New thoughts on betting

[GLC]

After many years of studying Roulette I have taken a little turn in my approach to the game.  This comes from gleaning all the knowledge I can from many of you and a lot of trial and error.  I won't mention any names since I don't want to leave anybody out.  The list would be too long anyway. 

This post is mostly about a betting method or two that are different from most of the progressions I have posted on the forum.  Although I have posted some that incorporate these ideas.

The first thing to say is that a steep negative progression is doomed to eventual failure as has been so eloquently stated by our dear friend Ralph.

The heart of a betting progression is how you bet after the first bet.

One general rule that many of my posted progressions violate is:  Don't increase you bets after losses!  (See exception below)

I know.  That makes most of my progressions very dangerous other than to be used as learning tools that reinforce this principle.  I wish to state that I presented all my progressions with nothing but the best of intentions.  I'm sure you all know that.  I was under the spell we mere mortals are all under when we first discover progressions in games of chance.  We want to increase our bets after losses because this is the quickest way to win back what we have lost and hopefully more than we have lost.  Actually, it's part of our human nature to be greedy and impatient.  Thus the popularity of the infamous Martingale bet method for most beginners,  Myself included.  But in the end it's a pool of quicksand and though we may get out of it most of the time, the time we can't get out is, unfortunately, not worth the little escapes along the way.

I think the best course of action is to level bet after a loss.  I have used this idea in some of my progressions, such as the Tera TNT/Full Trioplay.  This is the foundation to winning.  By not losing too much when you're losing.  I'm not saying that we never deviate from a level bet after a loss, but in the beginning of an attack, we should always level bet until our first win.

We've had our first win.  What do we do now?  This is a critical decision.
 
A flat bet is doomed to failure because of the unfair odds on the payout.  That is unless you have discovered a bet selection method that wins more bets than it loses in the long run. To date, I have yet to be convinced of such a bet selection method.

A good way to handle our 2nd bet after a win is called the reduction method.  This means that we reduce our bet after our 1st win to less than we just won.  If our base bet is 10 units and we win, our next bet will be less than 10 units.  Let's say we bet 5 units for our 2nd bet.  If we lose our 2nd bet after a win, we still have 5 units profit.  If we win two bets in a row, we will have 15 units profit.  This is a solid bet method.  If we decide to use this staking method, we can either reset to 10 units after a 15 unit win thus limiting our risk, or we can make one more bet of our base unit size.  Win or lose we return to our base bet. 

Another way is a bet that includes our base bet plus a portion of the units just won.  The weak link in most of my parlay progressions is that I recommend to let all the winnings and your original bet ride on the next bet.  The problem with this is that the odds say we have single wins twice as often as we win 2 in a row.  So we're risking all we've just won on a bet that we should expect to lose.
 
Another option for a 2nd bet after a win is to increase your bet by a portion of the amount you just won.  Let's say you just bet 10 units and won.  The next bet could be your 10 units plus any amount of your winnings.  Let's say we bet 10 units plus 5 units of our winnings.  If we win again, we will have won 25 units which is 5 units more than two losses at 10 units.  I like that because it means that we lost 2 bets and won 2 bets and came out ahead by 5 units.  This satisfies the cardinal rule for being a winner which is that we must win more when we win than we lose when we lose.

If you want to bet what I think is the most basic, safest way to bet, then you flat bet while losing and you bet 150% of your bet size after the first win.  Return to the base bet after the second bet whether you win or lose.  You always return to your base bet after a loss or 2 wins in a row.

(Exception to the rule to not increase bet size after a loss:  If you insist on a negative progression, limit it to 1-2.  If you can't win betting 1-2 with your bet selection, then you can't win with any negative progression.  Why 1-2?  We win most of our wins on the 1st or the 2nd bet.  If both lose, it's better to cut our losses rather than to chase them.)

I'm sure this is not my final conclusion regarding bet methods, but it's where I'm at now.
 
I hope it stirs some responses and at least causes many of you to rethink how you risk your money.

Cheers,

GLC

[Ralph]

The way we chose, has much to do where we play.  If the wheel has two zeros and a min bet of 5 dollars, we have to do it different. Best is to switch to a wheel having at least one zero less. In some places that means min bet of 25 dollars or a one  zero wheel is not to find.


If we can access a NOZ with very low min bet, we can play using other methods. The long run winning is hard at 00-wheel and high min bet. 


One reason in Europe many play EC is the fact, it is one zero and surrender, which cut the HE down to 1.3%. I think in Nevada a lot more go for craps and blackjack.
An other reason they pick EC, is that  we are forced to tip on inside winnings, it is as a second zero.


If I have to place any bet on an 00 wheel I would do a few bets only, probably a split between the zeros.


At BV we can play 00-wheel with fair odds, fun to get 38 chips back. In demo I think all can try , even if they can not accept players from everywhere, but that's an internal US problem, protecting the 00-wheel, i think.

[Ralph]

Some negative progression players, use the labby, as it is 1/3 of the bets which has to be won. I know them use a short marty of two bets and count it as one in the labby.


0011 can be start.


Bet one, if win cross out in the labby if lose bet 2, if win cross at the labby, if lose add  3 at the end and bet 3 chips.


I have not practice  it  much  myself, but my friend says it is working better, and shorten the labby.


Still sky is the limit, a large loss can happen.

[TwoCatSam]

George

It takes some real honesty to say that your former direction was not the best.  Most folks cling to their beliefs right into the proverbial coffin.  Kudos to you for your post.

I am almost with you on your thought that there is no bet that will win flat betting.  I may have to change my mind, also.  And I will.  If and when the time comes.

I read your post carefully and I feel you're right except for one thing.  A win, then a loss.  What about those times when you get a dump truck full of losses right off the bat.  It could take forever to recover.  Thus, a bot.

Come up with an idea and I'll pay to bot in the ExcelBot and we'll see what it does.

Good man, GLC!

Sam

[ignatus]

Very interesting progression ideas.


Thanks GLC! 

[Turner]

This is why I read everything "GLC"


You change with the times. You realise you were probably not quite there and change.


Change and admitting you may of not been quite right is key to improving.


Another one for my GLC bookshelf.


And by the way, its how I play, but I will sometimes play a progression after a win even if I am down a bit. Waiting until you are back in profit until you pos.progress after a win is also mechanical, in a way.

[Chris555p]

Hi George
Thanks for your post and for sharing your thoughts with us. I read all you post to learn new ideas
and hopefully avoiding making same errors over and over.....

Cheers
Chris

[know when to quit]

Interesting

[GreatGrampa]

If you want to bet what I think is the most basic, safest way to bet, then you flat bet while losing and you bet 150% of your bet size after the first win.  Return to the base bet after the second bet whether you win or lose.  You always return to your base bet after a loss or 2 wins in a row.

Exactly what Brett Morton preaches. Exactly what he claims to have followed on his challenge on converting 100Units to 4000 units. The only thing is he believes in trends and if he is on a winning trend, he then further increases the bet size by 50%. So it goes something like 2units, 3, 4, 6, 9..... on winning. 

[GLC]

Exactly what Brett Morton preaches. Exactly what he claims to have followed on his challenge on converting 100Units to 4000 units. The only thing is he believes in trends and if he is on a winning trend, he then further increases the bet size by 50%. So it goes something like 2units, 3, 4, 6, 9..... on winning.

GG,  If you search the forum, you will see that I posted a review of Brett Morton's book.  He has paved the way for a lot of my thinking.  I'm just glad that I'm old enough to learn from his mistakes.

Assuming that he really does win 4 out of 5 trips to the casino, he obviously has something to say that's worth listening to. 

Converting 100 units into 4,000 units 4 times using different playing strategies is pretty impressive also.

What say you about his book?

Respectfully,

GLC

[Big EZ]

Negative progressions are great if you know your bet selection....


If I KNOW FOR A FACT that my worst case scenario is losing 10 bets in a row after testing thousands and thousands of placed bets and passing the Van Keelen test and I incorporate extra leeway for an event I have never seen and can also stay within table limits then how is it a bad thing or doomed to fail?

[GLC]

I like the way you think, BigEZ.  I recently had one of those steaks that I've never had in any of my testings.  Cut my stack of winnings from last year in about half.  Oh well.  If I take my own advice and only consider 5-10% of my winnings as real winnings, then I'm still way up.  Yippee!!


Good luck to ya,


GLC

[Ralph]

Negative progressions are great if you know your bet selection....


If I KNOW FOR A FACT that my worst case scenario is losing 10 bets in a row after testing thousands and thousands of placed bets and passing the Van Keelen test and I incorporate extra leeway for an event I have never seen and can also stay within table limits then how is it a bad thing or doomed to fail?

We have just avoid 10 losing in a row due to luck. No bet selection can guarantee it will never happen. A lucky streak can easy get us feeling we have a working strategy. It works as long it works.
It can pass a million spin. Every method can, depends on the numbers fallen.
We can work out a series of numbers which make any betselection fail, and such a series are of course not impossible to get.
There is an enormous number of way to write a million number, and the last tested will never show again, that's the reason we do not see a million of number seven, even if it is as likely and unique as the last tested.


That said, it take some time playing a million spins, and it can happen we are successful, but that  by chance. Some can run for long without losing. The probabillity is low, but not impossible.


If 10000000  million players plays, a few will make a very high number of winnings in a row, a few will not have a winning spin until the bankroll is gone, the average player will  all lose slow, some will stop at a time, with plus.


We will have about the same result using any bet selection.

[Big EZ]

Ralph....


I respectfully do not agree with you.  How can you say something is luck when it has beaten a test multiple times that proves if you have an advantage with a flat bet? 


I did not say 10 losses in a row will never happen. In my testings it happens so rarely that I feel comfortable designing a progression/MM around a 20 loss worst case scenario because I am confident I will not lose the bankroll.  Can I lose 20 in a row? Sure its possible but VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY. And thats why I have multiplied my bankroll many times over and feel secure when I enter a casino prepared to do battle.

[rouletteKEY]

I'm with EZ (and Ralph)
Testing is the basis for profitable play and although you can never be certain of a future outcome if you have tested religously and know your odds of success and are comfortable with the progression to a certain point...play it out...testing is the real work in this game.  If you aren't gonna trust the odds (odds in regard to your testing) it's tough to make money.  Testing gives you the confidence (real or perceived) to make the bets that pay the real money..flip side... it causes you to make the bets that take you down in flames too.
But...if you use your stop-losses and your bet selection and money magement has proven to make good bank...then you can sustain a loss or two along the way if it plays out that way.  Gotta keep the real prize in mind and a daily loss is a daily loss so long as it doesn't become a weekly loss and then a monthly loss and eventually an annual loss.
Test thoroughly...and play it like you know it needs to be played.  Every once in a while you get bit...it's gambling...just like everything else in life.  Educated guesses are made with the information available at the time and then modified as necessary.