using a progression and ending up flatbetting?

[hanshuckebein]

hi folks,

at the moment I'm fumbling around with some sort of long and save progression for the even chances.

I'm in the middle of testing. after about 700 spinns I've taken a look at the statistics RX gives. it shows that even I've raised the bets according to my rules, my average unit size is 1 (please see attachement).

so how would you call this? is it progressional- or flatbetting? or maybe progressional flatbetting? 

I'm confused ...

cheers

hans

[superman]

I would run a long long, 1000's of spins test just flatbetting if it was me, I do that always before going through all the different progression methods, marty, fibo etc and ending up with a labby.

That way also gives you an overall picture of different sessions played, are you running against RX's own in built random or a set of results on file, I dont use RX anymore I just run the bot straight against the wheel, be it RNG or live and start with flat betting then add some progression methods to find the best scenario, if there is one that is.

Good luck

[iggiv]

Hi folks,

at the moment I'm fumbling around with some sort of long and save progression for the even chances.

I'm in the middle of testing. after about 700 spinns I've taken a look at the statistics RX gives. it shows that even I've raised the bets according to my rules, my average unit size is 1 (please see attachement).

so how would you call this? is it progressional- or flatbetting? or maybe progressional flatbetting? 

I'm confused ...

cheers

hans

i believe that on a long run progression does not help, it can make things worse. but if a progression is short with stop-loss, it would not harm much either, it may help achieve your goals faster. Say u make a win goal 10%, which is realistic. with short progression u may achieve it sometimes faster than with flatbets.

[hanshuckebein]

Hi guys,

thanks for your replies.  

I tried to do what supermann recommended.

testing material were 1000 live spins from casino hamburg on a european wheel. zero was counted as a total loss. I used the simple bet selection of just betting red.

the wheel gave 436 reds, 447 blacks and 25 zeroes.

using my progression I made it up to 908 spins. then it got busted leaving me with a total loss of 9,5 units. just flatbetting resulted in a loss of 40 units.

well, I've got one or two tweaks in mind. maybe they could improve something.

of course I will reveal my approach after some more testing. so don't worry. this is not going to be yet another "hinting people to death" threat.   all I need is a little more time.

cheers

hans

[GLC]

Here's some thoughts about progressions vs flat betting.  This may be basic stuff for you guys, but there may be some guests and new members who haven't thought about this.

A limited martingale (let's use a 5 step 1-2-4-8-16) is a popular bet progression method.  The reason is that if we can avoid a series of 6 losses in a row we make steady profits.  To stay ahead we must have more than 31 winning series under 6 losses in a row.  If we're betting Red every spin, the odds say that we will have 6 losses in a row, on average, once every 29 or 30 wins of our marty, causing us to lose by the house edge.  With no zero, it would be once every 31 wins causing us to break even.  The odds of this staying so even is remote.  Usually we win a lot more units before a loss takes 31 back or we lose 31 before we win enough to stay ahead.

Alembert, on the other hand, is based on the idea of increasing by 1 unit after each loss; decreasing by 1 unit after each win.  If the wins vs losses remains fairly even in occurrence, we win 1 unit for every loss/win.  The thing that kills Alembert is when we have a prolonged sequence with higher than average losses and our units keep increasing until we either lose our bankroll or we lose our nerve or we, heaven forbid this, we reach the table limit.

Depending on the spins, a Marty could win a session and an Alembert lose it or vice versa.

I have found that no matter what progression we use, as long as there is a spin that can cause us to lose, and there always is unless someone has the H.G., there is always the possibility that enough of those spins will hit close enough together to cause us to crash.

The way I see it, when using a progression, we are trying to stay alive long enough to win our target.  There is always some luck involved to be a winner in the long run.  When we are having bad luck, nothing we do works.  When we are having good luck, we almost get the feeling that we're supposed to win every time.  Most of the time, we are in the middle somewhere.

I think the idea of half-peak is good with Alembert.  This idea says that after we reach a certain amount in the hole, let's say 20 units, if we ever get back to 10 units down, we take the loss and re-set to 1 unit.  If we reach -20 units and never get back to -10 units we reset at any point when we are about half of our maximum deficit.  This is a calculated move to try to prevent us from losing everything.

With the marty, I use the idea of levels to try to recover losses.  If I lose at 1-2-4-8-16 (-31) I start betting 2-4-8-16-32 until I have recovered 16 units.  I then drop back down to 1-2-4-8-16 to recover the other 15 units.  I have found that if I try to recover all 31 units at the higher level, I often lose at the higher level before fully recovered.  When things are going close to average, this keeps me winning at decent rate.  If things are going bad, nothing seems to work.  We have to be ready to take a loss when it's necessary.

Re: flatbetting.  I think the best way to flatbet is according to the bread winner idea.  Flat bet for a certain number of spins, say 10, and if you are down more than a couple of units, raise your flat bet a little and bet another 10 spins.  If down some more, raise it again.  If recovered, go back to 1 unit.  This is a little more aggressive than a pure flat-bet, but not nearly as aggressive as Alembert or even +2-2.  When your losses vs wins is really out of whack, this will cause you to lose much slower than Alembert, howbeit, faster than a pure flat bet.  But when your losses vs wins come back into balance, it will recover at a much faster pace and even move into the win status while a pure flat bet is still in minus territory.

Just some things to think about re: flatbets and progressions.

G

[hanshuckebein]

hi GLC, 

I totally agree with you that if you use whatever kind of progression you also need a reasonable bet selection. it's the sad truth that an absolute progression that could beat the game on its own hasn't been found yet  and probably never will be.

there are two roulette scientists who invented what they call "unbeatable progressions". one is Kurt von Haller, the other Fritz Werntgen. I tested von Haller's approach on RX and .... lost. if I had played this in a casino I would have lost an awful lot of money. Werntgen's progression I have never tested.

as you wrote, a progression could help us to stay longer in the game or help us to reach a win target earlier. still, in my opinion the more agressive a progression the sooner it might help to reach the target or get busted. as I'm not the andventuress type they always remind me of balancing close to the brink of disaster.

that's why I prefer long and save progression that would produce only small wins in longer times of play. with them you have al least time to see disaster coming and can react. as grandpa always used to say: as long as you don't lose there's always room for winnings." 

cheers

hans