Negative vs Positive Progressions

[Scarface]

Too many systems use negative progressions to recover.  I'd say most systems I've seen here use a negative progression, but as soon as it recovers starts over with flat bet....never using up as you win positive progression.  Think about it, negative progressions has the potential to multiply losses and kill bankroll.  But on the flip side, positive progressions have the potential to grow wins exponentially into much larger wins. 

[The General]

Too many systems use negative progressions to recover.  I'd say most systems I've seen here use a negative progression, but as soon as it recovers starts over with flat bet....never using up as you win positive progression.  Think about it, negative progressions has the potential to multiply losses and kill bankroll.  But on the flip side, positive progressions have the potential to grow wins exponentially into much larger wins.

Yes indeed.

[Scarface]

I use a combination of both negative and positive progressions.  My negative are very conservative though, relying on 2 or 3 clusters of hits to recover.  If I'm in profit, my positive progressions are based on a percentage of my bankroll. 

If bankroll for that day is 1000 units, my base bet is 5 units (only .5% of total bankroll).

If variance is against me, and I start to see losses (negative progression):
1.  First, reduce amount of numbers played.  I can start out with a total of 5 units and play 30 numbers, and parachute down to less numbers after each loss.  Doing this prevents me from having to raise wagers at all.

2.  If playing few numbers, I will only raise wager by 1 unit per number and only after a hit that has went beyond expectation.  For example:  playing 4 numbers should hit within 9 spins....if it goes beyond 9 spins with no hit, keep flat betting until you do get a win.  Only after a win, raise wager 1 unit.

If variance is on my side, and I'm in profit. I use positive progressions based on percentage of my bankroll (usually 5%)

1.  I'm up 100 units in profit.  My base bet is 5 units.  5% of my profit is also 5 units, so now my base bet is $10.  If I were up 500 units, my base bet would be 30 units.

2.  If you were to drop in profit, say from 300 units to 200 units, be sure to lower your base bet accordingly!

3.  Set a stop for positive progressions profits.  I normally use 25%.  If you are up to 1000 units, and it drops 25% to 750 units, stop and take your wins. 

[RouletteGhost]

Can you give an example of parachute bet you do

Thanks

[Scarface]

Can you give an example of parachute bet you do

Thanks

I posted an example in your lines thread.  Start with 5 lines...then 5 quads...5 streets...5 splits..5 singles

[RouletteGhost]

oh ok ill go check thanks

[Scarface]

RG, the idea behind it is to keep recovery wagers low as possible.

[Scarface]

Consider this scenario:  3 different people are playing the exact same system.  The only difference between them is type of progression used.  Assume the wheel has fair payouts.

1.  Player 1 flat bets the entire time.  He stops if his wins or losses reach 200 units. 

2.  Player 2 flat bets as he's winning.  If he starts to see losses, he uses a negative progression raising wagers as he loses

3.  Player 3 raises wagers as he's winning.  If he goes below his original amount, he flat bets as losses come.

Now, assuming all 3 players are playing the same system for the same duration, which player fairs better? 

Well, player 1 flatbets, so roughly half the time he'll win 200 units, and half the time he'll lose 200 units

Player 3 will win 500-1000 units half the time using a positive progression.  And he'll lose 200 units the other half of time, because he flatbets on losses

Player 2 will win 200 units half the time, but lose 500-1000 units other half time due to using negative progressions

Player 1: wins 200=loses 200
Player 3: wins 500-1000>loses 200
Player 2: wins 200<loses 500-1000

[Joe]

 Scarface, I can't see how you came up with those figures. Do you have any actual maths or is it just speculation? You're saying that the positive progression guy wins as much as the negative progression guy loses, but if it's a fair game none of them should do better than break even in the long run, according to expectation. If you're using a progression the variance will be higher so this is the best option if you want to maximise your profit in the short run, but you run the risk of maximising your losses too. That's the trade off with progressions.

[Scarface]

Scarface, I can't see how you came up with those figures. Do you have any actual maths or is it just speculation? You're saying that the positive progression guy wins as much as the negative progression guy loses, but if it's a fair game none of them should do better than break even in the long run, according to expectation. If you're using a progression the variance will be higher so this is the best option if you want to maximise your profit in the short run, but you run the risk of maximising your losses too. That's the trade off with progressions.

The positive progression guy will only raise bets if in profit.. if he's below original bankroll, he'll flat bet.  So, he'll never see the losses negative progression guy sees

[Joe]

I'd like to run a simulation on this. How about an even chance bet? I could use a martingale for the negative progression and a reverse martingale for the positive progression, and get some stats after a 100 sessions. No house edge.

[Joe]

The positive progression guy will only raise bets if in profit.. if he's below original bankroll, he'll flat bet.

That's not how I understand a positive progression. To me it means raising bets after a win no matter whether you are above or below the original bankroll, but that's ok, I can simulate it that way. I assume you still only bet after a win even when your bankroll is above the original?

[Scarface]

That's not how I understand a positive progression. To me it means raising bets after a win no matter whether you are above or below the original bankroll, but that's ok, I can simulate it that way. I assume you still only bet after a win even when your bankroll is above the original?

Yes, you're right.  But in this case I'm talking about only use positive progression when above original bankroll.  So, 1 player will only use positive progression when above original bankroll, and flatbet when below.  The other player does the opposite, and uses negative progression when below original bankroll and flatbet when above.

[Scarface]

I'd like to run a simulation on this. How about an even chance bet? I could use a martingale for the negative progression and a reverse martingale for the positive progression, and get some stats after a 100 sessions. No house edge.

It's worth a shot if it's easy to test this way.  But in actual play, I wouldn't play this way.  Martingale on single spins would give bad results if choppy back and forth.

The way I normally play positive progression is based on a percentage of my total wins.  For example, if playing 1 unit on 5 numbers...if my profit goes up to 100 units, I'll start playing 2 units on 5 numbers.  If profit goes up to 300 units, I'll play 3 units on 5 numbers. 

Also, if profit were to go down, go back down with units.  So, if profit were reduced from 300 units back down to 200 units...change bet from 3 units back down to 2. 

[Scarface]

Joe, how about this.  Not sure how difficult this would be to code.

Player 1 - flatbet 1 unit on 5 numbers

Player 2 - bet 1 unit on 5 numbers.  If in profit, raise wager by 1 unit per number for every 100 units in profit (ex. 100 units profit bet 2 units, 200 units profit bet 3 units, etc). Also, lower if profit comes back down.  And always flatbet if below original bankroll

Player 3 - play the exact opposite of player 2.  Always flatbet when in profit.  If bankroll hit negative, then raise wager by 1 unit per number for every 100 units down.

Player 1 will be the control group.  Player 1 will flatbet, and the session ends for everyone when he either wins or losses 500 units.

The longterm expectation for Player 1 is he'll break even.  He'll win 50% of sessions, and lose 50%.  Player 2 and player 3 will also win/lose 50%.  But player 2's wins should be much higher than player 1, while losses will be roughly the same since they both flatbet when bankroll is in the negative.

In theory, player 2 should have a clear advantage compared to the other 2