Quote from: alrelax on May 20, 2020, 08:55:13 PM
Here is a quote that someone on BetSelection has said to me and about me. "@Alrelax, Idiotic hyper progressions look rewarding but are fatal. Actually, progressions work in direct proportion to chance of losing all. You win pretty fast with it until you lose back all. Take classic martingale for that manner, it wins one unit easily till it gives back all in just one bad stretch. Casino would love to see a player using marty. He ensures the slowest win and the fastest loss." My response. Well, if the gambler wagers it with common sense, use an advantage Money Management Method for himself, etc., he will be able to put those wins away and use a certain portion of those progressive wins to maintain his win status and keep profiting. When his win status falls off, if that gambler continues to follow his Money Management Method, he will cash out and take a nice profit.
Two short examples of what I have read on the internet. One author claims to risk 60 units with his wagering plan to make a few units. Well, 60 units at an extremely low bet mount of $25.00 is $1,500.00. Risking $1,500.00 (Plus) to maybe profit $75.00 or $100.00? Another author boast on 300 units is his (almost max) drawdown, whatever almost means, and say it was at $25.00, that would total to be $7,500.00 and if it was at $50.00, the total at risk would have to be $15,000.00.
With no guarantee, no written assurance, and the possibility that the entire bankroll can disappear, to me that only complicates the matter of frustration, aggravation and generally adds to----just getting sucked in.
The sentences in red are mine. All classic progressions are meant to plunder players only and they can handle only a particular style and limit of variance. If you cross that limit ever, you will lose so much that is irrecoverable.
Regarding my MM, it doesn't lose when you get 30 successive losses nor does it lose huge when we get unseen 60/200 in an EC bet. In an average session of 100 bets, it is expected to win 20 units averagely. The loss of -300(my ultimate surrender point) is something that even 5 SD below the mean sessions could not fetch for me so far and as rare as once in 100k trials. I m not boasting anything. It is result of my decade long research that too with help of esteemed programmers.
Randomness is the only trouble with any sort of gambling. I have tried to bypass the worst probabilities and by and large been successful too. I still can not cover 100% of losses but can surely win more and lose less, in the long run despite the house edge and randomness. I can prove this, if required. Still working to find if I can better my approach.