Even Chance Progression

[Smee]

Cheers GLC....I really appreciate your explanation - crystal clear! - and im going to give it a go with my system....if it works out i will post results!

[Wally Gator]

I found this so interesting that I ran it through my last 108 bac shoes using the following criteria:

1. Only play Player.
2. Stop at +10.
3. Start at the beginning of a shoe on the first hand dealt.
4. Bankroll is 472 units.
5. Play the progression exactly as stated on this thread.

Results:

Win percentage: 100.0%
Total shoes played: 108
Shoe average per shoe Net: 10.2
Total wins: 1099.0

Better than "not bad" ......

I also like the flexibility, George.  Very nice.  Thank you.

[iggiv]

George, I am not trying to look too smart, but my honest opinion is:  being very determined and dedicated person, while trying to find the best progression, you r wasting your time (and time is money). Progression is not going to win the game, but maybe (not sure) a good bet selection (not consistent but rather combinations of different bet selections)  can. It doesn't matter how you bet it, flat or use mild progression (not long one!), you may win (or lose) the game. but concentrating on progression doesn't make any sense. And long progression WILL make things much worse on a long run.

just my 2 cents.

[GLC]

George, I am not trying to look too smart, but my honest opinion is:  being very determined and dedicated person, while trying to find the best progression, you're wasting your time (and time is money). Progression is not going to win the game, but maybe (not sure) a good bet selection (not consistent but rather combinations of different bet selections)  can. It doesn't matter how you bet it, flat or use mild progression (not long one!), you may win (or lose) the game. but concentrating on progression doesn't make any sense. And long progression WILL make things much worse on a long run.

just my 2 cents.

Dear Iggiv,

I appreciate where you're coming from.  Of course you are correct.  I could say the same thing about bet selection methods.  What I am trying to do with my progression exercises is marry them with a bet selection method that results in a combination that is very difficult to lose with.  Not impossible, but difficult.  This particular progression does get a little scary some time and I know that it will fail occasionally, but in the mean time, I might get lucky and win a few units with it.  I like it better than just scattering chips around the table.

Also, it's  good for old guys like me to exercise our brains on something that we find interesting.  I'm exercising my brain a lot with roulette.  I enjoy it and am continuing to win.  Not a lot, because I'm only playing on a 25 cent airball machine, but like Flatino said, it's enough for smokes and bread.

As long as we all play with caution and don't lose money we can't afford to lose, let's have some fun.  You never know what might happen the next time you sit down at the wheel.

GLC

[iggiv]

" I could say the same thing about bet selection methods.  "

George, I don't think this is the same. a few flat bet selections combined can work with much more success. more of them combined -- more chances for success.
as about progression -- yes, it is difficult to lose, but when you do, you lose too much, which makes it not worth it. Yes, you may get lucky, but there are more chances that you may get lucky with a few bet selections combined. As many as possible. and in this forum You can find lots of them. that one could be a real winner I think. especially when you shuffle them different ways (don't use them in the same order as roulette is gonna kill this kind of game too)

[Bayes]

" I could say the same thing about bet selection methods.  "

George, I don't think this is the same. a few flat bet selections combined can work with much more success. more of them combined -- more chances for success.

From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no advantage in having multiple bet selections, because each spin is independent. Even with 1000 bet selections you're still left with the problem of when a particular bet selection should be used, and if you can get that right with one BS, why do you need more?

In fact the phrase 'multiple bet selection' doesn't mean anything different from bet selection (singular) because on each spin you're selecting a bet and the wheel doesn't know whether your choice is from 1 BS or 1000.

[Halba1]

this might be a good system for PATTERN 4, the main even system on the boards

good for baccarat

[ZeroBlue]

From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no advantage in having multiple bet selections, because each spin is independent. Even with 1000 bet selections you're still left with the problem of when a particular bet selection should be used, and if you can get that right with one BS, why do you need more?

In fact the phrase 'multiple bet selection' doesn't mean anything different from bet selection (singular) because on each spin you're selecting a bet and the wheel doesn't know whether your choice is from 1 BS or 1000.

I couldn't agree more. The only thing we play are the odds of the bet selection. and this is the only way to evaluate if one has more favorable odds against any other.
Many of the bet selections i see are based upon speculation so i must agree the player is tied to the progression he uses.

[ZeroBlue]

This might be a good system for PATTERN 4, the main even system on the boards

good for baccarat

that is a good example. as for what i got from that system it purposes playing against a pattern of three outcomes.

We can all see the odds 2*2*2 -so we have 8 possible combinations.
we try to avoid 1 and win on 7 of them

the question is: 1) how to capture it?
2) using a progression to get 7/8 odds  is any different from making 3 consecutive attempts for 1/2 odds?

nice topic here.

I suppose Ego, Gizmotron and Carpanta will interact with us soon

Ego will probably say one must use present change
link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/nothing-beats-this-random-walk-no-matter-what-bet-selection-you-use/

[iggiv]

From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no advantage in having multiple bet selections, because each spin is independent. Even with 1000 bet selections you're still left with the problem of when a particular bet selection should be used, and if you can get that right with one BS, why do you need more?

In fact the phrase 'multiple bet selection' doesn't mean anything different from bet selection (singular) because on each spin you're selecting a bet and the wheel doesn't know whether your choice is from 1 BS or 1000.

My friend, practically math is not always answer in roulette. I know for sure that some people win in a long run using multiple bet selections.

and this answer is also to ZeroBlue.
(maybe if u were ZeroGreen, u would agree with me)

[iggiv]

My friend, practically math is not always answer in roulette. I know for sure that some people win in a long run using multiple bet selections.

and this answer is also to ZeroBlue.
(maybe if you ZeroGreen, you agree with me)

Victor, here my  post a couple of words were eaten by this forum's racoon: (were and would).
i guess this is not an accident, something is screwed up with coding)

[iggiv]

Victor, here my  post a couple of words were eaten by this forum's racoon: (were and would).
i guess this is not an accident, something is screwed up with coding)

and here in was eaten

[GLC]

One additional factor is that over the course of 10,000 placed bets whether they are flat bets or a 5 step mini martingale, we will be at about the same point.  As we all know, in the long run bet progressions don't compensate for a losing bet selection.  The graphs look very different but get us to the same place.  A flat bet graph is a line with very little undulations whereas a 5 step mini marty looks like the teeth of a cross-cut saw.  If you were to draw a straight line through the undulations, they would be on the same slant either up or down depending on the bet selection.

I can't say that there are no exceptions to the above, that's why we keep looking.

George

[GLC]

In case anybody is interested, I have worked out a progression that starts with a six step labby instead of four steps.  I have tweaked the labby so that we don't win 1 unit on each win.  With this progression, we have to lose 6 in a row before we begin our recovery mode.

By the way, this progression loses to the horror session #3 posted by Bayes.  You will find it in my topic "And you thought you knew about Oscar".


1       +1
2       +1
4       +1
7        0
13      -1
25      -2
------------
18     2X
24
32
42
56
-------------
32     3X
37
42
48
55
--------------
30     4X
32
34
36
38
--------------
20      5X
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
30
31
32


This is a pretty aggressive progression, but the beauty of it is that we give ourselves 6 chance to win once; 5 chances to win 2-in-a-row; 5 chances to win 3-in-a-row; 5 chances to win 4-in-a-row and 16 chances to win 5-in-a-row.


If you lose the whole progression you will lose 1020 units.  That' a big chunk.  The question is the one we always have, will it win enough more than it loses to make it worth playing?


George