Target Betting Tests

[thelaw]

Rules :

After 1st Win : Bet LTD+ 1 (Loss to date plus 1 unit)

If Lose then Double bet twice (so 3 bets total) before retreating back to minimum

Example :

L     bet minimum until win (1)
L     ''          '' (1)
W    ''          '' (1)
L     bet LTD +1 (2 units)
L     double bet (4)
L     double bet (8 units-stop here)
W     retreat back to minimum (1)
W     bet LTD (14)



Losing streak would be the following : WLLLWLLLWLLLWLLL



See attached file for more info........

1600 spins

Max bet : 551 units

Total : +373

This is a simplified version of the Target Betting System. Takes balls and a large bankroll. The author suggests enough for 1-5000 unit bet. That would get you about 13 losses in a row.. I found 9 in a row here in the horror sequence.

[Tomla021]

Target betting is great fun but is just a martingale hidden  around some extra rules....to simplify play virtually for a w and bet for a second win with a marty
l
l
w
l -1
l
w
l-2
l
w
w +4=+1

[thelaw]

Target betting is great fun but is just a martingale hidden  around some extra rules....to simplify play virtually for a w and bet for a second win with a marty
l
l
w
l -1
l
w
l-2
l
w
w +4=+1

Already tried that. The WLWLWLWL... will easily destroy it. The 3 win (Martingale) is much more resilient. Not foolproof, but it's early days yet.

[Tomla021]

is this the seth bet--I have to re read

[thelaw]

is this the seth bet--I have to re read

Not sure what the seth bet is........it's from the Target Betting Blog

[Tomla021]

link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/   yeah seth wrote that -- i used to email w him

[thelaw]

link:://targetbetting.blogspot.com/   yeah seth wrote that -- i used to email w him

Got it!

He has a ton of research, but a 1-5000 unit betting range is pretty steep.

[helena]

He has a ton of research, but a 1-5000 unit betting range is pretty steep.

Very scary indeed.

[thelaw]

More Testing to be published by the end of the week

[Tomla021]

im sure it will do well ----its just a scary bet lol....looking forward to reading it

[thelaw]

Ok. So I've spent the past week testing the Target Betting system in a myriad of different incarnations. It beat the "horror" sequence and 4/5 Spielbank records before it hit the 5000 unit max bet. Please note that this was using the conservative approach, and not even the more aggressive system promoted by the author.

The basic premise is that you use a Martingale (called Loss to Date or LTD) to catch-up as your bets become larger with several built-in brakes to keep you from going all-in and losing your bankroll while making small profits along the way (which is very effective).

The main problem with this system boils down to one statement that pops up again and again on the blog, which is basically "don't stay at a losing table" with no specifics on how to execute this plan. So when are we supposed to jump to another table? After 1 loss? 5 losses? After losing a certain amount? 

As for the system itself, it has the same flaw as every other Martingale: as bets become too high, you risk losing your bankroll. The way that the author deals with this is to limit the Marti to 5000 units and hold until you are ahead.

Now. I want to be very clear, this might actually work long term, but what type of bankroll would you need to survive. Let's say you just get behind a few max bets plus what you've already spent; you might be in for $20,000 (on a $1 minimum table). Pretty steep

I've included the "horror sequence" of 1600 spins for the curious.

After studying the game for years, this system has come closer than any other to actually beating the game with a progression, so this will be my main focus moving forward. I'll post more info as my research continues.

For more info, check out the Target Betting blog and refer to the 3-Play system.

[ddarko]

Just our of interest how common is a 1-5000 limit at a B&M casino ?

Say the minimum is $/£10 for an EC bet, that means a $/£50,000 table limit correct ?

[thelaw]

Correct.

The author claims that you can just jump to a higher-limit table because the math is all the same (nothing is due).

The problem with this is that I already hit the 5000 max just 2000 spins into my test..........always a bad sign.

It does, however present an interesting question: How would any system work if you had a 1-5000 betting range? I bet I could get a Labby to pass 10000 spins with that range (I think my largest dd was around 1000).

[ddarko]

Correct.

The author claims that you can just jump to a higher-limit table because the math is all the same (nothing is due).

The problem with this is that I already hit the 5000 max just 2000 spins into my test..........always a bad sign.

It does, however present an interesting question: How would any system work if you had a 1-5000 betting range? I bet I could get a Labby to pass 10000 spins with that range (I think my largest dd was around 1000).

I know you have tested it & kinda like it, but surely your going to need a BR out of your range (apologies if that assumption is incorrect) just to even start playing it ?

Surely it's too great a range for anybody to consider playing it ?

[thelaw]

Not necessarily.

If I could find a way to limit the max bet to 5000 units only in extreme circumstances, you could reasonably get away with $10,000.

But, then again, the Labby has performed better with max dd, not to mention the Divisor System.

Also, keep in mind there are many ways to play this : Horse-racing/Sports Betting/Greyhounds/etc......