Plagiarised from eleswhere;

As a service to the forum, I am posting these test results. This may have been posted elsewhere, but it never hurts to repeat this important info.

I tested seven commonly used bet selection methods (and also one method which I modified slightly) against the Zumma 1600. I skipped the first few decisions in shoe one so that the bet selection method could be started. This is flat betting one unit with 5% banker commission deducted. I am listing the methods in order of Dollars won. I also show the winning percentage. Note that all of the bet selection methods lost money.

(1) M-STC $ -876 50.25%
(2) B $ -1074 50.80%
(3) TBL $ -1172 50.13%
(4) OLD $ -1272 50.07%
(5) STC $ -1448 50.01%
(6) FLD $ -1624 49.93%
(7) OTBL $ -1725 49.87%
(8 ) P $ -1823 49.20%

Explaining the bet selection methods a bit. First the most simple ones.

B = bet banker only
P = bet player only
FLD = bet last decision
OLD = bet opposite last decision
TBL = bet same as decision before last
OTBL = bet opposite to decision before last

The last two require more explanation.

STC - simple trend catcher

I got this off of a roulette forum a while back. This looks at the last 3 decisions and tries to catch streaks, chops, and twos. You bet like this...

XXX - X
XXZ - Z
XZZ - Z
XZX - Z

The strategy makes sense but does not test that well.

The next bet selection is a modified version of STC. I tweaked it a bit to improve results.

M-STC - modified simple trend catcher

XXX - Z
XXZ - X
XZZ - Z
XZX - Z

This bet selection method actually does the best of the 8 tested, in terms of money won. As you can see, you go against the 3 streak, bet against the twos, go with the 2 streak, and go with the chop. This would be scary if you get caught in a long banker or player streak, betting against all after 3. The numbers don't lie, however. It is the best of the 8 tested.

A few more notes. Betting Banker does best in winning percentage, but the 5% commission on every win grinds the profits down so it only made second place on the list. The worst of all is betting Player, with no banker bets, it has the lowest win percentage.

an�thro�po�mor�phize (wondering how to pronounce, click here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize)

"To attribute human characteristic, expectation, superstitions to innate pieces of plastic devoid of any intelligence, basically were none of the former exists".    Some may call it gamblers fallacy.

So what has this to do with gambling, actually a lot, you have to had been there to appreciate it.

Purely as an example, can equally apply to trending, prior Naturals, or anything that exists in your head at any given moment.  Take a six deck Baccarat shoe, which will produce 4 x 12H grids and your betting for example "Equilibrium vs ImBalance", yet   3 or 4 of those grids end up in Equilibrium, resulting in losing bet after bet, while your expectation is increasing, yet is proving futile.

So you're left bewildered and stunned, then the realisation may dawn on you, "THE CARDS NEITHER KNOW NOR DO THEY CARE", they have no awareness of Equilibrium v's ImBalanced, or what is expected or what they are suppose to conform to.

The same applies to a myriad of bet selections, some of which I use and have used myself, but do they make sense?  These would include;

"Birthday Paradox", is it more likely a group of 4 pairs are suppose to produce a repeat more often than 4 different pairs?

"Symmetrical Patterns", do the cards know what mirrored pattern they hare producing?
"Streak lengths expectation", ('Anti-Streak' or Expected Streak Frequency)

I know the feeling well when these type of bet selections work, we feel good & smart, yet there is the flip side, those times when they don't conform.  Then (impact is even more pronounced after a few successful sessions), we can be left confused and hugely disappointed.  Literally make no sense (the cards don't know), are they worth spending time on or even contemplate playing?

Certainly over the years I've dabbled with Equilibrium v's ImBal, I've played the best and worst of it, to the point that now, I wait for it to lose first (a 12H grid Balanced), before taking that bet option.

"Birthday Paradox" is another prime example (travelled down that road), Scott was wrong to suggest it had a mathematical edge, it doesn't, it resolves to a 50% state, just like everything else.

If we strip away all these anthropomorphize options, what do we have left?  Certainly "pattern capturing" and/or "pattern avoidance", have their merits.  Knowing that you will win, within a series of bets against xyz and will only lose against abc 'in advance'.    The so called standard bet selections offer alternative options, 'FLD, DBL, OLD, Zz, Dbl-Zz' etc, again we know in advance what we will win and lose against, no anthropomorphize ambiguity involved.

Should "player expectation", play a part in the betting strategies we decide to use?  Can we improve our game, even if it's just a case of stop kidding ourselves, if we dispense with this way of thinking altogether. I watch players at the tables, who have no expectation, they simply bet & hope and try and ride things out when thing are swing the other way.


Anthropomorphizing the results  Placing a human element on prior outcomes. 

It means that EVERY Template / grid bet selection option, "symmetrical patterns" and a few other options are flawed AND without merit.  Because you are placing emphasis on prior hands (this is due or shouldn't happen again), thinking that due to the unique way you are recording a shoe, it has significance.

When you spot something, well it might not have existed if you were recording the the shoe via a different column template \ grid size or even gazing at the score board.  Basically you are humanising the prior outcomes, given the cards have no awareness what you are doing, or how you are recording a shoe, what you are looking for, or waiting upon, nor do they care.  It is my opinion such methods are merely gamblers fallacy (I plead as guilty as the rest), sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

Now compare "Anthropomorphizing" the game to running any standard betting option, they could be a combination of  DBL/OLD/FLD, betting against streak then jumping on them, or vice-a-versa.  Betting one-side only, stopping after X amount of Liar's, there are many options.

All bet options are capable of winning and losing, it shouldn't be so hard to guess right a 50-50 proposition once in a while to re-enforce to deluded logic thinking.  However and here is the important bit, some bet selections anthropomorphize the results and some don't.  Humanizing the results is without logic and is an exercise in futility.

My suggestion is to ask yourself, "am I anthropomorphizing the game", if the answer is yes, then be weary, it is without foundation, based on deluded speculation and expectation, gamblers fallacy, seek to remove this element from your game and progress forward. Bet one side only, Pattern Capturing / Pattern Avoidence, Standard options, are prime examples of not  Anthropomorphizing the game, nothing is due, nothing is based on prior hands, we simply bet, accept and manage what transpires.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8SkCh-n4rw

Quote from: alrelax on May 22, 2019, 03:58:37 PM
I like Tyson though.

Well done, but Mike Tyson is a Black man, so how does that work??

Hi Bally

Can you either link me up or explain the " Bricklayer's Wall" progression, thanks.

Another board member has recently made reference to it, so would like to know what it is

Ta

Scrub that, as soon as I submitted, it I spotted it in your blog.

Good luck with taking such a bold move, I did harvest doubts about putting systems behind a paywall which has previously been posted on a few others sites.

Trust it works out. 

Quote from: 8OR9 on May 16, 2019, 04:22:41 AM
Isn't the odds of picking one ball out of 128 balls   127 to 1 instead of 128 to 1 ?

Depends on semantics, the way I interpret it, 128 balls, chose one and return it to the bag, meaning there are always 128 balls in the bag. One could also say, you have one ball and there are 127 left.

How I play, how long I play, 12 or 24 hours or longer.  What I do and how I go about it, slow grind, fast hit, unit value, unit size, unit ratio, are all secondary.

What matters is getting the job done. 

The odds of picking the same ball from a bag of 128 balls is 128/1, this can not be disputed by any mathematician. Sometimes you do run into the same ball, twice or even trice, yet the odds remain 128/1 (14%). I would rather place my faith in the maths of avoiding 14% than a Golden Monkey. 

I use to play the 'Trend' over a decade ago, I gave that fallacy up in a real hurry, when I came across the term "Pattern Capturing" which started the ball rolling to "Predetermined Pattern Avoidance" and it has been and remains a evolving evolution.  Been there done that, sent the postcard.  Trending maybe fine for the right shoe that fits.  But to play this game long term, you need something more robust than just playing a guessing game and placing emphasis were none actually exists other than in your own imagination

I also suggest installing some mirrors at home before jumping on a soap box.

This is from a ?750 starting point, just over 2 weeks ago I think (lost track of time). I was doing great last week, but got smashed due to a composure lapse, so I then just won it all back again...

[attachimg=1]

How long, how far, who knows, burn-out approaching?  Probably...

Thanks Bally

It is not something I've gone into depth with,  I do recall there was a certain amount of interest in G3M1 some time back.

Kudos for posting that, saves us the trouble.

Charles Guetting was a French mathematician who apparently got rich at Monte Carlo.

We have kissed Martingale, Labouchere and D'Alembert goodbye.

Being a REAL mathematician, Guetting did his sums and concluded that if we're going to increment progressively, first we have to get some fire under our behind, and then keep burning.  But if the fire goes out, we've got enough wood to stay warm.

Here's how it works.

First off, digest the following table and then forget it:

First Level             =  1 unit
Second Level        =   1.5   /   2  /   3   units
Third Level           =    4    /   6   /   8    units
Fourth Level         =    10   /   15   /   20   units

This was Guetting's original master plan.

But what is 1.5 of a unit ?

Good question and you must have taken Greek literature at collegel if you're asking.
Ok, say you have beans and don't want to cut any in half...how do you get 1.5 of any value of beans ?
You start with 2 beans and make that your 1 unit value so 1.5 of 2 beans (one and a half of two) is three beans.  Got it ?
Basically we've doubled Guetting's original table values above to get playable and understandable numbers for us simple folk.

To simplify your calculator finger work, here's the resulting table in the logical uncut bean units:

First level =         2 units
Second level =   3  /   4 /   6  units
Third level =        8   /   12   /   16   units
Fourth Level =    20   /   30   /   40   units

We suggest you write this down in any way that you can associate with it and remember it at the real table.
If you smoke, write it on the back of your cigarette box.

If you don't smoke - pretend you do.
The levels might be considered as gears.

If you progress in Level 2 from 3 mph to 4 mph and then to 6 mph, you change gears up to Level 3 and go to 8 mph.... etc.

The mechanism:
This system is applied to even outside bets and we'll take red and black as our primary example.

The logic is as follows:

After TWO consecutive wins on one unit in any level - you go up to the next higher unit IN THAT LEVEL.  After the last unit in any level has won twice you go up one level to the first unit of that new level.

If you're betting a unit in any level for the first time and lose, you go back to jail and to the first unit in the previous level.
If you've won on one unit in any level the first time but lose on the second bet on that same unit - you repeat the bet starting again from that same unit since one win is cancelled by a loss of the same bet.

Let's give it a go.

Here's the table again:

First level =            2 unit
Second level =    3  /   4 /   6  units
Third level =         8   /   12   /   16   units
Fourth Level =    20   /   30   /   40   units

You place 2 chips on red.  If you win - good for you and bet 2 units again on red.
If you lose - bad for you AND START OVER AGAIN betting 2 units once more on red.
If you keep losing, keep betting two units. FOREVER.

This means if you lose 10 times in a row on red, you have only bet 2 chips every time and lost 20 units.  This is what makes the system affordable but wait till you add our 'Jump the Tram' variant.
Getting back to winning:

If you win on the first bet with 2 chips, you repeat it with 2 chips again because you repeat every unit bet of every level once it has won.

Here's a plausible sequence:  And here's the table again for your convenience:

First level =         2 unit
Second level =     3  /   4 /   6  units
Third level =         8   /   12   /   16   units
Fourth Level =    20   /   30   /   40   units
(first and only unit in level 1)
2 = win = gain 2
2 = win = gain 4

(next level - level 2 - unit 1)
3 = win = gain 7
3 = win = gain 10

(still level 2 - unit 2)
4 = win = gain 14
4 = win = gain 18

(still level 2 - unit 3)
6 = win = gain 24
6 = win = gain 30

You've now won in 8 consecutive spins and have gained 30 units.

Just to recap:

Every time you win with one unit, you repeat it once again, and if you win a second time proceed to the next unit in that level.  If you've completed all units in one level you go up to the first unit in the next new level and continue as before,
If we had been playing the standard 'Double or Die' suicide progression, (2,4,8 etc) we'd only have 2 x 8 = 16 chips because after every win we'd go back to starters with the initial bet of 2.

With Guetting, after 8 consecutive wins we have 30 units and this is the first interesting point on dear old Guetting's contribution to mankind. It get's even better since Guetting had an escape plan.

What do you do after a loss, or two losses ?  Or worse still - a series of losses ?
This is where the levels come into play.

Losing:

As already explained, if you lose on the first time on any unit, you go back to the first unit of the previous level. If in level 1 you stay on unit 1 all the time in case of repetitive losses.  If you lose on the second bet of a unit - then you start again from that same unit since one loss cancels out one win.

But if we continue to lose.....several times in a row.....
Here's the same series as before:
(first and only unit in level 1)
2 = win = gain 2
2 = win = gain 4

(next level - level 2 - unit 1)
3 = win = gain 7
3 = win = gain 10

(still level 2 - unit 2)
4 = win = gain 14
4 = win = gain 18

(still level 2 - unit 3)
6 = win = gain 24
6 = win = gain 30

and then on the ninth spin we get a losing streak.  On the ninth spin you should have betted: 8

Here's the table again:

First level =        2 unit
Second level =    3  /   4 /   6  units
Third level =      8   /   12   /   16   units
Fourth Level =  20   /   30   /   40   units

If you lose on the ninth bet then you've still got a gain of 22 units ( 30 - 8 =22).
What do we do now ?  We regress from the third level (8) back to the first unit in level nr. 2 and this is unit 3.

Here's the table again:
First level =         2 unit
Second level =     3  /   4 /   6  units
Third level =       8   /   12   /   16   units
Fourth Level =   20   /   30   /   40   units

If we lose again, this means we have 22 -3 = 19 and
we again regress to the first unit in the preceding and lower level.

In this case it's Level nr. 1 and the 2 unit bet.
If we continue to lose we continue to bet 2 units - ALL the time.
If for example we won 8 times in a row and then lost 9 times in a row, all we have gained is 5 units.  Was it worth it ?
Check these charts  and then you tell us if you think it was worth it:

Can it get better ?

If you add our fuzzy logic, it can.

Once again we modify this system, leaving it exactly as it is but after two losses on one colour we use our 'Jump the Tram' variant.

This means that if you start playing on red for example, and black decides to come out 25 times in a row, if you play the classical 'stick to my breeches' system, you're going to be 50 units down after 25 spins.
Better down 50 units than if we had used the Double or Die system (Martingale) where we'd be around 16.000 units down with no chance of redoubling after the 14th spin due to the table limit.

And exactly because of the long negative series it would be a pity not to jump on a better tram.
And this is what we do with the Guetting system.
So if we started on red, after two losses we jump onto black, and so on.

So basically the Guetting system remains the same as far as the levels, their units and the losing sequences just explained but you DON'T stick to the same colour and jump onto the other colour after two consecutive losses.
Go back to our charts and check out the last one.

Jump the Tram

If you've read the introductory section to this 'Roulette Systems' sector you will by now know of what we think of the classical 2,4,8 etc progressive doubling system.

We call this the Double or Die system but usually it's known as the Martingale.

This system is based on betting on one colour (or other outside bets) and when you lose you double -hence the 2,4,8,16 etc.
And although this system is pretty suicidal we're prepared to make a bet with you.
You and we start with 100 dollars.  We both play the Martingale (2,4,8,16 etc).
Our bet is that 8 times out of ten we will still be sitting at the table long after you have been wiped out.
Note: we said sitting at the table and nothing about how much we've won.

But if we're still sitting at the table and you aren't - this means we still have something left of our 100 dollars and you don't.  You're dead - we're alive.
How would we intend to undertake this miracle ?

We would use the Jump the Tram variant.  ...and here's how it works.
We can use any progression or regression system available and to our liking. And also any system at all based on betting on the main outside bets.

In the case of the classics 'Double or Die' system...2,4,8,16 we'd play exactly the same sequences and double up when needed BUT instead of sticking to the same colour or same odd or same low bet where we started on - we move it to the opposite equivalent after every two lost spins.

Example:
Say we're playing Red / Black.
If red was the last colour to come up, on our first bet we place 2 chips on red.
If we win - fine and start over again with 2 chips on red.
if we lose we place 4 chips on red.
If we lose again we place 8 chips on black
lose again 16 on black.
lose again 32 back on red
then 64 on red again
then 128 on black
then 256 on black

and then we shoot ourselves if we still haven't won.
Actually we usually stop at an affordable loss in this case perhaps 32 or feeling rich and stupid on 64.

We call this fuzzy logic only because we like this term so any real fuzzy mathematicians out there - give us a break.

Explanation:

If you've ever observed casino spins and noted them down, or better still used thousand of real spins printed out, you'll have noticed that 'things' happen in certain series of sequences and that it is much more occurring for one colour to come up 12 times in a row than the exact opposing colours to come up in pairs - six times in a row.

So in the above system, say we start with 2 chips on red but black decides to come up 15 times if we stayed on red as in the suicidal version of Double or Die, we would fry.

With fuzzy doubling or 'Jump the Tram' , on the first spin we lose, also on the second one, but on the third one we move over to the other colour - black - and win.

And we would stay there until 2 further consecutive losses.
The concept of fuzziness here is applied to the point that if one single colour - i.e- black should come up umpteen times, AND IT'S NOT THE COLOUR WE STARTED ON - then we're counteracting against this and escaping the trap of NOT remaining stuck on red - the losing colour - forever.

There are no guarantees that the opposite will not happen and that if we bet two on red and move on to black, that the wheel won't do the opposite same, six times in a row.

If you will insist on playing a progressive doubling system of the traditional sort, this is a better way.

How do we know ?

We've studied outcomes of hundreds of thousands of real spins from real roulette wheels and have tried this many times at the table.  And you can verify this yourself.

Either get some real spins printed out or go and clock a wheel and then observe the pattern.
One colour coming up many times happens very often, hence the series onto which you 'jump' on after the second loss and stay on until two further losses.

Pairs of the same colour coming up six or seven times in a row is rarer... but not impossible !


Basically, if you really try Guetting AND our 'Jump the Tram' variation you'll find that
it's a great system if you get lots of sequences of any outside bet ( colour in our examples).
And believe us - this happens.

If you've understood the Guetting system plus our 'Jump the Tram' variation
on outside(even odds) bet systems, then you can imagine what could happen if
you get a whole sequence of full repetitive series -
say, 6 blacks, 7 reds, 10 blacks, 1 red, 6 blacks, 3 reds, 10 blacks, 12 reds etc.
You'll be laughing all the way back to the hotel.

But bear in mind that any of these variations depend a lot on the sway of the wheel and that it could get pretty boring going up to being +10, then -1, then +5, then -8, then +12, and after two hours you're +1.

But if you thought that not throwing money away at the Roulette table was supposed to be exciting...well... we suggest you throw your money away  ... if it's excitement you want.

That's what keeps most losers going is the excitement.  The boredom and methodology factor is why most people don't play systems.

Every time we leave a Casino with even 1 unit plus after 6 hours of Roulette.... we consider ourselves winners.  And if you've ever left a Casino after only 1 hour minus 500 units....then perhaps you really should try a system or two.

The technique which he found to be the best (among many which he shows producing winning results) is called the G3M1 method. This is allowing a winning bet to ride three times (parlay) and doubling any losing bet one time only (a one stage Martingale). According to the author this takes a 100 unit bankroll and the gambler must be patient as he cycles through his negative/net gain excursions. He provides quite a few tables to support his contentions about this and other similar combinations.

While I haven't even experimented with any of these methods, this book is interesting reading. I personally don't find that kind of "grind" or up and down form of play to be very interesting. But, I have run into a few people doing the Koetsch methods. Some claim to have similar results as the author. I don't have any substantiation of the claims independent of what is provided in the book, but I will say that the book is well written and the data is convincingly presented."

The Koetsch Method is played on the even money chances only on one side Player/Banker; Red/Black etc.. Someone posted the following instructions in another forum:

How to Bet:   Start at one unit.
if it wins let it ride 3 times and pull out. If you lose along the way start over.
If any 1 unit wager loses double once (if that won pull 2 units off leaving 2 for the next bet in the win seq.)

An all win sequence will look like this: 1,2,4,8,(Win, Ride1, Ride2, Ride3)
An all lose sequence will look like this: 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 (Lose, Dbl lose)

Playing this way it will win on any streak of 4 or more and also win on a streak of 2 or less (If this one wins treat it as a win of 1 and let the one unit plus the one originally bet ride). The important part of the system is to not play all the way though the 100 decisions and instead stop when the stop win is reached. You will see in the majority of 100 round sessions that you can quit ahead a quite few times. This one will usually pull to the plus side 3 times per 100 dec. on average. This means if it swings south 3 times it usually will return 3 times.
Remember to wait till the block of 100 is over to start again or move to another table upon winning. If you never reach your win goal just stop positive or play to the end. It will almost always be less of a loss than the peak loss per session since even bets usually tend to balance. This one is straight up math and no voodoo involved.
You guys that can test this stuff easily, please give it a go. You might like it. You can also tweak the times it rides or the double ups to produce different results but at the cost of more risk or less reward. This one is easy to bet on both sides of the fence too (black and red etc.) and bet the difference. "

You look at the last 2 decisions. If it chops, you bet the opposite of the last decision to continue with the chop. If it repeats, you bet the same as the last decision to continue with the streak. If it goes 2-2, you follow 2-2 until it breaks.

In the UK a main casino chains offer what is called the "super egalite".

In a nut shell you have to predict the score of a Tie, while that doesn't sound easy, this Baccarat side bet offers the biggest return of any casino game at 160-1 for a Tie on zero. Casinos that offer this side bet also have to change the normal Tie odds to 9-1.


Basic Outline Rules / How to Play

?Super Pay Egalite? is an additional optional wager in the basic game of Punto Banco, the rules of which can be found on this website.

Players need to place a standard wager on either the Player, the Banker or Egalite, in order to place a ?Super Pay Egalite? side wager. They may place wagers on more than one ?Super Pay Egalite? betting position if they wish to do so.

The wager is that the two hands will be of an equal score, (i.e. an Egalite) but will be in a range of specific scores. The wager will win if any of the specific scores in the selected range is the outcome of the tied hand.

If the score is not an Egalite, all wagers on Super Pay Egalite will lose.

If the score is an Egalite, all Super Pay Egalite wagers on the specific range of numbers that includes the winning score will win & be paid odds. All Super Pay Egalite wagers on a range of numbers that does not include the winning score will lose and be surrendered to the bank.

The range of numbers and usual odds payable are:-

Egalite Score Odds
Zero.................160 to 1
1,2 or 3.............70 to 1
4 or 5................60 to 1
6 or 7............... 22 to 1
8 or 9................40 to 1

?4k payout for a pony "?25" on a successful zero Tie wager (only permissible in London)!  I've seen this come up 3 times in a single shoe, one guy was on every one, ?2400 for a ?15 pound stake, less those times it didn't hit.

House Edge details

Egalite Score Odds
Zero................6.65%
1,2 or 3..........10.86%
4 or 5..............7.28%
6 or 7..............8.94%
8 or 9............. 9.75%

Other than card tracking, I was wondering if their is a way to exploit this, something along the lines of take all the above "super egalite" options and place a wager of double that amount on the Banco for an entire shoe.

Tie-less shoes are indeed a rare breed but can happen, Punto dominated shoes are not so rare.

All TIES in the UK are now paid 9-1, which half's the HE.

The player bets 1% of his bankroll at all times.

$100 bankroll, 1% advantage

* Bets won = 7,182,811,698 (50.4999%)
* Bets lost = 7,040,599,544 (49.5001%)
* Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 79,438 (83.019%)
* Player went bust first = 16,249 (16.981%)
* Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 174,972 (364.5 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$100 bankroll, 2% advantage

* Bets won = 7,027,117,205 (51.0000%)
* Bets lost = 6,751,539,769 (49.0000%)
* Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 215,702 (98.099%)
* Player went bust first = 4,180 (1.901%)
* Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 63,775 (132.9 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$1,000 bankroll, 1% advantage

* Bets won = 5,213,026,190 (50.4999%)
* Bets lost = 5,109,817,544 (49.5001%)
* Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 74,818 (99.0285%)
* Player went bust first = 734 (0.9715%)
* Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 137,208 (285.8 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$1,000 bankroll, 2% advantage

* Bets won = 6,332,837,070 (50.9996%)
* Bets lost = 6,084,596,671 (49.0004%)
* Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 267,445 (99.9996%)
* Player went bust first = 1 (0.0004%)
* Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 46,428 (96.7 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

Learning proper playing strategies and sound money management principles is only part of a successful casino gambler's game plan. Having a proper playing attitude is just as important.

The typical attitude of losing gamblers is something like this: They always go to the casinos to have fun and of course, they always expect to lose. They experience an emotional high when playing and are invariably swept up in the exciting casino atmosphere. They always feel obligated to take the free drinks offered by the casino as a way of getting even for their losses. And, of course, when they lose, they always blame it on rotten luck, or poor cards, but the consolation for their losing is "well, I had a good time anyway," attitude.

Keep this thought in mind next time you go to a casino to have some fun. First, when you enter a casino, you are entering a place of business. And like all successful businesses, the casinos are operated by shrewd businessmen whose job is firstly, to keep you playing and happy and secondly, to separate you from your money as quickly and painlessly as possible. To meet these objectives, they create an atmosphere in the casino that can be described as a "Disneyland for adults." No clocks to let you know it's time to leave this utopia, no windows to let you see out to the real world, free drinks at the tables, free lounge shows and plenty of pretty girls to keep you happy and playing.

And what happens to the average gambler when he/she enters this casino designed excitement? For him/her, the rewards of winning all of the casino's money far outweigh the risks of losing his meagre hundred dollar bankroll. And this exciting atmosphere also makes it so easy for the average player to feel lucky and go for broke at the chance of winning that jackpot.

First and foremost, in order to be a winner, you must learn to control your emotions in the casino. The real struggle when you are playing is, in most cases, not between you and the casino, but between you and yourself. You will find plenty of temptations to keep you playing and losing, therefore, you must learn to develop a sense of timing or awareness of when to play and, more importantly, when to quit.

In short, you must develop the proper playing attitudes to overcome the psychological barriers created by the casinos to keep you losing and to make it difficult for you to leave the tables with a profit. For example, go to the casinos expecting to win (rather than lose). Granted, there are no guarantees that you will win, but likewise there is no guarantee that you have to lose. Always prepare yourself for those inevitable losing sessions. No matter how skilfully you play, sometimes everything will go wrong. Will you quit and call it a day or will you be like most gamblers and dig in for more cash, hoping the tide will turn? And how many gamblers have the attitude that a small profit is better than no profit or a loss? Not many.

Above all, learn to develop a sense of timing for when to play and when to quit. Playing blackjack, for example, if you are tired or have been drinking will cost you dearly.

These attitudes are not always natural. Most of them take an amount of work before you can feel comfortable playing with discipline. But if you develop these proper playing attitudes and learn proper playing and money management strategies, you will be able to enjoy the fun and excitement of casino gambling with a minimum risk at your bankroll. Isn't it worth the effort?


Player or Banker?

"You are right when you say your primary battle is with yourself, as this battle permeates all aspects of your play, and proper self-management --as one might be managed by a coach on the sidelines is critical."

"You are wrong when you say that the casino deserves no respect as an opponent. These people know more about the psyche of the gambler than is ever published in any psychology book, and they are more than willing to use this information in any way they can to trip up the winning player."

"As a player, you have 3 fronts to watch: monitoring yourself, monitoring the game, and monitoring the casino as it reacts to your play of the game. Repeated lessons in each of these areas teach one to , value playing when you are not stressed ("by anything" including your level of play), not emotionally upset, and well rested, and to understand that NO APPROACH to play wins in every situation EVEN ONE WHICH DELIVERS A verifiable WIN BIAS-- and when you encounter those bad shoes, one must learn to "take their lumps" like a big boy or girl, and walk away a temporary "LOSER". In this regard, playing at, NOT ABOVE one's comfort level is the mark of a confident player, sticking more money out in front of you when you are losing, is the act of a scared person, NOT A WINNER."

The only play approach I know of is the "Baccarat is War" approach in which you translate your shoe into a new shoe as you go. Then simply "follow bet" in the new shoe which has much less chopping and much more running. (For those who don't know, Follow betting is betting for whatever happened last to happen again--See a Bank, bet for another bank to follow it). Note that this play approach was developed for "high stakes" play and is designed for play in a fresh cards environment (Big Table Bac), where the highest stakes players are normally found.

The problem which faces most players is that they are unaware that the more the cards are shuffled, the more predominant the chop (back and forth between bank and player) becomes. So a run favoring system which works okay with new cards, will have its plow cleaned when used in a mini-bac game with old cards. Conversely, a chop or even lengthened run favoring system will get usually get "killed" in a game using new cards because the natural bias is toward running rather than chopping.

Just make sure that whichever approach you use (chopping or running), is geared to the state of the cards you are playing with.

Fritz Werntgen


Roulette Lexicon (K.V. Haller), unlosable progression, pages 444-448

Fritz Werntgen, who developed the "unlosable progression", had based this idea on the correct assumption that it is a lot safer to use an "up as you win" progression rather then a negative progression. With this positive progression you use only the money of the casino in your efforts to win big. dangerous in this concept will only be extremely long runs (over 100 spins) in where the balance between the 2 even chances is not disturbed (say RBRBRBRB, or RRBBRRBB). In this case your bankroll will slowly but for sure diminish gradually. It is not the progressions that will danger your bankroll, but the lack of opportunity?s to get into the progression. This is also the reason that he gave it the name unlosable progression, because the progression itself isn't the cause of losses.


As example for this he uses the American Labouchere betting, a cancellation progression. This progression, also called "Labby" was used a lot by the English in Monte Carlo before world war I.


For a long time this progression was thought of as The Holy Grail, anyway it was dangerous for the casino, as well as for players. For the casino, when a player with a huge bankroll combines it with one of the available systems that narrows the Ecart (spread of standard deviation), for the players when (the majority) they play simple systems, because the Ecarts will cause raising of their bets out of proportions. Nowadays the Labouchere is known as the American cancellation progression, too which the so called Johnson progression belongs as well.

In the Labouchere the units are noted in a vertical row and the first and last one sum-mated to get the next bet. A lost bet will be noted under the row in case of a loss, and in case of a win the 2 figures are cancelled. This continues till all figures are cancelled. (note Perkin: this Labouchere progression is important for this system because it will be used as the positive progression against the casino, so in other words things have turned around: now it is the casino trying to win back your money with the Labouchere, and you try to let the casino bust till you reach your win level)

Karl Alexander knew the disadvantage of the U.P. (unlosable progression):

When the balance between lost and win bets is not disturbed for a long period of time (so no streaks) the bankroll will slowly be consumed, so that even after we encounter a chance for the positive progression, it will take a lot of nerves in order to get out of the hole again. Therefore a way has to be found to reach first a small plus, before we can attack again. On top of this a way has to be found to compensate for the losses.


A solution for this would be defined as The Holy Grail progression (absolute progression). As everybody knows till now such a progression doesn't exist, and it is very doubtful if someone will ever succeed in finding one.

Yet there is a small group of people that play on a regular basis even chances and get almost every time a plus result playing a progression. The only explanation for this has to be that within their bet selection there must be a hidden concept that change the odds in their favours. The definition for a confident progression is that over the long run the win results are higher then the inevitable busts that are encountered with every progression so that there is a net plus result. (we will give an example of such a progression in the Dozen-chance section).(Perkin: it is not in this thread, but I assume you can find it in the book: The roulette Lexicon from K.V.Haller).

Back to the U.P (Unlosable Progression): Fritz Werntgen explains the essence of his progression as follows:

In the knowledge that over a long session of consequent spins in even chances balance will be reached (within the limits of the standard deviation), the ecards (big standard deviations) rule in the small parts of a long session.

Before Werntgen decided to make his system known to the public, he studied extensively the outcomes in all directions, to be sure that nobody will lose money using this system. Also other investigators, after publication came after extensive analysis of his system to the conclusion that any risks are almost impossible: THE RESULTS OF MANY THOUSANDS AND HUNDRED THOUSANDS OF SESSIONS ARE SO EXTREMELY WELL THAT IF BEEN PUBLISHED NOBODY WOULD BELIEVE THE RESULTS.

Besides the system leaves a lot of room for personal adaptations (tweaks) as also level of unit play, win-targets and bankrolls. You can prefer to win many "small" sessions as well as wait for the inevitable to come few huge winning opportunities. (Like we are always sure that with negative progressions the bust will come as well in due time). This is a sure fact that everyone can check by himself after learning this progression. But the large winnings are not coming that easy as well; one will need a lot of patience and discipline to reach the final goal, although less then players who win when they need to reach the balance between two even chances (50-50).

Like a player who uses a negative progression will probably have positive results in the beginning, probably will not encounter the bust in the first session, a player playing the positive progression has to invest first a sum of units before the favourite ecards will result in the winnings. In this way the U.P. player forces the casino in the role of the player using the negative progression. the casino will be forced to chase the winnings of the player with all the time higher stakes and is also forced to play on. the player however can choose anytime the moment of stopping and cash the winnings. this is a big advantage of the player against the casino.

I will give a more understandable translation; it is really not that difficult, when you get the point of it. Like I said before actually it is a kind of Labouchere cancellation against the house. Kind a reverse Labouchere:

It is a rare occurring incident that it is allowing you to make 11450 units from only 60 invested units. Also you will get problems with the bank limit as the highest bet is here 4317 units (but realize, this is not your money, but the casino's money). Fritz Werntgen gave an optimal calculated win stop of 100 U which is very well for practical use.

Here is my translation:

This post is picked up from the paroli-forum site, and this guy, nickname paroli, made very interesting threads about trends/pattern betting with a Personal Permanense as also the Paritair system. (Both flat betting systems on even chances) but that is beside this subject:

OK, underneath the explanation of Frank's table:

Column 1: running spin number and number shows
Column 2: Red/Black split. Only Red is played in this example
Column 3: Bet placed with win/loss result.(+ or-)
Column 4: Plus Balance during opportunities to get into the winning progression, so in here the former loss balance is neglected. It is clearly shown that in case the progression fails, there is no win or lost as compared to the start of this progression as it returns again to zero. This is because we play the progression with the money of the casino.

Column 5: Total balance of Loss units separated from the temporary winnings during the win progression as long as we don't reach our win stop level.

Column 6: used for keeping track of the progression and calculations for the next bet. Now this is the difficult part. When a bet (always 2 units here to begin with) wins it will be noted in this column. To get into the progression we always have to win consecutive 3x 2unit bets. Now the reverse Labouchere is coming in action. We now summate the last and first number (here in 2 2 2, hence 2+2=4) as our next bet to place. If it wins we have 2224, hence 4+2=6 as our next bet. If we loss a bet during the progression the bet is cancelled(noted in the table for example as 2~ above and as 2~ last) and again the next bet is calculated as the sum of the new first and last figure. (or if we have only one figure left, we bet this figure)

We proceed like this until we reach zero, which ends the progression or till we reach the first milestone: >+20units. Now we divide the sum of these units in new masses of units. For 20 U you divide them in 5 times 4:

4444, 22 units are divided in 55444. Now we proceed again with the summation of the first and last figure to calculate our new bet, for example 4+4 (after +20) or 5+4 (after +22). The second milestone is +40 units, which will be divided in 5 new masses of 8: 88888. Unfortunately in the Table's example the second milestone of 80Units is used, but that is because Frank set a win target of 10.000 units. You see, it is up to you to define your own milestones to define the new masses, the system is flexible here.

Column 7: Total balance in session
Column 8: Total balance of all sessions.

Maybe it is looking rather complicated, but if you get to see the light, it is actually rather easy; it is just a reverse Labouchere, with from time to time definition of 5 new mass-units, to accelerate the win amount during a streak. Notice, that when the winning streak is broken by 1 or 2 or 3 later in the progression, losing bet, it actually accelerates the progression to reach the target. It is the same with cancellation systems: if you win a bet and are losing afterwards, the risk of bust becomes a lot higher.

Paroli did test this system for millions of spin (computer analysis). In the very long run the wins and losses were balancing out. He didn't mention anything about the Highest Max and Highest Min in the run.

In my opinion this system can be very interesting, but it will take a lot of patience and consistency to wait out the winning streak. Off course how higher you set your win target, how longer you have play.

Perkin



Regarding the bet selection, personally I am using current trends of the permanence to bet on, switching trend after 2 consecutive losses, because this one give me small unit wins most of the times even with flat betting.
(It is based on the trend system from Paroli although adapted in a way to be able to play each bet). But I think bet selection is a personal matter, I don't believe in advantages of FTL versus DBL or other selections, they will balance out, it is just a guess which one will become out of balance first.

Borrowed Topic

AsymBacGuy why not stop with the clues and riddles, simply post a shoe to explain exactly and precisely what you are referring to. It is that easy, no need to make things complicated.

I tend to agree with Glen's statement which is in bold and underlined a few posts up.