+ Register

[Blue_Angel]

I am of the belief that progressions do alter our odds at this game.

This is not true!
Odds cannot be altered, the objective of a progression or money management technique is to make an overall profit without changing odds, which means to lose more times but still be ahead.

But I agree about the linear progressions...also about the easy solutions, there are not really easy solutions, gambling is not exception of this rule.
There are very few guys who make "easy money" the hard way...it hasn't been proven but they don't want to.

From mathematics perspective, it's a fact that we would be overall winners if our fewer wins would generate more profit than the cost of more losses.
This is possible and don't rush to blast it just because you haven't found a solution, what you can (or cannot) do is not the limit of everybody...!

[james]

I respect the opinions of GR8 and B_A that some progressions can make money in a negative expectation game.

If you google, you will find equations by mathematicians why progressions will not work in a negative expectation game. If you can prove mathematically to the contrary, you will get accolades from mathematicians, but you will not see any money. There is more money using the progressions to make money than all the accolades.

[Blue_Angel]

I respect the opinions of GR8 and B_A that some progressions can make money in a negative expectation game.

If you google, you will find equations by mathematicians why progressions will not work in a negative expectation game. If you can prove mathematically to the contrary, you will get accolades from mathematicians, but you will not see any money. There is more money using the progressions to make money than all the accolades.

You are true about what is important the most, however, there is nothing contradictory in an efficient progression and probability theory because, like I said, the order which wagering takes place as well the amounts don't change odds, we will still lose the times it's probable to lose but we will gain more when we win in order to cover any other losses.

In order house edge to be the main factor of losing, there shouldn't be any progressions but only flat betting, then we would lose sooner or later by the percentage of the house edge.
In order to realize how trivial is house edge in comparison with variance do the following, place 1 unit on red and another on black, see how long would it take to lose your bankroll by the 0!
But a martingaler could lose large sums of money within just a few spins because of the variance.

For an enterprise as the casino, 2.7% or more from the total action is a large sum, therefore important for them, but from the gambler's perspective, if you would lose 2.7% of 100 it's insignificant.
Another thing 2.7% from 150,000 and completely another 2.7% from 1,500!

[Gizmotron]

If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?

It's true that no bet selection, either guess or mechanical based rule can produce an edge. But both of these types of bet selections can produce favorable coincidences of opportunity that are exploitable by a prepared expert. These large number tests show that there are more favorable times to use short termed progressions.

If you are to favor a moment for a progression then you might as well favor positive progression's characteristics.

Just offering something to think about here.

[Blue_Angel]

It's true that no bet selection, either guess or mechanical based rule can produce an edge. But both of these types of bet selections can produce favorable coincidences of opportunity that are exploitable by a prepared expert. These large number tests show that there are more favorable times to use short termed progressions.

If you are to favor a moment for a progression then you might as well favor positive progression's characteristics.

Just offering something to think about here.

There are progressions which raise after a loss and progressions which raise after a win, but does win/loss ratio follow a specific order??

I think an efficient and effective money management should be focused on the totals, it's one thing to say 3 out of 10 and completely another to say when those 3 wins are going to happen within the 10 trials.

[TheLaw]

Simply amazing how much people can debate.........with no evidence.

Publicly Test your method......as Nickmsi did......or your theories are worthless........literally worthless in this game.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to debate roulette.........until someone calls their bluff.

"Oh Yeah! I've got a method that works........easy........just do X, Y, and Z"

Sounds good......let's run some tests.

"_____"(crickets)

Hello?

"_____"(crickets)............................................................Yawn.

[Blue_Angel]

Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this:  B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!

[Blue_Angel]

Simply amazing how much people can debate.........with no evidence.

Publicly Test your method......as Nickmsi did......or your theories are worthless........literally worthless in this game.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to debate roulette.........until someone calls their bluff.

"Oh Yeah! I've got a method that works........easy........just do X, Y, and Z"

Sounds good......let's run some tests.

"_____"(crickets)

Hello?

"_____"(crickets)............................................................Yawn.

Speaking about "crickets", you should have tried a lot through the years, right?

[TheLaw]

This doesn't make any sense BA.

Try again........English this time.

[Blue_Angel]

Condemning other persons' methods is much easier than being productive by creating your own and providing solutions to yourself and to the forum.

"This method is stuff, that system is failure...etc"

But who benefits from this kind of information??

Instead of blasting methods, aka efforts of other individuals, why don't we try to focus on what's working.

Personally I don't tolerate any criticism by persons who provide next to nothing but criticism!

[albertojonas]

Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this:  B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!

both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that

[Blue_Angel]

both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that

You want to tell me that 50-0 for the banker against the player is EQUALLY POSSIBLE with 25 VS 25 ??!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! 

[TheLaw]

Condemning other persons' methods is much easier than being productive by creating your own and providing solutions to yourself and to the forum.

"This method is stuff, that system is failure...etc"

But who benefits from this kind of information??

Instead of blasting methods, aka efforts of other individuals, why don't we try to focus on what's working.

Personally I don't tolerate any criticism by persons who provide next to nothing but criticism!

I agree......but at what point are these "ideas" just more noise without actual testing.

I criticize those who throw out methods as if their success is a foregone conclusion without public testing...........and this is very common on these boards.

It would save everyone a great deal of time if they would follow-through (like Nickmsi is doing) with transparent public testing.........instead of all of these "hypothetical" systems.

Keep in mind.......I am the one who posted one of your publicly tested methods on other boards to get the word out.........so this is nothing personal.

[Blue_Angel]

I agree......but at what point are these "ideas" just more noise without actual testing.

I criticize those who throw out methods as if their success is a foregone conclusion without public testing...........and this is very common on these boards.

It would save everyone a great deal of time if they would follow-through (like Nickmsi is doing) with transparent public testing.........instead of all of these "hypothetical" systems.

Keep in mind.......I am the one who posted one of your publicly tested methods on other boards to get the word out.........so this is nothing personal.

Yes, I know, but there are trolls and persons who "borned yesterday" being born every minute...

Doesn't surprise you even after so many years that some are recycling the same again and again?

If old known methods worked, would we still on the lookout?

If the HG was a simple task, would that being already achieved by now?

What I'm trying to say is that we should not look backwards if we want to go forward  and we have to think beyond the mainstream frames, outside the box.

[Blue_Angel]

Have you ever thought if a casino's board and or staf were reading all these posts, what would they think??

"A bunch of lo..ers who  think they can win our games!"

Am I wrong thinking this way??