Rules :
After 1st Win : Bet LTD+ 1 (Loss to date plus 1 unit)
If Lose then Double bet twice (so 3 bets total) before retreating back to minimum
Example :
L bet minimum until win (1)
L '' '' (1)
W '' '' (1)
L bet LTD +1 (2 units)
L double bet (4)
L double bet (8 units-stop here)
W retreat back to minimum (1)
W bet LTD (14)
Losing streak would be the following : WLLLWLLLWLLLWLLL
See attached file for more info........
1600 spins
Max bet : 551 units
Total : +373
This is a simplified version of the Target Betting System. Takes balls and a large bankroll. The author suggests enough for 1-5000 unit bet. That would get you about 13 losses in a row.. I found 9 in a row here in the horror sequence. :thumbsup:
Target betting is great fun but is just a martingale hidden around some extra rules....to simplify play virtually for a w and bet for a second win with a marty
l
l
w
l -1
l
w
l-2
l
w
w +4=+1
Quote from: Tomla021 on Aug 05, 12:03 AM 2015
Target betting is great fun but is just a martingale hidden around some extra rules....to simplify play virtually for a w and bet for a second win with a marty
l
l
w
l -1
l
w
l-2
l
w
w +4=+1
Already tried that. The WLWLWLWL... will easily destroy it. The 3 win (Martingale) is much more resilient. Not foolproof, but it's early days yet. :)
is this the seth bet--I have to re read
Quote from: Tomla021 on Aug 05, 08:24 PM 2015
is this the seth bet--I have to re read
Not sure what the seth bet is........it's from the
Target Betting Blog
link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/ (link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/) yeah seth wrote that -- i used to email w him
Quote from: Tomla021 on Aug 05, 10:02 PM 2015
link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/ (link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/) yeah seth wrote that -- i used to email w him
Got it!
He has a ton of research, but a 1-5000 unit betting range is pretty steep. :question:
Quote from: thelaw on Aug 05, 11:43 PM 2015
He has a ton of research, but a 1-5000 unit betting range is pretty steep. :question:
Very scary indeed. :ooh:
More Testing to be published by the end of the week :thumbsup:
im sure it will do well ----its just a scary bet lol....looking forward to reading it
Ok. So I've spent the past week testing the Target Betting system in a myriad of different incarnations. It beat the "horror" sequence and 4/5 Spielbank records before it hit the 5000 unit max bet. Please note that this was using the conservative approach, and not even the more aggressive system promoted by the author.
The basic premise is that you use a Martingale (called Loss to Date or LTD) to catch-up as your bets become larger with several built-in brakes to keep you from going all-in and losing your bankroll while making small profits along the way (which is very effective).
The main problem with this system boils down to one statement that pops up again and again on the blog, which is basically "don't stay at a losing table" with no specifics on how to execute this plan. So when are we supposed to jump to another table? After 1 loss? 5 losses? After losing a certain amount? :question:
As for the system itself, it has the same flaw as every other Martingale: as bets become too high, you risk losing your bankroll. The way that the author deals with this is to limit the Marti to 5000 units and hold until you are ahead.
Now. I want to be very clear, this might actually work long term, but what type of bankroll would you need to survive. Let's say you just get behind a few max bets plus what you've already spent; you might be in for $20,000 (on a $1 minimum table). Pretty steep :ooh:
I've included the "horror sequence" of 1600 spins for the curious.
After studying the game for years, this system has come closer than any other to actually beating the game with a progression, so this will be my main focus moving forward. I'll post more info as my research continues. :thumbsup:
For more info, check out the Target Betting blog and refer to the 3-Play system.
Just our of interest how common is a 1-5000 limit at a B&M casino ?
Say the minimum is $/£10 for an EC bet, that means a $/£50,000 table limit correct ?
O0
Correct.
The author claims that you can just jump to a higher-limit table because the math is all the same (nothing is due).
The problem with this is that I already hit the 5000 max just 2000 spins into my test..........always a bad sign.
It does, however present an interesting question: How would any system work if you had a 1-5000 betting range? I bet I could get a Labby to pass 10000 spins with that range (I think my largest dd was around 1000). :question:
Quote from: thelaw on Aug 11, 08:42 PM 2015
Correct.
The author claims that you can just jump to a higher-limit table because the math is all the same (nothing is due).
The problem with this is that I already hit the 5000 max just 2000 spins into my test..........always a bad sign.
It does, however present an interesting question: How would any system work if you had a 1-5000 betting range? I bet I could get a Labby to pass 10000 spins with that range (I think my largest dd was around 1000). :question:
I know you have tested it & kinda like it, but surely your going to need a BR out of your range (apologies if that assumption is incorrect) just to even start playing it ?
Surely it's too great a range for anybody to consider playing it ?
O0
Not necessarily.
If I could find a way to limit the max bet to 5000 units only in extreme circumstances, you could reasonably get away with $10,000.
But, then again, the Labby has performed better with max dd, not to mention the Divisor System.
Also, keep in mind there are many ways to play this : Horse-racing/Sports Betting/Greyhounds/etc...... :thumbsup:
Quote from: thelaw on Aug 11, 09:08 PM 2015
Not necessarily.
If I could find a way to limit the max bet to 5000 units only in extreme circumstances, you could reasonably get away with $10,000.
But, then again, the Labby has performed better with max dd, not to mention the Divisor System.
Also, keep in mind there are many ways to play this : Horse-racing/Sports Betting/Greyhounds/etc...... :thumbsup:
Well I know that kinda spread is too rich for my blood.......
Good luck to Ya !!!
O0
Update : The Grail requires Balls!!!
With now around 2500 spins tested, the Target Betting Progression holds up using 3-play rules if you apply the Labouchere Progression to the LTD (Martingale aspect) of the system. This does, however, mean that you will be making bets approaching the 5000 unit mark at times with a minimum bankroll of 10,000 units to start.
I will continue posting test results starting tomorrow with the updated "horror sequence" until I find a losing game. :thumbsup:
Here are a few Spielbank tests :
***E/C - no special bet selection - Please note that I chose the color with the lowest showing for bet selection***
03.08.2015 Table #3
Spins : #366
Largest Draw-down : 00
Total : +393 units
------------------------------
01.08.2015 Table #2
Spins : #188
Largest Draw-down : -138
Total : +136 units
------------------------------
02.08.2015 Table #3
Spins : #248
Largest Draw-down : -05
Total : +226 units
------------------------------
04.07.2015 Table #2
Spins : #192
Largest Draw-down : -293
Total : +101 units
Spins Tested : #2829
***Updated Strategy in previous posts beat the horror sequence, but I still need to key it in. Should have it in a few days***
More tests :
14.08.2015 Table #2
Spins : #235
Largest Draw-down : 00
Total : +262 units
Thought that I would add this for clarification as I am adjusting some of the rules from the original system.
3-Play Losing Sequence directly from blog looks like this without adjustments :
L 4
L 12
L 24
W nb
L 48
L 96
L 192
W nb
L 384
L 768
L 1536
W nb
L 3072
L 5000 (max bet cap)
L 5000
W
L 5000
L 5000
L 5000 (30,000 cap bank-a little over actually)
Just a basic extended Martingale. I've added the 30,000 unit cap as the author claims that you will not hit that ceiling in 1000s of spins because you will always get ahead once you get into the 5000 unit betting series.
I would further extend the Martingale and double the bank if you hit a 30,000 unit loss with a new 60,000 bank and all units doubled. The goal would be to hit 30,000 units before failure. Great risk, but great reward.
My banks would be as follows :
30,000
60,000
120,000 (still allows less than a 25,000 unit bet)
I'm now looking for this specific pattern through the Spielbank archives. So far dozens of days with no pattern.
Please let me know if anyone finds this pattern.
Thanks! :)
Final Post : Conclusion
After testing this system for around 3000 spins, and reading all of the author's blog posts regarding the system, there appear to be too many risks vs reward with this method.
Here are my issues :
-Author claims that you can just jump from one table to another if betting limits are reached, but I quickly found several situations where you lost 9 double-up bets in a row (3 ltd bets then retreat x 3), indicating that it would be easy to hit that same problem when you jump to the next table-leaving you with 18 losses in a row=complete loss of bankroll
-If the author plays the hit-and-run method, then you are still at risk of multiple session losses in a row destroying your bankroll ( a session loss in this scenario would be 3 losses in a row before retreating)
-Even adjusting the ltd (loss to date) aspect of the method, you are still left with either needing to win more than you lose, or not lose too many bets in a row to recover properly
Bottom Line : Too Many Holes to Play Effectively :sad2:
The author is misrepresented if you are saying he jumps tables as an aspect of hit-and-run. He jumps if stopped by table limits, jumping to other casinos/venues with higher limits. The author does not jump to the kind of conclusions you've jumped to between your last and second-to last post.
Quote from: Still on Aug 20, 11:42 AM 2015
The author is misrepresented if you are saying he jumps tables as an aspect of hit-and-run. He jumps if stopped by table limits, jumping to other casinos/venues with higher limits. The author does not jump to the kind of conclusions you've jumped to between your last and second-to last post.
Agreed. He does, however, imply multiple times on his blog that you should leave the table if the trend is not going your way, as opposed to riding the Martingale into the ground.
Not sure what "conclusions" that you are referring to that I jumped to using actual results from Spielbank. The system that he presents tanks pretty quickly.
If you have a clarification of some aspect of the system claimed by the author available on the blog, I'd love to hear it.from the blog :
"Whenever you feel uncomfortable or threatened in a given location, move and take your NB/LTD numbers to a new layout ("the math" will be unaffected).".
"Anyone who has ever gambled in a casino for more than an hour or two knows the value of taking a break when a prolonged losing streak sets in, and listening to a combination of experience and gut feelings that signal when a change of scene is needed."