+ Register

[Azim]

No offence meant but I never saw Gizmo writing anything that can ever be put to real play in any defined manner. Can you point to the topic where Gizmo mentioned this?

I could do it any other way. Sorry if i have broken any rules. LET me know.

Why does there have to be a mathematical edge for there to exist an advantage? If there are fluctuation waves that exist in early play, where the waves cycles above and below the base line value of the expected long term distribution of outcomes, commonly known as the house's edge, then for a while, the player has a mathematical short termed possibility of choosing to exit the game while in a positive position, especially if that position is just 1 unit up.

I find it disconcerting, that at a discussion forum about gambling, that my point is anything that excludes unclear. So don't act like I don't make sense. My point is simple. Why do I have to end my sessions on the base line value of the houses advantage or worse? You can't negate the existence of being ahead early on in a session. You can't deny the existence of fluctuating results from a session of betting. You are also clearly oblivious to the knowledge of coincidental circumstances. It is clearly possible to exit a steep downturn whenever you feel like it.

It takes all the spins to create a house's advantage. The casino doesn't make you bet the same amount and every spin too though. You have the control on when to quit, when to increase a bet, and when to pull back your bet amounts.

I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins. I don't ignore them, you do. You use arithmetic as an excuse not to discover what I'm trying to show you. I'm glad you do that stubborn thing though. It makes discussions here kind of my advantage. And what's funny about that is you have no idea what you are missing, and that comes through with that stone wall of probability is king thingy you do.

He is right.

[Azim]

I thought it was pretty obvious the way it works.

I don't share something like this if I don't have something better...

So this betting plan begins by defining the minimum expectation for any given bet selection within a specific amount of results.

If we  know the minimum possible expectation then we use it in combination with the respective payout of our selection.

The payout and the minimum expectation are creating the progression, the progression I've used in the above examples.

The second example was smoother, milder than the first because the minimum expectation moved towards the probability, in other words its deviation declined as the total of spins increased.
This is what we call regression towards the mean and both of the above examples are VERY extreme occasions!

Let's say that 66 wins out of 200 results is the minimum possible for any EC, 66/200 is roughly 1/3, BUT it's different to use the one third of 30 results and different of 300 or even 3000.

As the total of outcomes increases events tend to average out as their probability indicates, in small samples such as 30 or 50 results we could experience huge deviations from probability.
This is what we call law of large numbers.

Back to my mathematical progression, I prefer to use a minimum expectation of a relatively large total of results because I know that sooner or later I'm going to achieve my minimum expectation.
To be more specific, I believe that this total should be between 222 to 333 outcomes if we are talking about EC on roulette.
222 spins are 6 x 37 and 333 are 9 x 37, anywhere within those spins even the most extreme deviation can be tamed as the time passes by.
So we have to be careful and conservative in the beginning and act more drastically as time is on our side.

If I establish my minimum expectation on 100 wins out of 300 results most likely I'm going to get these 100 wins before I bet 300 times, by the time I achieve my 100th win I must be in positive balance.
Every time I win my bet I deduct from the minimum expectation the same amount I just won from my bet, if I raise my bet to 2 units I'm multiplying the remaining wins by 2, if I raise my bet to 3 units I multiply the remaining wins by 3 and so on...

However there is an "Achilles heel" in my progression, if I'm in negative balance and the remaining wins are too few, like 1 or 2, at that time the bets would increase rapidly like Martingale.
If the last expected win is far from the before last win and on the same time I'm in negative balance my bets would increase like Martingale.
If this happens during I'm in positive balance, it's not problem because I can stop right there and restart from scratch.

Of course I've found a solution for the other case but I'm not going to share it with you, I've already told you enough.

You are right with your explanation.
However, let me ask you this:
I create a set of 300 spins, I will give you the source after i have had you play 30 sessions of 10 spins, will you tell me what your next bet will be after each session?

[Albalaha]

Blue Angel's Delayed martingale was foolish and it has been proved. Why are you quoting from him still? His method expects "corrective and successive wins" after initial bad stretches and he pushes with a martingale that can easily lead to loss of millions too at the worst moments.

[Azim]

Ignore his. Look at the explanation by Gizmo.

[Albalaha]

Ignore his. Look at the explanation by Gizmo.

You can't extract anything practically usable from this. If you can, please show us.

[BetJack]

Hello
From reading through the pages I conclude that ...
Albalaha dislikes Negative progression ....
and all of them are wrong....
so if you change direction....
We will get...
a Long Run Positive Progression ...
Maybe if someone can make ...
this kind of animal....

[Albalaha]

Hello
From reading through the pages I conclude that ...
Albalaha dislikes Negative progression ....
and all of them are wrong....
so if you change direction....
We will get...
a Long Run Positive Progression ...
Maybe if someone can make ...
this kind of animal....

It is not like that. Negative progressions can help but not in the way they have been used considering only short run. If one can prepare a negative progression considering odds of the long run, he is more likely to succeed as long run results are more likely to be closer to the mean. For example, due to the house edge, in 1000 spins, Red or black are likely to hit approx 486 times but due to the extreme run of variance against it may lead it to hit 10% lesser, i.e. (486-48)=438 times, one should still be able to win. That is the core idea.

[soxfan]

It is not like that. Negative progressions can help but not in the way they have been used considering only short run. If one can prepare a negative progression considering odds of the long run, he is more likely to succeed as long run results are more likely to be closer to the mean. For example, due to the house edge, in 1000 spins, Red or black are likely to hit approx 486 times but due to the extreme run of variance against it may lead it to hit 10% lesser, i.e. (486-48)=438 times, one should still be able to win. That is the core idea.

Exactly, the deep negative progression allow you to withstand the extreme deviation from the close to 50-50 outcome. And my style allow me to win well, and regular even if I only win 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bets, hey hey.

[Albalaha]

Exactly, the deep negative progression allow you to withstand the extreme deviation from the close to 50-50 outcome. And my style allow me to win well, and regular even if I only win 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bets, hey hey.

           It is not even possible with martingale, in long term. Can your progression withstand any of the horror sessions?

[greenguy]

My single dozens progression can go to 15 steps and will hardly ever bust.

The problem is that when it does bust the loss is very expensive, and a few busts in short succession can be devastating.

So what do I do? I never go past the first 9 steps. The bust out rate is higher, but the expense is more manageable.

The 9 steps I use are  1.1.2.3.4.7.10.15.28

But that's not good enough. If you look over the progression you will see 2 points at which the profit is only 1 unit. These are on step 2 and step 5. What I do is play for 3 rounds totalling about 300 spins where I do not wager on steps 2 and 5. If and when either of those bets win, I absorb the loss and start my next round of bets at step 1. If and when either or both of those bets lose, I continue along the progression adding in steps 2 and 5 as I go. This way I can play the whole 9 steps, but only ever risk wagers up to step 7, which is a bet of 10 units. The total loss for 9 steps is now only 28 units plus whatever I've absorbed along the way. It generally works out significantly cheaper than pushing through the whole 9 steps every time.

After playing like this for 300 spins or so, I will play 2 rounds over the next 150 spins or so by not wagering on step 2 only. Again absorbing any loss from a step 2 win, and adding in the step after any step 2 loss. This way I can play the whole 9 steps, but only ever risk wagers up to step 8, which is a bet of 15 units. The total loss for 9 steps is now only 43 units plus whatever I've absorbed along the way. Again, it generally works out cheaper than pushing through the whole 9 steps every time.

The final single round of play is about 50 spins at most. Here I push on through the whole 9 steps, risking the whole progression bust of 66 units. But I only play this round if I am in profit for the first 5 rounds. If I'm losing money at this stage I do not play the last round risking the whole progression bust of 66 units.

That is my long term progression winner in brief form. Obviously there are other components within the money management, such as using win goals and stop losses along the way to signal when to move on to next rounds and next spin sets.

Attuned to my fabulous single dozen bet selection, I can confidently beat just about any 10000 spin set you'd care to throw at it.


Anyway, I've shared it here so hopefully it will help people interested in finding ideas for progressions.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Increasing in this manner doesn't help. Did you see the fate of Blue Angel's system? It tanked even hundreds of thousands. Azim's tracker prove that as well. How do you come up with loser ideas again and again. Increasing in patches of 37 or 100 or 1000 won't help.

Since none of my ideas work,
and also,
since none of anyone ideas here worked,
and also none posted any workable progressions.. .
or any workable method,
or any workable system,
or any workable strategy, here..

Since no ideas or strategy works...

I think I might , as well , forget about
gambling...

[greenguy]

Since none of my ideas work,
and also,
since none of anyone ideas here worked,
and also none posted any workable progressions.. .
or any workable method,
or any workable system,
or any workable strategy, here..

Since no ideas or strategy works...

I think I might , as well , forget about
gambling...

What a good idea.

Bye bye to you then. 

[ozon]

If you know that negative progressions are not working, maybe we'll try positive on these bad sessions, we use safe breaks after 3 L in wait for a virtual W
Progression is positive, after Win +1, -1 after Lose
Always we reset the progressions when we are on plus
Still do not know what the highest level of progression define, maybe 10 or 12 prog progression as the tallest how we play.
Bankroll which we use, is 1,000 units
Maybe you need stoplose at some stage.

[Albalaha]

The 9 steps I use are  1.1.2.3.4.7.10.15.28

This is as much a failure as a 9 step martingale on an EC or rather even easier. A dozen can sleep even upto 45 spins and you can not create any push to win progression that can beat such spans. Even one such loss become irreparable and hence totally impractical.[/size]

[Albalaha]

If you know that negative progressions are not working, maybe we'll try positive on these bad sessions, we use safe breaks after 3 L in wait for a virtual W
Progression is positive, after Win +1, -1 after Lose
Always we reset the progressions when we are on plus

    This is another classic failure progression called D'alembert. Had winning be so easy with +1/-1 every body will do that without hesitation. This is not a positive progression either. A positive progression only increases at a win like Oscar's grind or Parlay.
        A positive progression believes in getting "corrective" streaks after a bad span which you may not get in real play. No positive progression is proved to work and even with a bet as large as a million, it may not win a net profit. Simulate that to understand it better.