: WorldBaccaratKing on July 27, 2015, 05:17:18 PM
Quote from: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 03:46:15 PM
Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!

Thought that was the norm around here!
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 03:46:15 PM
Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!
Hasn't STAR been discussed 'ad nauseam' on gambling forums over the years, the same comments, the same cats, is  the cupboard really so bare?

alrelax has been knocking AS for some time now, without knowing what he is talking about, sounds like the same could be applied to many around here.

Let's discuss the "ladder and mongoose" progression systems once again aye  :zzz:
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Tomla on July 27, 2015, 06:58:57 PM
point well taken... there arent many new approaches to gambling or bacc
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 27, 2015, 10:20:46 PM
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

Again, just because you lost yer balls and bottle long ago, don't assume that to be true for others. Now, tell us all how many times yer supposedly safe and superior labby style has clipped you for 200+ units, hey hey?
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 11:34:57 PM
Quote from: soxfan on July 27, 2015, 10:20:46 PM
Again, just because you lost yer balls and bottle long ago,
Prefer to think of it as wise'ing up, rather that than losing sense of intelligence, quite obvious you ain't the brightest "hey hey" bulb in the "hey hey" box, and don't actually play "hey hey hey".   
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 28, 2015, 12:30:52 AM
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 11:34:57 PM
Prefer to think of it as wise'ing up, rather that than losing sense of intelligence, quite obvious you ain't the brightest "hey hey" bulb in the "hey hey" box, and don't actually play "hey hey hey".   

I don't think anyone should take advice from a cat who can't even control his own emotions at the tables, hey hey.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: ezmark on July 28, 2015, 02:16:12 AM
If something  is new and actually worked to beat the house edge,

I'd most surely say that it wouldn't be available on an open forum or for sell.

Mostly because of the time and effort to create such a method,  and because If there were such a method

the game would change accordingly,  as history is our witness .

So hashing through old forum notes of failed methods is half the fun ,

much like a road trip, where the journey is the adventure.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 28, 2015, 03:18:48 AM
Quote from: ezmark on July 28, 2015, 02:16:12 AM
and actually worked to beat the house edge,
This will never happen, for the simple fact it is not mathematically possible.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 28, 2015, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

Yes, considering 5 = 1u then ...|5 10 15 25 40 MAY resemble a Fibo, I say MAY because its only the last two bets of 25 and 40 that really define the similarity. It stops there though. Something you can make fun of is "..... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.." This 'would be' Fibo neither walks nor quacks like a duck, therefore it is no Fibo at all. Same thing goes for Tomla's posted progression. If 5=1u then 5 10 15 20 25 30 etc only displays the superficial appearance of a D'Alembert. It's execution further defines it as not a D'Alembert. It is no different than a short neg prog of 1-2-3 looking like both the beginning of a Fibo and a D'Alembert when in fact it is neither.

I appreciate you taking the time to point out your perspective. My view of it may be slightly skewed because Star is written out poorly. In the absence of $1 tables 1112|5 10 15 25 40 can only be interpreted as 1u 1u 1u 2u | 5u 10u 15u 25u 40u. Which from this more realistic and accurate view mutes the Fibo resemblance in the back end. The authors presentation of this system as something for a low roller, and his illustration of $1 bets with the "$" missing could be considered an intentional deception. And that is in part the point I was trying to make with this thread.

We are in agreement about the size of bets this system calls for and I find it frustrating that you are on the offensive against the thread, as I am on the offensive against the somewhat harmless position the author presents this system from. Another point of contention is where and how to define your betting unit. I covered this more clearly in my first post. It sure as Hades isn't the first value after the "|" in the first progression as the unit size in the final progression could easily be 4-5 times the original unit.

Now I know you know what Star is so I have no clue why you said "it is not necessary to snare back to back wins when any WLW would suffice" . The back end of Star is not a Fibo. There is no regression. The whole system is designed to reap a profit from any back to back win. A WW pattern. If you want to discuss or introduce a variant with an actual Fibo in it, by all means let's discuss it. But if it's going too be much of a bore for you to handle then don't.

Not everyone, myself included, has had your experience with successes and failures at the tables. Few people have done the research on gambling you must have done over the last 20yrs. Few people have been actively involved in online gambling forums for the last 10yrs like you have. I'm sure somebody, even if just a 'lurker' is getting some value from this tired old rehashed thread. I even bet someone has read your mention of "mongoose" and thought to themselves "..Mongoose?".

You're a man who despises casinos and system sellers equally. There are plain stupid people out there. Many of which do indeed have thousands of dollars at their disposal. I don't consider it my duty to actively protect the witless but there is nothing wrong with posting a warning sign every now and then, even if it is the same ol' sign. This thread is hardly a peddling of snake oil, your antagonistic exasperation is unwarranted.

HBS
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: HunchBacShrimp on July 28, 2015, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 27, 2015, 05:39:39 PM
....is  the cupboard really so bare?

No. It is not. But, it hasn't had anything new put in it in a while. There are only three things you can do with your money. Flat bet it, increase it, and decrease it. There are only just so many ways you can combine them before you exhaust all possible combinations.

The mathletes say they are all losers, and the majority of them are pretty straight forward. Only a few are interesting to those of us who don't see everything as an instant failure like mathletes do.

The Labouchere is one of them, but still condemned by mathletes. I find it very interesting you have had consistent success with its deployment for years. I am familiar with it, and familiar with several ways to protect yourself from it. It can indeed be a ticking time bomb. I'm sure my method of keeping it from getting out of hand is different from yours. But for right now, I'm interested in Star.

I have read in other threads from different forums in the past of how some have had success with it. By looking at it, from my perspective, it looks like a nightmare of a progression. And I open with a warning of sorts that it isn't nearly as harmless as the author suggests. But having no experience with its use, I'm interested in any feedback from those with experience or knowledge of its performance as I experiment with it on simulators.

HBS
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: gr8player on July 28, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on July 28, 2015, 09:17:32 PM
There are only three things you can do with your money. Flat bet it, increase it, and decrease it. There are only just so many ways you can combine them before you exhaust all possible combinations.

HBS

Correct.

And same can be said of bet selection; all boils down to only B or P, no?  Again, how long before we "exhaust all possible combinations"?

So we separate our play....we separate OURSELVES....how?  What makes us different?  Bank or Player, Increase or Decrease, Bet or No-bet....all options, all the time, and all similar.  I face these questions just as much as the next guy.

What makes you, or I, or anyone any better than the guy sitting right next to you at the table?  Probably, in the end, not much at all.

So the difference is, after all is said and done, probably rather minute.  But, my friends, it is in that minutia.....
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: Rolex-Watch on July 29, 2015, 05:43:34 AM
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on July 28, 2015, 08:35:18 PMI find it frustrating that you are on the offensive against the thread
I'm not offensive against the thread, more so regarding "throw up any old progression" and call it Star. There were a few recent examples from those that you would expect to have known better.

QuoteThe back end of Star is not a Fibo.
It is a Fibo progression were the next bet equals the sum of the prior two lost bets, the fact the author does not suggest regressing is a mute point. 

QuoteIf you want to discuss or introduce a variant with an actual Fibo in it, by all means let's discuss it. But if it's going too be much of a bore for you to handle then don't.
It's a bore, because most experienced veterans of the game don't use or  would promote deep progressions, I would include the likes of; Jimski, GR8, ADulay & myself in that group, can't comment on anybody else, but confident there would be many others, so
[smiley]toto/d200712191759552802.gif[/smiley]
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: soxfan on July 29, 2015, 08:22:18 PM
The progression stage of STAR is NOT the Fibonacci, it is pure double win with no regression, hey hey.
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: digitalwaala on December 15, 2020, 11:40:21 AM

Impression of Planet Proxima Centauri (https://blogmedia.tech/proximacentauri.html) with New the stars, Centauri a and Centauri B - Information about  Proxima Centauri .
Title: Re: The Star System
Post by: 8OR9 on December 15, 2020, 03:50:09 PM
Since we are talking about stars and astronomy, you might enjoy this:

https://www.gaia.com/article/did-this-african-tribe-originate-in-another-star-system