JL,
       What is smart MM, as per you?

Both negative and positive progression has their respective limitations and none can help you really, in all cases. In practical situations, if someone likes to gamble still, mild negative progression is the only way to go.

Do our mathematics & stats experts agree with this?

Why can't any of the money management strategies work?



It's because they do nothing to change the mathematical properties of the gambling proposition you've entered into. There's only one useful element to money management, and that's to have enough money in your pocket to play each situation correctly. If you've got that, you've optimized your money management. As for starting, stopping, pressing up and cutting back –- you're just jerking yourself around. Let's take the "quit while you're ahead" strategy as an example.

Suppose you were flipping a coin with your buddy every day for a dollar per flip. He'd play forever, but you could quit any time you wanted to. So you decide you'll play until you get just one dollar ahead, then quit for that day and come back tomorrow. Now, playing like that, what percentage of your days do you think would be winners? The answer is a little over 80%.

Well, 80% may sound like an impressive session win rate, but it's not good enough to make you an overall winner at the game if that's your sole strategy. Why not? Because you're still going to end up winning 50% of all your flips, and you can't get away from that. In a game with house edge, it is even worse.

The fact that you've hand-picked the points where you'll step back (quit) and admire your progress has done nothing to cause you to win more flips overall. All you're going to do is have a whole bunch of $1 winning days, and a few scattered days where you lose $3, or $5 or $10. Overall, though, the pluses and minuses will still add up to zero.

You see, gambling is a long run journey landscaped with many hills and valleys. When you quit simply because you're ahead, you're merely choosing to park on a hill rather than in a valley, but the road is still taking you to the same place. And that place is determined solely by the percentages of your gambling proposition.

The same would be true if you always quit for the day after losing, say, five flips in a row. All quitting here would do is put time in between your last flip and your next. You've got the same chance to win your first flip tomorrow as your next flip right now. So you might as well say, "I quit!", take out a notebook, log down your losing session, and immediately flip your next flip. Your coin flip odds remain 50-50, and 50-50 is still going to basically be your final result.

So then, what about applying a betting progression to your coin flip game? Say your buddy agreed to letting you "bump up" your bet after every winning flip with a $1-$3-$5 progression to take advantage of your streaks. But after each loss, you'll always bet just $1. Would you have the best of him then? The answer is, absolutely not and the reason can be confusing.

For any three coin flips, there are eight ways they can come out -– no more, no less. You can go:

W-W-W W-W-L W-L-W L-W-W W-L-L L-W-L L-L-W L-L-L

Furthermore, every sequence will eventually come up as often as any other. It's easy to see that going W-W-W with your progression wins $9. Yet, going L-L-L loses only $3. That may look enticing and I won't bore you with the rest of the math, but after you go through all the sequences, you'll have $12 won and $12 lost. See for yourself. This progression, and any other for that matter, will cancel itself out perfectly, whether it's over the course of three averaged bets or 3000. You can't get away from it.

Little more "realistic" people do not gamble at all.

MG,
       I couldn't get what u did and how. Can u please elaborate this?

Bayes,   
           Are you sure that bv can't manipulate with results? I trust your knowledge and wisdom can rely upon them blindly.

Thanks Kattilla for clarifying. No point in giving u another 10 k since you are admitting yourself that u had mixed results and you can't term it "consistent". MG has PMed me that he is preparing a tracker before showing results on this challenge.


        Ad,
                 I don't know whether you are doing good or bad for last 3 1/2 years in gambling. Challenges are meant for takers. If you do not have courage to take one, just watch it. Do not spoil any topic like this.

QuoteAs to your "challenge", there is no equivalent wagering problem than can be made in baccarat.   That "3 out of 300" or whatever it is, just does not exist so there's no reason to work on it!   AD

AD,
           With due respect, I ask you to stop speaking like this. What kind of challenge do you face and win? Ok do one thing, beat zumma 1600, in whatever manner you can and show all. Is it OK?

Katilla,
          Can you please explain which method led you with this result, flat bet? Should I give another session too?
MG. You can at least produce results of whatever you have tested and elaborate your method too.

I have not seen anyone with AP yet, in a real casino. I know many "potent" bet selections who has much higher expectancy than normal random picks but even they can't be used without any progression. I hope MG will come back soon.

Drazen,
    I am basically a well-equipped researcher and very well aware of all the permutations this game offers. You may win a session with anything and lose other. If you guys can consistently win flat bet, you are greatest in the world.

Ok. Here u go with attached file. Since you are not coming with an open system, u should pass one more test same way. OK with you?

How about doing a simple 10k real spins test? I will give 10k spins from a verifiable place.

Exactly,
           I agree with JL here. Flat bet can never win consistently. Those who say they are clever enough to do so need to come with proofs.