I was reading M. silverthorne's material and he presented a test comparing flat betting to a positive progression and a negative progression.
The test was to determine the probability of losing a certain size bankroll within a certain number of games.
The computer simulated a coin toss with a 1% house advantage factored in.
The flat bet was $25.
The positive progression was 10-20-40-80 and continue to bet 80 until a loss then back to 10.
The negative progression was 10-20-40-80 and continue to bet 80 until a win then back to 10.
A game equaled 100 bets.
The chart went from a $250 bankroll playing 100 games, to a $2000 bankroll playing 750 games.
At a $250 bank for 100 games the flatbet had a 69% chance of not losing all $250. The positive progression had a 66% chance and the negative progression had a 56% chance of not losing the $250.
At a $2000 bank for 750 games (that's 750 games of 100 bets = 75,000 bets) the flat bet had a 99% chance of not losing all $2000 and the positive progression a 98% chance and the negative progression had a 94% chance of not losing all $2000.
I have an observation. It seems to me that if we want to increase our likelihood of not losing our entire bankroll, we should attack the game with a large bankroll.
He had another chart that showed that playing with a negative progression won 85 times out of 100 whereas flat betting only won like 40 times and a positive progression only won 10 times out of 100.
All I'm pointing out is that with a large enough bankroll, using a negative progression and a controlled bet selection method we might have the best odds of beating this game of roulette.
All opposing views welcome as well as supporting views.
GLC
I agree, which is why I'm obsessed with Winkel's "win as much as you want," which, when played on the BV European wheel (which has a spread of 1:150,000 {.01E-1500E}), can ignore the usual limiting factor of table limits; only the player's bankroll limits how far the negative progression can go.
I have an observation. It seems to me that if we want to increase our likelihood of not losing our entire bankroll, we should attack the game with a large bankroll.
I agree on that.
With any system the bad fluxuations will happen soon or later. so with a small BR we can t stand a chance to overcome those fluxuations.
"I have an observation. It seems to me that if we want to increase our likelihood of not losing our entire bankroll, we should attack the game with a large bankroll" >>> No way? You have to have enough money for the peaks and valleys of the game. You can *NOT* *NOT* walk into the casino with $300, sorry.
Ken
Mathematically, you have slight edge (playing roulette ECs) using a negative progression rather than a positive one. This makes sense when you think about it, because in the long run you will get more losses than wins, and if a win is less likely than a loss, raising your stake AFTER a win means you're more likely to lose any gain in the next spin. Anyone who has played positive progressions knows this; they just don't work well on choppy tables, which constitute the majority of sequences.
Also, the zero breaks winning streaks, which is what the positive progression needs to succeed. You might do better on Baccarat where the HA comes from a tax on banker, rather than a "full" lost bet which destroys your winning run.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 05, 03:14 AM 2011
You might do better on Baccarat where the HA comes from a tax on banker, rather than a "full" lost bet which destroys your winning run.
No question here. Play for the chop in Baccarat using a positive prog for 5 and you'll find excellent results.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Sep 05, 07:59 AM 2011
No question here. Play for the chop in Baccarat using a positive prog for 5 and you'll find excellent results.
i think playing for the single to form is one of the best bet selections you'll find on the ec's. Mix with a mild negative progression. Bit of a comfort to see Bayes say might actually be advisable to play a negative over positive prog on them.
@Wally - would you wait for a chop before betting the chop to continue?
@monaco,
I play using 2 factors: (1) a single to form, because it exceeds any other bet selection in a shoe, and (2) a shoe has a finite number of hands, so make good on your strategy in short term increments. I don't play from one shoe into another.
Hope that helps.
For 'shoe', i suppose we can maybe substitute 'cycle' in terms of roulette..
Thanks Wally - food for thought.