*PATTERN BREAKER*

[DoctorSudoku]

Andre losing should be EXPECTED. Its how you deal with the loss. Learn to PROFIT from losses.

Im not sure why you feel the need to play a 4th step. What you should study is the average wait between Step 1 wins and Step 2 etc.

For example with PB the way I play it. In nearly 15,000 games. The longest gap between step 1 wins is 10 games. And thats RARE. Thats only happened 3 times in 11 years.

The average is 4 games. Knowing these things is POWERFUL. And gives you great confidence.

JL,
That is why I am so very opposed to long negative progressions -- for me, even a 4-stepper is too long (well, at least border-line too long).

And, yes, I agree with you that you have to collect statistics on (and then pay attention to) where most of the losses and most of the wins are occurring.

When I decided to switch from my 1 2 2 progression to my new 1 2 progression, it was NOT based on some whimsical fancy of mine.

It was based on the repeated observation that approximately 80% of the wins occur on the first two steps of the 3 steps of the standard PB betting progression (when we are betting against the last remaining pattern -- the 8th one).

That is why I decided to make the big switch from the standard 3 steps to the 2 steps that I am using now.

Our goal should always be to use as short a progression as possible to attain our  profit goals, given the hostile nature of this game.

And a 4-stepper is a tad bit too long --  and too steep -- for me, especially given the actual 1 1 3 6 progression that our buddy Andre is using.

[Ricky]

Andre losing should be EXPECTED. Its how you deal with the loss. Learn to PROFIT from losses.

Im not sure why you feel the need to play a 4th step. What you should study is the average wait between Step 1 wins and Step 2 etc.

For example with PB the way I play it. In nearly 15,000 games. The longest gap between step 1 wins is 10 games. And thats RARE. Thats only happened 3 times in 11 years.

The average is 4 games. Knowing these things is POWERFUL. And gives you great confidence.

Here are the stats for PB on Baccarat betting against BPP and PBB repeating 4 times with 3 step progression
31 W 1L

[DoctorSudoku]

Well, my bankroll keeps growing up. If I start having big losses using this strategy I simply stop using it. Simple like that.
I had to go to the four step progression again and it's scared me a lot.

I have to stop using the 4 step progression or I will get a heart attack.

PS: But at the same time I think the baccarat variance is very limited. So if you have a large bankroll and put some money on Tie you can go far away using progression.

Andre,
If you are determined to use a 4-step progression, here is an alternate 4-stepper that you can use, in lieu of the 1 1 3 6 progression that you are currently using.

How about using the unorthodox 1 2 2 2 progression?

Here are some points about this progression:

1. The fact that you start out with 1 2 means that you are targeting winning on the first two steps of the progression.

In the standard JL's version of PB, 80% of the wins come on the first two steps of the 3 steps of the progression -- have you collected statistics to show on which steps you are getting most of the wins for your version of PB?

In contrast, note that in your 1 1 3 6 progression, you are trying to break even on your 2nd step.


2. With the 1 2 2 2 progression, if you win on the 3rd step, you suffer only a 1 unit loss for that game (something that you can recoup quite easily with your method).


3. If you win on the 4th step, you suffer a 3 unit loss for that game.

It is not that bad, given point no. 4 below.


4. When you lose all 4 steps of the 1 2 2 2 progression, you are down 7 units for that game.

This is in contrast to the 11 units that you are down when you lose all 4 steps of your 1 1 3 6 progression.

Give some thought to this alternate 1 2 2 2 progression. I think it may have some advantages over the one that you are currently using.

[atlantis]

Hi DoctorSudoku,

Using the 3-step cyclic progression over 4 bets would look like this:

1121
2222
2223
2333
3333
4344
4444
4545
5555....etc...

But if a four-step cycle series would be simply like this:

1-1-1-2
1-1-2-2
1-2-2-2
2-2-2-2
2-2-2-3
......... etc...


If a win occurs in a cycle then restart from the beginning of that cycle line UNLESS level or ahead overall in which case restart from first cycle.

Although, personally, I like the 3-step cycle prog I posted earlier..

A.

[sentinel3]

JL,
That is why I am so very opposed to long negative progressions -- for me, even a 4-stepper is too long (well, at least border-line too long).

And, yes, I agree with you that you have to collect statistics on (and then pay attention to) where most of the losses and most of the wins are occurring.

When I decided to switch from my 1 2 2 progression to my new 1 2 progression, it was NOT based on some whimsical fancy of mine.

It was based on the repeated observation that approximately 80% of the wins occur on the first two steps of the 3 steps of the standard PB betting progression (when we are betting against the last remaining pattern -- the 8th one).

That is why I decided to make the big switch from the standard 3 steps to the 2 steps that I am using now.

Our goal should always be to use as short a progression as possible to attain our  profit goals, given the hostile nature of this game.

And a 4-stepper is a tad bit too long --  and too steep -- for me, especially given the actual 1 1 3 6 progression that our buddy Andre is using.

ABSOLUTELY. If I could win with one spin a DAY. I would take it.

The less time spent playing the BETTER.

[sentinel3]

Here are the stats for PB on Baccarat betting against BPP and PBB repeating 4 times with 3 step progression
31 W 1L

Thats impressive Ricky. But why then is there a NEED to risk on a 4th step. You ALREADY have a great strikerate on three steps.

Why not stick to it. And master the win loss patterns of the first two steps. So you raise and lower on those two steps. At the appropriate times.

Instead of taking a big nerve shaking risk on that 4th step.

Think about this. If back to back losses are virtually impossible with this system. And you suffer a loss. You should be able to pull back at least half that loss on the very next game.

That would be the way to play it.

[viclimks]

Sentinel.... r u still playing 3 steps on baccarat or roulette....what  is the results overall now for u...

[sentinel3]

Sentinel.... r u still playing 3 steps on baccarat or roulette....what  is the results overall now for u...

Hi I will give an update on Thursday evening when I hit 15,000 games.

Its always a longterm winner. And Im still playing the 3 steps on PB for roulette. The only thing thats changed now is im being more selective about what I bet on each step.

According to whats happening with the results. So for example if I have 4 wins in a row on STEP 1. I now start to favour the other 2 steps more. Especially step 2. As STEP 1 rarely wins more than 5 times in row.

These are things that can be exploited. Thats why its ESSENTIAL to document all your results. Over time they show you patterns of win loss that make it almost possible to read what will happen. At least withing 2--3 attempts.

[Ricky]

4. When you lose all 4 steps of the 1 2 2 2 progression, you are down 7 units for that game.

This is in contrast to the 11 units that you are down when you lose all 4 steps of your 1 1 3 6 progression.

Give some thought to this alternate 1 2 2 2 progression. I think it may have some advantages over the one that you are currently using.

Hi Sentinel
This is exactly my thinking as I prepare to take the leap and start betting $100 base bets. I was thinking of going the two step but looking back at my wins I am even thinking about only doing one step and possibly only play games where I have 3 COMPLETE repeats. I came across another today as soon as I started tracking and went to the 2nd step where I won. So it managed to complete the 3 PBB repeats but failed on the very next hand to start the 4th. So you could almost flat bet with this system it is that good.

The other option I suggested to Andre is to reduce your profit at each step. eg if you intend to make 100 euro, on the 2nd step instead of doubling up (or even going for breakeven), why not aim for 50 euro gain. So your second bet would be 150 rather than 200
eg
S1 100
S2 150
S3 275
In base terms its 1 - 1.5 - 2.75

The alternative may be the D'Alembert progression where you try to get into profit over multiple wins rather than on a single win so Down if you win, Up if you lose on a 1-2-4-5-8 progression or 1-2-3-4-5-6 to be less steep

Another thing you could do is bet the 1st and/or 2nd Step using a smaller profit target. For me when I was not too confident of an easy 1 step win I would place 5 or 10 euro on first step. If it lost I would go 10 or 15 euro on 2nd. If it lost then I would commit to my original 40 euro base bets for step 3 and 4 relatively confident from past experience that I would win the bigger bets.
So its like 5-10-40-80
In all cases From Step 2 or 3 onwards I am covering the Tie bet.

Cheers
Ricky

[viclimks]

Ricky .... r u also playing PB on baccarat....how’s the result ?

[Ricky]

Ricky .... r u also playing PB on baccarat....how’s the result ?

I stopped playing it because PB Andre revised version is performing more superior

Performance of PB on Baccarat was comparable to Roulette but had the bonus of Tie not losing your E/C bet.

[Andre Chass]

Ricky, DoctorSudoku, sentinel3, proofreader,

Thanks for the support and suggestions for using different types of progression.

Currently Im using the progression 50, 50, 150, 300.

I play 6, 7 games a day making a profit of around $250, $300 a day.

I'm playing "my strategy" using the 4 step progression for about 3 months and I had  only one "real" loss.

But using the 4 step progression is getting my hair white... Lol.

Im thinking to try the 3 step progression 1, 2, 2 and if it loses I start immediately the recovery mode betting against the pattern of the same game.

Ex: 50, 100, 100 (loss) start recovery mode 125, 250, 250

Anyway my bankroll is growing up.

I saw the pattern forming for 4 times only once and was the game that I had a loss.

PS: I will cover the Tie

Cheers

[Ricky]

Ricky, DoctorSudoku, sentinel3, proofreader,

Thanks for the support and suggestions for using different types of progression.

Currently Im using the progression 50, 50, 150, 300.

I play 6, 7 games a day making a profit of around $250, $300 a day.

I'm playing "my strategy" using the 4 step progression for about 3 months and I had  only one "real" loss.

But using the 4 step progression is getting my hair white... Lol.

Im thinking to try the 3 step progression 1, 2, 2 and if it loses I start immediately the recovery mode betting against the pattern of the same game.

Ex: 50, 100, 100 (loss) start recovery mode 125, 250, 250

Anyway my bankroll is growing up.

I saw the pattern forming for 4 times only once and was the game that I had a loss.

PS: I will cover the Tie

Cheers

Hi Andre,
Definitely a good move covering the Tie. I found that was the only down side of my original betting strategy. To know it pays 8:1 and you only going for 1:1 with a good chance of not losing the E/C bet puts a sour note on what would have been a bonus win.

My progression with Tie is currently 20 - 25,5 - 80,10 with only 3 steps. I may change this to 10 - 25,5 - 80,10 to have a win in every step.

You can adjust betting according to your bet size

[cht]

Andre,
If you are determined to use a 4-step progression, here is an alternate 4-stepper that you can use, in lieu of the 1 1 3 6 progression that you are currently using.

How about using the unorthodox 1 2 2 2 progression?

1/1 or 1/1/1/1 - test it.

Here are some points about this progression:

1. The fact that you start out with 1 2 means that you are targeting winning on the first two steps of the progression.

In the standard JL's version of PB, 80% of the wins come on the first two steps of the 3 steps of the progression -- have you collected statistics to show on which steps you are getting most of the wins for your version of PB?

In contrast, note that in your 1 1 3 6 progression, you are trying to break even on your 2nd step.


2. With the 1 2 2 2 progression, if you win on the 3rd step, you suffer only a 1 unit loss for that game (something that you can recoup quite easily with your method).


3. If you win on the 4th step, you suffer a 3 unit loss for that game.

It is not that bad, given point no. 4 below.


4. When you lose all 4 steps of the 1 2 2 2 progression, you are down 7 units for that game.

This is in contrast to the 11 units that you are down when you lose all 4 steps of your 1 1 3 6 progression.

Give some thought to this alternate 1 2 2 2 progression. I think it may have some advantages over the one that you are currently using.

[sentinel3]

Ricky, DoctorSudoku, sentinel3, proofreader,

Thanks for the support and suggestions for using different types of progression.

Currently Im using the progression 50, 50, 150, 300.

I play 6, 7 games a day making a profit of around $250, $300 a day.

I'm playing "my strategy" using the 4 step progression for about 3 months and I had  only one "real" loss.

But using the 4 step progression is getting my hair white... Lol.

Im thinking to try the 3 step progression 1, 2, 2 and if it loses I start immediately the recovery mode betting against the pattern of the same game.

Ex: 50, 100, 100 (loss) start recovery mode 125, 250, 250

Anyway my bankroll is growing up.

I saw the pattern forming for 4 times only once and was the game that I had a loss.

PS: I will cover the Tie

Cheers

You are welcome Andre.

The important thing is your BANKROLL OVERALL is moving in the right direction..Thats all that matters.

If your strikerate is going to stay about 15/1 you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

I always aim to take two steps forward for every step backwards. It looks like you can take 3 or 4 steps forward for every step backwards.

So unless you start finding more losses closer together. I wouldnt even sweat it Andre. Youve found your system with this one.