You know when you come to think about it, any system of playing with or without progressions can be claimed to be won in the long run.  As long as you always do the same thing and you play until you get ahead. In other words beating randomness.

Just say I'm flat betting on Banker and in the long run I have to win (at some point of course), so i can simply label it a holy grail. I could say flat betting Banker is a holy grail and I'm going to keep betting Banker every single hand and just play shoe after shoe, week after week and at some point I am going to be ahead.  And at that point I can stop and say my flat betting system on banker works. I can do the same thing by betting on Player only as well. I can do the same thing betting every 5th or 10th hand, etc., etc.  I could do the same thing by betting every Player or Banker after every natural comes out.

Because I'm going to stop after I get ahead by a certain amount of units and it's always going to be that way.   But do you have enough bankroll to fund that and do you have the willpower not to increase your bets once you start winning?

 

QuoteBecause I'm going to stop after I get ahead by a certain amount of units and it's always going to be that way.

You can not get ahead on a regular basis, so easily. House edge coupled with variance do not allow the same for long. Countering that is not so easy as it might appear. People are trying to work with all sort of betselection, tweaks, triggers and money managements but any long run test proves the contrary. If someone is saying he can win regularly, playing flat bet, he is a liar. Even oldschool money managements are proven failures. They are meant to handle one kind of variance and miserably fail in other.
            I have analysed all sort of money management approaches and could get what they are lacking. Then I started to work from scratch on a money management with following traits:
1. It shouldn't lose in a very long stretch of no wins and only losses like LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
2. It should n't lose in intermittent wins with too many losses: LLLLLWLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLLWL
3. It should not bet too huge to make it impractical
4. It should survive the worst possible sessions with minimal loss that should be recovered back with the same strategy in average session thereafter. We should not expect clumping or compensating wins after a very bad patch.
5. Even in a EC bet losses will either outnumber wins due to house edge(as any EC bet of roulette) or house fees will make it a loser(like Banker bet of baccarat). So we always need to be able to win in lesser wins than losses.

        Keeping all this in mind and developing something to cater all, is no child's play for anybody. Whoever can do all these or somehow manage to get more wins than losses( through advantage play of some sort) can win in a casino game otherwise it is destined to lose.
          I feel myself very close to an HG although it is too early to claim that. Let's see how it goes for me.