Critique this! Please.

[GLC]

Bayes and all other punters.

Here's a modified martingale that I call "pay as you play."  I'm sure you've seen my amateurish attempt at a system using this idea.

Will you please critique this progression and the idea behind it?

If lose      Bet amount      If win
-1                  1                1
-3                  2                1
-7                  4                1
-15                8                1
-30                15              0
-55                25              -5
-100              45              -10
-180              80              -20
-320              140            -40
-560              240            -80
-960              400            -160
-1600            640            -320
-2560            960            -640

As you know a true martingale loses 8167 units if it loses 13 times in a row.

Is there any value to my modified martingale or is it just bells and whistles?

GLC

[nitrix]

A real martingale will recover all previous losses with a single win. If I got it right, on the last level, yours will need 2 wins to get back your losses.

I don't mind but losing 13 times in a row isn't "that" rare. It sounds more dangerous than martingale, except with less money involved, but still dangerous.

Strictly speaking, the further you are in the progression, the less risks you should take because you can't tolerate losing more money. But in the early stages, you can afford losing... yet your system rewards only one unit for trying.

Its not my style of play; though I made a constructive post here. Maybe it can give people food for toughts.

[GLC]

Nitrix,  Thanks for your observations.

Actually, you gave me a new thought.  This is really a martingale in the beginning and then it converts to a fibonacci toward the later bets.  Since it wasn't set up with that in mind the numbers aren't optimal, but I will make some adjustments.  I kind of like the idea of winning twice in a row to recover.  It's at least something else to explore to keep my mind busy for a while.

GLC

[iggiv]

the only "progression" which may really help in EC game, is a "regression".

like 2,1,2 ...(on a win)

on a win u regress. there is a great idea behind it. if u won one time, then there is a chance that u will lose next time, but there is also a chance that u r on winning streak. this kind of "progression" takes care of both of those cases.

[nitrix]

Now it's iggiv's turn to make me think, eheh!
I'll let you know if I can come up with something.

Just wondering, have you had any good experiences with flat blets?
I play at BetVoyager where's there's no Zero roulette.

I played a good system that made quite some money with flat bets there.
Seriously, it works GREAT, but it took 11 days for my bot to give good results.
It's really not practical. For now it's the best I have tho, but it simply turned 5$ into 20$.

What are your preferences? I've always been interested by the 2-1-2 progressions but I don't understand what mathematical advantage it gives you.

It sounds to me like you take a chance, and if you win, you lock in your profits... but wouldn't the win/loss ratio be the same in the long run?

I need something that has a very VERY small advantage, even if it's barely noticable (anybody heard of red/odd bets, or black/even? Does it works?)... then I can exploit it exponentially.

[iggiv]

i can give u a few names: Brett Morton, Lee Tutor, Kimo Li, John Patrick. lots of Kimo Li's stuff u can find  online in the old vls forum as well. But Kimo Li is different from others. He uses wheel layout movements.

as for regression and other stuff, the other 3 pros use it in their books as much as i remember

[Bayes]

George, in my opinion this kind of progression is madness. 


I avoid all forms of "canned" progression, preferring to adapt my MM as and when conditions change at the table. By "conditions" I mean: the number losses vs wins, where I am in relation to my target (in terms of profit per spin) and the state of my bankroll.

The regressive bet is effective because it locks in wins, but as a rule I avoid positive progressions, although I've used a version of Oscar's grind in the past. You need reasonably long winning streaks to get anywhere with a positive progression, and they just can't be relied on to materialise.

Increasing stakes after a loss and decreasing after a win gives you a ratchet effect, as in the D'Alembert, but the standard D'Alembert doesn't work because it doesn't have the leverage to pull you out when you hit an extended sequence of losses. It doesn't maintain the % as the stakes increase. For example, raising from 1 unit to 2 is a 100% increase, but when you're betting 10 units and increase to 11 units only gives you a 10% increase.

The Labby (Labouchere) can work well, but in its usual form is dangerous. There's a modified version using divisors which keeps stakes much lower. It's a bit off-topic so I'll post it in a new thread.

[monaco]

I've used a combination of regression/positive recently - 2-1-2-2-3-3-4-4-6-6 etc
1st win, then regress, if win again then move into a Guetting, which allows the odd loss while still moving up in the progression.

[Tamino]

This  is  the  2-1-2  up and pull regression system , a very powerful tool  if played properly.
Highly recommended by John Patrick.

Tamino
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

[GLC]

Thanks guys.

All good stuff.

GLC

[iggiv]

This  is  the  2-1-2  up and pull regression system , a very powerful tool  if played properly.
Highly recommended by John Patrick.

Tamino
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

yep. but he is not alone recommending this one!

[Tamino]

How often can one expect a run of  5 of either Black or  Red ? In the average 7 % . That`s  why it`s best to wrap up  the wins in the first 3 stages or  ride out an early  chop with thw 2-1-2.


Tamino
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!



P.S.   . N.D.