Progressions

[Scarface]

I have a question for those of you that use progressions.  Is it better to use a negative or positive progression?

Let's say you were betting for the last dozen to repeat.  Would you raise your bet after 3 consecutive misses?  Or would it be better to to wait until you get a hit after 3 misses, and then raise your bet?  If your dozen bet did not hit for 10 or more spins, a negative progression could get quite expensive.

I've seen that variance can be against you for awhile.  Based on my experience, waiting for a hit before increasing your bet is a better option, especially if your bet selection is cold.  Seems to me like wins generally cluster in small groups after a long period of loss.

Ideally, I know it's better/safer to flatbet.  Just wondering if anyone has actually test negative vs positive progression.

[FreeRoulette]

In my opinion, increasing your bet as you win is best.

Left unchecked, both are losers. So if you have to cut and run, it is better to cut out on a profit than a loss.

[RouletteGhost]

Ive been playing roulette for years now

In my experience hit and run is best with systems, not progressions

[denzie]

Negative progression is a disaster waiting to happen. I think we can agree on that.

Positive progression makes you win bigger and faster. But just as negative progression it can put you in the hole too.

Flat is the way (I think    )

[Tamino]

Scarface,



If you lost   at any single dozen 3 times in a row then get your tochas  away from that table .


There are better bet selections.

[Scarface]

Thanks for the replies guys.  Think flatbet is the consensus, and positive progression a little better than negative 

Progressions are not a disaster due to the house edge, but mainly because of the varience.  If betting a dozen were to show up 1 in 3 times we would still lose on the 0, but could easily overcome that with a progression.  It's the varience that makes progressions dangerous.

So if there was a way to reduce variance, progressions might not be so bad.  In a closed system game with 1 wheel, I don't see how that is possible.  But I was wondering, what if I were playing several different wheels?  My casino allows betting simultaneously on 3 different wheels. 

Math guys help me out here.  I know it won't do anything for the house edge.  Just want to know if playing more several games at once reduce variance?

[Scarface]

Are there any other ways to reduce variance?  In the short term, variance is what causes you to lose (or win).  In 30 spins, 75% reds vs 25% blacks could be common.  But over 200 or 300 spins, that would be extremely rare.

To reduce variance, just play more spins as things will start to "equal" out better.  But as you play longer, the 2.7% house edge becomes your enemy.  Couldn't a progression still overcome this?  I'm not suggesting raise your bets every spin.  I'm thinking of something alot slower/gradual...maybe increase bet once every 20, 30, or 50 spins.  In theory, wouldn't this work?

[MrJ]

The other thing regarding a positive progression, thats too vague.

Up one on a win but down TWO (not one) on a loss. Granted, dont forget, if you get on a real bad stretch, the lowest you are gonna be able to go to is the table min. bet.

Ken

[psimoes]

Are there any other ways to reduce variance?

There´s only one way to reduce variance: bet more numbers.

[Tamino]

Nathan Detroit`s take on progressions

Negative progressions: NEVER

Two columns or 2 dozens  : Play flat

EC  Up and Pull progression ( positive) . recommended .



Play at your own risk.

[Scarface]

Nathan Detroit`s take on progressions

Negative progressions: NEVER

Two columns or 2 dozens  : Play flat

EC  Up and Pull progression ( positive) . recommended .



Play at your own risk.

Good advice 

[DoctorSudoku]

Negative progressions: NEVER

Absolutely, totally agree with that.

[Steve]

Both have merit if you have an edge to begin with.  But when you have an edge, having the shortest session possible is important to avoid detection so positive progression is more useful.

If you have no edge, then all you have is negative expectation bets on different spins with different bet size

[Scarface]

The house edge doesn't concern me too much.  If numbers hit like they were expected to according to probability, then even a small progression could EASILY overcome that.  I see the 2.7% edge like a small tax for playing the game.  Variance is responsible for most losses.  But, not so sure if there is anyway to reduce variance.  I don't know the best solution for this.

[psimoes]

Variance on a fair wheel is what it is. It´s always there. At some level it´s really nothing to worry about. If there was no variance in 37 spins all 37 numbers would have hit. There would be no game.

It´s what makes repeaters repeat.

When luck is on your side you have the chance of winning 35 units before you waste an identical amount on losing bets. When it´s not, you lose more than you win, because the House Edge.

To reduce variance you just bet more numbers. The price you pay is increasingly smaller wins and bigger losses. A double-dozen always hits more than a single dozen. But when it wins it´s only one unit and when it loses it loses two units. It´s as simple as that. There is no other way. Outside AP, any "bet selection" that promises less than usual variance without betting more numbers is either foolishness or a lie.