Flat bet and Positive Progression VS Negative Progression

[GLC]

I have attacked a discussion of these 3 bet methods.

I strongly suggest all members and guests to read this attachment until you thoroughly understand it.

Wouldn't hurt for some of you well seasoned players to brush up on it as well.

All comments are welcome.

Just looking out for you all,

George

[superman]

Excellent read George, I enjoyed this sentence.

The first approach is to gain a mathematical edge over the game.

Which was good old marty!!

[Master_of_pockets]

I read it all.
Its known stuff.
My guess is that this pdf was made by the Casinos . LoL

[GLC]

Excellent read George, I enjoyed this sentence.
 
Which was good old marty!!

It would be not only interesting, but very helpful if you or someone would go through the article and highlight comments like this one you just did that are not true.

The thing I liked most about it was that it seemed to support my tendency to lean toward a negative progression with a decent size buy-in.

I know that those who have to play at brick and mortar casinos find buy-ins for a large number of units to be difficult because of the large size of the minimum bet.

That's why I keep trying to move closer to a pure positive progression, but I don't have much luck with them.

With a negative progression my luck is a mirage and the bad luck is only being delayed, but most of the time it feels better playing a negative progression.  You know, head in the sand syndrome.

[Master_of_pockets]

"""With a negative progression my luck is a mirage and the bad luck is only being delayed, but most of the time it feels better playing a negative progression.  You know, head in the sand syndrome."""
I have the same point of view on this subject

[Turner]

A cracking read George.
Also..a surprise. i thought what MOP said...a casino wrote it (i shouldnt be so honest), but this kind of read is exactly what I love reading.

i can recommend a great ebook called real world blackjack. Think it was £2.50... its something i read over and over.
It doesn't agree with your document...LoL

You have to read everything....even the ingredients on the sauce bottle

great post....

[Ralph]

I do not agree it should be better to rise the stake on loss than on win. In the example the progressions were 100% doubling, and many steps, which needs up to nine wins in a row,
That happens so rare that positive progressions will not have a winning.

I think many use negative progressions until a win, and I am sure, this is more risky, than a positive progression which do not double up.

My best sessions comes from a good winning streak using positive progressions, and my biggest loss comes from negative progressions.

Flat betting is not easy to make any winning with, rather  a slow depleting bankroll.

In the particular game the outcome dictate the result, I would never try to make a positive progression using double up in many steps.

In the land casionos here the lowest bet is 7 dollars, which make it hard to use a strong bankroll, which make the play different from on line there you can have 1000 units easy, just 10 dollars in some  casinos.

[Ralph]

Every session can win or lose what ever MM we use. The paper is not correct by math.

If we progress  10, 20, 40, 80, and stop, using the both progressions, it is a difference in risk of ruin the bankroll. Everyone had playing a while, knows the risk of negative progressions.
With a big bankroll you can just delay the bust.

The main with negative progressions, is you can win smaller many times, and go back home as a winner more times.

With positive progressions, you will go back home as  a loser of a small amount often, but instead
of a big loss at the end it may a big win.

Flat betting make you stay in the game may be longer, small wins or small loss.

In all cases I count with table min bet  before any progressions, As one big flat bet can lose or win much.

I attach a picture with the math.

[GLC]

Thanks for the input guys.

I think this is a good topic to talk about every now and then just to keep us all aware of the pitfalls of each kind of betting method.

[TwoCatSam]

GLC

'Course they only examined the Martingale as a negative progression.  And they tell a half-truth about it.

Sure, you will always have a far, far greater chance of winning with a Marty...........

BUT

They didn't say when you lose you lose it all and a ton more to boot!!

Anyone who's been burned knows that it's what you consistently fold over and put in your pocket and walk out the door with that counts!

I can just hear it:  I'm Gotcha Casino and I approved this message.

TwoCat

[GLC]

To put your minds to rest, it wasn't written by a casino, it was written by a scammer trying to sell a system.  I wonder which progression he's using in the system?

Even though I don't like his use of the marty in his testings, and he doesn't use a martingale in his system, I do think the important point for those of us who like negative progressions is that if you are going to use a negative progression, you really need a hefty bankroll to give yourself a fighting chance.

The thing that isn't brought out clearly is the idea that if you can't win with a flat bet, you will also lose with a negative or positive progression.  The hard fact is that you can get to the same W/L percentage with a negative or positive progression if you have a large enough progression and bank.

If I play a flat bet for 2,000,000 spins, I will find myself down about 2.7%.  I may have needed a $200 unit bank to ride out the ups and downs.  If I play a simple +1,-1 negative progression for 2,000,000 spins, I will end up down about 2.7%.  The same as the flat bet but my bank will have to have a much, much larger amount to weather the more violent swings in W vs L.

One question I have is this.  If I set a stop-loss of say $1000 for a negative progression, at the end of the 2 million bets, will I only be down 2.7% or will I have to add all the $1000 losses to the amount I end up down on bet 2 million.  I'm thinking that every time I lose $1000 and reset to 1, I forfeit those $1000 because when I reset to 1 I am starting my odds over from that point forward and whatever has happened in the past doesn't count.

Any thoughts?

[Ralph]

Previous loss is history, as long the money did not were meant for other purposes. Every who game should be prepared to lose the bank. The bank is for game, should not have been for anything else, you just not play with  money you cant effort to lose.

A big winning, if you are lucky to get one, buy something, do something fun, with some of it.
Its keeps the winnings in your memory, and you do not lose it.

Bankroll matters, winning is fun, and if it is small it is OK. I never start a game if the bankroll is not
2000 the betsize, It can be from 20 Euro and up.

Among the 10000 of spin I have done, 95% are small stakes, some few higher, and very few high.

A posit iv progression making 1000 Euro, starting with 0.5, happens not once a year, but it happen.

First try to not lose, second win!!

I can take some more risk, if I had a winning, as the streak can continue, and I do not deplete the starting bank. If we are too carefull we can not win bigger.

I still have not seen the HE digging in my play yet, but they say it should be for sure in the long run.
I have some advantages, because of  my age. 

[Roochla]

It ends "With an adequate bankroll, the risk of loss can be reduced to a reasonable amount".

It should read "With an adequate bankroll the risk of loss can be reduced to a reasonable amount, however the amount lost in the session will be significantly larger".

[Roochla]

To put your minds to rest, it wasn't written by a casino, it was written by a scammer trying to sell a system.  I wonder which progression he's using in the system?

Even though I don't like his use of the marty in his testings, and he doesn't use a martingale in his system, I do think the important point for those of us who like negative progressions is that if you are going to use a negative progression, you really need a hefty bankroll to give yourself a fighting chance.

The thing that isn't brought out clearly is the idea that if you can't win with a flat bet, you will also lose with a negative or positive progression.  The hard fact is that you can get to the same W/L percentage with a negative or positive progression if you have a large enough progression and bank.

If I play a flat bet for 2,000,000 spins, I will find myself down about 2.7%.  I may have needed a $200 unit bank to ride out the ups and downs.  If I play a simple +1,-1 negative progression for 2,000,000 spins, I will end up down about 2.7%.  The same as the flat bet but my bank will have to have a much, much larger amount to weather the more violent swings in W vs L.

One question I have is this.  If I set a stop-loss of say $1000 for a negative progression, at the end of the 2 million bets, will I only be down 2.7% or will I have to add all the $1000 losses to the amount I end up down on bet 2 million.  I'm thinking that every time I lose $1000 and reset to 1, I forfeit those $1000 because when I reset to 1 I am starting my odds over from that point forward and whatever has happened in the past doesn't count.

Any thoughts?

At 2,000,000 spins each method could be win or loss. However if we plot to infinity, each will closely model -2.7% regardless of method used.