• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Odds and payouts are different things. If either the odds or payouts don't change, then the result is the same - eventual loss.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Regression

Started by ego, Jan 30, 07:53 AM 2015

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ego

Hello.

Some ones flat betting and have a low win target, lets say 20%.
Assume the start with 100 for each session.
Then they need to win 5 times to break even or they will lose it all back.
Very difficult task.

Assume we fail then we apply a humble progression to win it all back.
Succed most of times, but one day even the recovery progression fails and you give all the winning back to the casino.
That is not working and i think that is a common way to play among members.

Most of us play against extreme events to happen, this is how we win.
Lets say we have a progression that coust us 500 units - then we have to win 500 units to break even and beyond that to really win some money and not give it all back to the casino.
So the distance from 0 to 500 and beyound is very large.

But how about we cut that distance into half plus that we play against two extreme events.
Lets assume we only need to achive 250 units and then lower our base bet and operate with casino money.
If we succed and after that lose we will not give it all back plus and we can start over again as we don't expect to get two session of hell after each other.

Playing like that on a rolling basis against two extreme events and using regression is a way that i belive can be succesfull.

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

GLC

Ego,  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that IF your playing a progression that will cost you 500 units on a total failure, you're hoping to win 500 units before you hit a 500 unit loss.  Then you cut your bet size in half and play with the 250 units won from the casino until you've won another 250 units.  If you lose a 250 unit bank, your still up 250 units and can revert back to the first attack level expecting not to lose twice in a row.

It's like the regression progression of 1X500 - .5X500 - 1X500 - 1.5X500 - 2X500 etc...  Once you've won the first attack at 1 unit per bet, you will always be ahead after a single loss.

The goal is to win the first attack.

Wisdom says we begin our "business" with multiple banks of 500 units so that we aren't defeated with an initial loss.  If we don't need them, no harm done.

The next thought is to start with a 10 unit bet and have the following progression:  10 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 2 etc...

This puts a big risk on the first attack, but if you win it you have a lot of ammo to fight with.  By continuing to decrease your bet size, you're hedging your bet because you're expecting to have a loss soon and you don't want to give back too much.  If you have a loss at the first 3 level, you could just drop back to the 5 unit level because you're not expecting another loss back to back.  If you do have a double loss, you still have enough winnings to drop back to the 10 unit level because you're for sure not expecting to have 3 losses back to back.

Just thinking out loud.  Don't mean to get too far off your original concept.

GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

ego


Hello George - thanks for a nice reply.

There is a missunderstanding - i will write a reply later this evning.

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

Now lets say my progression coust me 500 units and i need to win 500 units to play with a smaller base bet - half the money.
For example 1 unit and 0.5 unit size.

Then i dont need to play to win 500 units and go all in to succed - i can stop when i reach 250 units and start playing with smaller base bet - half the money.
As the same progression would coust me 250 with 0.5 unit size that is half of the original 1 unit size.
That i way i cut the distance at risking play/game by half to succed.

Now if i lose my 250 with the lower base bet i break even - but if i win i win.
And if i lose i start over and face the probability to hit two sessions from hell or that two extreme events should happen twice.
This make my succes ratio higher as that would be very rare and extreme.

That is the regression part with this method.
The game is played with regular progression 1112358 12 and so on ...

So i am saying i might have a fibo progression that coust me a total of 500 units.
The minum bet size might be 6 Euro.

When i reach half - win goal - then i move on to the airball roulette wheel and play 1 Euro minimum or i can change that to a lower win target.
Then i don't need to succed to make 500 to be a winner or break even i can aim for half that distance or less to become a  winner.

Now if succed i play untill i lose and then start over - then i change the bet selection not to fail only once with a extreme event or bet selection - i have to lose twice with that sequense.
That is extreme.

That is the winning regression part.

Now as no matter when i enter the game or exit the game so will i or we allways face our personal permanenze.
Our own history of trails we play with placed bets.
The only thing that counts is our placed bets and the game we experience.

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

GLC

Ego,  I don't think we're that much different from each other.  The exact details of how you play the casino's money can vary depending on personal preference.

BTW, one of my favorite ways of playing is based on this basic concept of using the casino's money.  I start with a bank of 100 units.  First I play blackjack with a win target of 25 units.  If I win, I move to roulette and risk the 25 units on my favorite system at this time which is "Full TrioPlay tames the Mongoose".  If I win another 25 units, I go back to blackjack and risk the 50 units I've won from the casino trying to win another 25 units.  If I do, back to roulette for another attack risking 75 units to win another 25.  If I win here, I go home.

If I lose 75 units on my first attack at blackjack, I take the remaining 25 units of my 100 units buy-in and play roulette as if these 25 units were just won at blackjack and continue as per above.

Any time I have more than 100 units, those units are locked in and can't be risked on this trip.  So, if I start out with a 25 unit win at blackjack, the most I can lose on this trip is 75 units.  Any time I win 100 units so that I have 200 units, I end my session.

Also, I start a session playing on the game I lost on the last time I played.  Meaning that if I lost playing blackjack, I start tomorrow's trip on blackjack.  I've found that I don't often lose 2 attacks in a row on the same game.

I have been lucky enough to win 3 out of every 5 trips to the casino playing this way.  I don't always play all the way to a 100 unit win due to time constraints.

Any time I lose 100 units from my high point I go home. 

I rarely lose all of my buy-in and I rarely win 100 units.  Also, I only get to play once or twice a month and not every month.  It's entertainment.

I play blackjack and roulette because I don't enjoy playing roulette enough to sit there for hours watching the wheel spin.  I love progressions which don't work so well with blackjack since there's a higher loss to win ratio than with roulette.  But it's a faster game and has better overall odds.  BTW, I play full trioplay tames the mongoose on blackjack as well.

I'm so conflicted.  I need to go to conflicted anonymous.  Just kidding.

I never risk money that I can't afford to lose.  As a matter of fact, I never risk money that my wife cares if I lose.  Like I said, it's entertainment.  I've given up on the goal of finding a way to play roulette that will net me constant winnings.

Good luck to all of you who are looking for the goose that lays the golden eggs.  She isn't easy to find.  And for sure she doesn't hang around long.

Cheers,
GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

ego


Thank you GLC - that is a very nice reply :-)

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

 Well i think there is a winning method behind this methodology.
I use a progression with a total of 32 units.

Then i play twice to win 8 units and won a total of 16 units - half the progression money of 32 units.
Now i split the base bet into half and i can not lose it all back - regression part.

Session 1



Session 2



That was the easy part winning 1/4 th - twice ...
After that you play the half base bet and you can not lose it all back.

Session 3



Session 4



Session 5



Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

GLC

Very clever, Ego.  It's just a slight change of perspective from regression progressions, but it may be just enough change of perspective.  I look forward to more examples.

BTW, are you playing a bet selection method also or just the progression?

In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

TwoCatSam

 "Full TrioPlay tames the Mongoose"


George

I never knew the Mongoose needed taming. 

Sam
If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.  ...Will Rogers

GLC

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 06, 10:14 AM 2015
"Full TrioPlay tames the Mongoose"


George

I never knew the Mongoose needed taming. 

Sam

Here's a link to how to play the Mongoose.

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4339.msg40803#msg40803


Here's the fewest decisions to win playing the Mongoose progression: (WW)(W)(W).  This nets us 5 units because the 1st 2 wins is a parlay for a net of +3.  So bet 1 and Win 1 and let both units ride and W for +3.  Bet 1 and win for +3+1=+4.  Bet another 1 unit and win for +3+1+1=+5.
The next best line to win on the Mongoose is (WW)(LW)(W) for +5 units.   So bet 1 and Win 1 and let both units ride and W for +3.  Bet 1 and lose then bet 2 and win 1 for +3+1=+4.  Bet another 1 unit and win for +3+1+1=+5.

The next best line is (WW)(LW)(LLW) for +5 units.  So bet 1 and Win 1 and let both units ride and W for +3.  Bet 1 and lose then bet 2 and win 1 for +3+1=+4.  Bet another 1 unit and Lose then bet another 1 unit and lose then bet 3 units for +1 therefore +3+1+1=+5.

What I don't like about this is that we have to win more times than we lose to come out ahead.  If we could consistently do that, all we have to do is bet a flat bet.

Here's an option for +11.  (WWW)(LLW)(LLW)(LLLW)(LLLW)  As you can see, we now lose more times than we win to reach +11.  Here's how we play.

We start with a 3 stage parlay.  So 1 = 2 = 4 = 8 - 1 = =+7
Then a 3 step D'alembert:  1 and lose so 2 and lose then 4 and win for +1. Play this 2 times for +7+2=+9.
Then a 4 step D'alembert:  1 and lose so 1 and lose then 2 and lose then 5 and win for +1.  Play this 2 times for +7+2+2=+11.

Replace any W with an L and we must start over with a 1 unit bet.
The sweet thing is that we only need 7 wins vs 10 losses to win.  This is very doable.

The bummer about this tweak is that having 3 wins in a row to start the ball rolling means we don't get as many lift offs as when using the 2 stage parlay, but we win more than 2 times as much when we get to a win at the end.

Of well, nothing's perfect.

GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

-