Heresy? Or fact?

[esoito]

Something to ponder:

If you have a 'gentle' staking system (no aggrrrrrrrrrrrrressive progressions) then, basically, it doesn't really matter all that much about which particular numbers you bet on.

That thought developed as I read Victor's ATILA Money Management post.

Whaddya reckon?

[ThomasGrant]

Something to ponder:

If you have a 'gentle' staking system (no aggrrrrrrrrrrrrressive progressions) then, basically, it doesn't really matter all that much about which particular numbers you bet on.

That thought developed as I read Victor's ATILA Money Management post.

Whaddya reckon?

Do you have the link for Victor's ATILA Money Management post?

[furple]

I think this is it Thomas.

link:://rouletteforum.cc/money-management/the-atila-money-management/msg478/

[Bayes]

Something to ponder:

If you have a 'gentle' staking system (no aggrrrrrrrrrrrrressive progressions) then, basically, it doesn't really matter all that much about which particular numbers you bet on.

Actually, this is the exact opposite of what is recommended according to the maths. In a game like roulette (or any other which has a long-term mathematical negative expectation), to be "bold" is best, and to be timid is worst. The optimum staking for roulette is actually the martingale (or something similarly aggressive)

This is because "gentle" staking plans increase the amount of bets you make (you're at the table for longer before making a profit) and this increases your exposure to the house edge. If you have a positive expectation, the reverse is true (to be timid is best).

So Ken has it right with his progressions. 

Personally, I don't believe staking is enough on its own to win long-term, you need some way to shorten the length of those losing runs.

[Twisteruk]

I really do enjoy reading your posts Bayes   

[esoito]

"...you need some way to shorten the length of those losing runs. "

Hmmm...that would be an interesting thread. Any takers?

[VLS]

"...you need some way to shorten the length of those losing runs. "

Hmmm...that would be an interesting thread. Any takers?

Getting the flat-betting edge?

More edge = less theoretical dispersion, right?