How unlucky can you be?

[GLC]

Play this on "even chance" bets of any game including but not limited to Roulette.
Any time you reach a new high bank, you can reset to #1.

#1:  Flat bet until you are +3 units or -5 units.  If you reach +3, go to #1.
       If you reach -5 units, go to #2.

#2:  Bet according to one of Atlantis' favorite progressions.  +1 after 2 losses in a row, -1 after 2 wins in a row.
       If you reach +6, go to #1.
       If you reach -10, go to #3.

#3:  Bet according to the standard D'Alembert.  +1 after 1 loss and -1 after 1 win.
       If you reach +9, go to #2.
       If you reach -15, go to #4.

#4:  Bet the modified forced win progression.  Add 1 unit after each loss, stay at the same bet after each win.
       If you reach +12, go to #3.
       If you reach -20, go to #5.

#5:  Bet the forced win progression.  Add 1 unit after each bet,  win or lose.
       If you reach +15, go to #4.
       If you reach -25, go to #6.

#6:  Bet the "boffins" bet; a single parlay.  Progression is 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  A double win at any level will send you back to 1 unit.
       If you reach +18, go to #5.
       If you reach -28, go to #7.

#7:  Bet the aggressive mongoose progression.
       If you reach +21, go to #6.
       If you reach -35, go home!

[GLC]

Even though it may not be apparent at first glance, there is some method to the above madness.

We start out flat betting.  This is the safest way to play.  The problem is that it's a long term loser.  If it weren't, there would be no reason to invent elaborate progressions.
The numbers +3 or -5 are very tweakable.  You could use +5 and -8 or -10.  This would give you a longer series to try to get lucky with your flat bet.

The next progression is a slowed down D'Alembert.  We increase 1 after 2 consecutive losses and we decrease 1 after 2 consecutive wins.  I thought about an even slower progression of +1 after 3 consecutive losses and -1 after 3 consecutive wins.  This is just a little more aggressive than a flatbet.  We're trying to stay in the game until our bet selection starts working for us and not the house.

Next we go to a straight D'Alembert of +1 after each loss and -1 after each win.  This progression gives us 1 unit for every win/loss pair.

The modified forced win is more aggressive than D'Alembert but less aggressive that the full blown forced win progression.

We could put Oscar's Grind in here somewhere if you like it better than one I included.

My theory is to hopefully win in one of the 1st 2 steps and a lot of the time we will.  If we don't, we'll be drifting down into the hole and it will take forever to come out with the 1st few progressions.

We probably don't need 7 steps.  The last few are very similar as far as recovery power goes.

This is just a concept I had and wanted to post it just to have it out there.

If anyone tries it, you might give us a shout out regarding how it worked for you.

I've tested it a few times on BV single zero demo mode and have always won with it.  Sometimes you can get into a real drawn-out session and may have to throw in the towel before you recover.  Unfortunately, that will defeat the who fallacy it was built on which is that in a reasonable timeframe your wins vs losses will even out enough to reach a new high balance with one of the progressions. Or something like that.

GLC

[GLC]

Play this on "even chance" bets of any game including but not limited to Roulette.
Any time you reach a new high bank, you can reset to #1.

#1:  Flat bet until you are +1 or -3 units.  If you reach +1, go to #1.
       If you reach -3 units, go to #2.

#2:  Bet according to one of Atlantis' favorite progressions.  +1 after 2 losses in a row, -1 after 2 wins in a row.
       If you reach +1, go to #1.
       If you reach -7, go to #3.

#3:  Bet according to the standard D'Alembert.  +1 after 1 loss and -1 after 1 win.
       If you reach +1, go to #2.
       If you reach -12, go to #4.

#4:  Bet the modified forced win progression.  Add 1 unit after each loss, stay at the same bet after each win.
       If you reach +1, go to #3.
       If you reach -16, go to #5.

#5:  Bet the forced win progression.  Add 1 unit after each bet,  win or lose.
       If you reach +1, go to #4.
       If you reach -22, go to #6.

#6:  Bet the "boffins" bet; a single parlay.  Progression is 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  A double win at any level will send you back to 1 unit.
       If you reach +1, go to #5.
       If you reach -30 go to #7.

#7:  Bet the aggressive mongoose progression.
       If you reach +1, go to #6.
       If you reach -40 go home!

I reworked the above post.  Just some small tweaks that might make it more playable.

GLC

[huskerdu]

I really like those kind of money management - way of playing.
Having been burnt by many aggressive systems I'm only experimenting on those kind of progressive playing as this in your post.
They are the only that can beat the hell fo randomness.
Slow - soft progressive,  conservating,  patient, system/alternation within, until comes to win.
Excellent.
The title of your post is really succcessfull. Because there are really a few situations that can beat this kind of playing. We willmeet them ofcourse. As we have met many times in the past that have make us scream and say: It cannot be true what happens here!!!!!!!''
But the significance if the system of playing is to win more times than you lose and ofcourse to win more than you lose.
As I said before, having end up playing only with those kind of money managment, I tried your system with positive results.
The only fact wich can deviate the results is the kind of EC playing.
For eg. playing one color, playing the same color, the change of color, the penultimate, same/oposite  alternately ...and so on.... Every kind of Ec i played gave me a little bit different result.
I think that wherever EC you play waiting for a good trigger gives you a small advantage.
Thanks GLC, for me is one of the most mature and realistic money monagement ever posted in here.

[jarabo002]

Is there a two dozens version?

[GLC]

Is there a two dozens version?

Yes, my friend there's a two dozen version.  All we have to do is adjust the numbers from a 1:1 bet location to a 2:1 bet location (this step could be skipped) and then adjust that to a 1:4 bet location.  Not an easy challenge, but doable.  Maybe we can both work on it and see if we get similar result.  Remember, there's nothing cast in stone.  We can adapt it however we want.  The numbers don't have to be exactly relational to the even chance version.  We can even adjust the e.c. version to make it more aggressive or less aggressive.  We can do what we want since we're going to be the ones risking our money.

GLC