Progression after deviation:

I've used this combined progression on EC's after seeing a strong imbalance.
You would have to decide which correction triggers you are going to look for before using it.


The progression:
Try to get the 3 unit win-goal through mainly flatbetting first -
1-1-1-2, a win on any of these & re-start the progression.

If lose 4 in a row, ie. 1L-1L-1L-2L, I'll bet 2 again, if it wins, bet for another win at 2, then re-start (you'll be -1unit).

If it loses, this is what you will have: 1L-1L-1L-2L-2L [-7units]


At this point, I consider that I've just witnessed a strong imbalance, on top of which there is another losing sequence, so now I'm prepared to risk a limited positive progression to try & get back to zero or close.
I play a kind of Oscar's Grind, but with a regression built in.

Like Oscar's Grind I'll move up on a win, but after 2 losses in a row, I'll move down 2 units.
Max bet should be 5 or 6 units.


Once I hit those first 4 losses in a row, I'm only looking to get back close to zero.



There are 2 things that I've found useful - 

20 unit Stoploss. A lot of progressions, including Oscars Grind, will eventually pass the point of no return. The increase in stakes is not going to be big enough to allow you to recoup, or the wins will not come in big enough clusters. You can vary the % increase, but anything can happen, you can hit another deviation against you & you're done for.
Take the loss & move on.

The other thing - 
I'll begin to look for an exit point after about 20 placed bets if I still haven't reached 3 units profit. There may be no major correction, it may turn out to be a slow correction over many many spins, with further ups & downs. You might get the correction you're looking for too late.


Using imbalances is a risky, imprecise method of play – you can't just pile-on the other side. Plus, a lack of opportunities plays its part in unit levels, overall play.

Wouldn't you have to sit playing the game for a long time to work out imbalances? In my experience the longer you sit at a table the more chance of random biting your behind with a triple spin or something.

Interesting concept though and worth a read further if you put up more info

You don't have to wait that long usually Subby - bear in mind if I play this in baccarat, I'll get 2 shoes an hour, each with about 60 hands, so 120 decisions an hour. In roulette of course, you've got three clear EC's, not to mention others you can create (any 3 doublestreets for example).


Even with just 1 EC like Player/Banker, you've got singles v series, series v singles etc., I also will try Decision Before Last v ODBL, Opposite Last Decision v Follow The Last, add to that you can do it for each side independently as well as together, there's more than enough opportunities if you can bear the odd wait here and there.


It also depends on when you're prepared to pull the trigger. Common rule is wait for a standard deviation of 3, but I'll go if I see 12 singles & 2 series for example, or something like that approaching the 3. Maybe adjust the win-goal.




You have to see where it fits in your overall game as well - whether you're only going to play this way, or is it just an option you use when the opportunity presents itself... you could track it along with what you're doing on Pattern Breaker for example, & if it happens to present itself, play it.

I don't understand baccarat so I don't know about that. Is it a good game?