### Author Topic: Why Progressions Fail  (Read 11769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2176
• Thanked: 1130 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2016, 12:00:33 AM »
Mr Perfect,
Let me explain what the tables represent. In all three cases the losses are the same

Philip Koetsch in his book "Conquer the casinos" has tested various betting systems. He used 600 different 100-spin sequences for his test and came up with very interesting conclusions. If he just tested millions of spins sequences he couldn't reach any usefull conclusion. I quote horus post:

- - - - - - - -

He looks for what he considers to be the most useful information.
Namely:

what are the absolute worst and best things that could theoretically happen?
what were the worst and best things that actually did happen in 600 rounds?
what were the average worst and best things that did happen?
what typically happens if you don't get out while your ahead , but instead play the full round of 100 games?
during a round, how often can you expect to get ahead by at least 10, 20 or 30 chips?
in a 100 game round, how many times does your bankroll net-status typically reverse from losing to winning?
how often does this net-status never reverse but remains losing throughout a 100 game round?

So all in all, it's a very detailed and interesting piece of analysis.

In the following tables we see the results for  3 dififferent methods of betting:

Flat betting
Linear betting: add 1 chip to the previous bet every time you win up to a total of 4 chips. You always revert back to 1 chip after a loss.
Geometric betting. This is letting a winning bet ride. So let's go for x3 again. (1,2,4,8) Revert back to 1 unit on a loss.

PS: I want to thank horus for this amazing post in betselection.

The following users thanked this post: Sputnik, Reyth, MrPerfect.

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 386
• Thanked: 150 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2016, 01:53:13 AM »

Thanks. So how's it working out for you?

I suppose if you're going to use a progression then including many levels and steps + bets is the optimum way to go, because it follows that if all progressions amount to flat bets in the long run, then your strategy lengthens the long run (it's going to take longer for the long run to manifest using 10 steps rather than say 3).

It’s been going quite well for quite a while, yet to complete the whole 70 steps of the flat bet.

Of course the whole MM is attuned to my specific bet placement so is most likely unsuitable for anything else.

One of its strong points that I didn’t mention is the fact that any excess units above the +12 requirement are used for reducing future losses, which adds another layer of slowing the rate of progression.

So if I win on the first bet it will be +28 units. 12 units go in my pocket, and 16 units are kept in the game.

To further the example,

I start a new game with +16 on the bankroll.

I lose 10 units on the first 3 bet sequence.

I start the next 3 bet sequence with +6 on the bankroll.

I lose 24 units on that 3 bet sequence.

I start the next 3 or 4 bet sequence with -18 in the bankroll.

I win 56 units on that 3 or 4 bet sequence.

I pocket 12 units, pay out the -18 units, and start a new game from step 1) with +26 on the bankroll.

Overall the win/loss is +84/-34 = +50, but I only keep +24. Sometimes the excess units can build into many hundreds of units, which have a pronounced steadying effect on future drawdowns.

For simplistic example, if I then lose the 26 units followed by a win of 12 units, I will pocket 12 units and start a new game from step 1) with 0 units on the bankroll.

I could have a good handful of +12's in the pocket and be +500 on the bankroll, lose the whole 500, then win +12 units. I will pocket the 12 units and start a new game with 0 excess on the bankroll.

I'll call it, "Why My Progression Never Fails"
Cheers.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 02:00:18 AM by Trilobite »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Mike, Reyth

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1670
• Thanked: 922 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2016, 03:09:10 AM »
Mr Perfect,
Let me explain what the tables represent. In all three cases the losses are the same

Philip Koetsch in his book "Conquer the casinos" has tested various betting systems. He used 600 different 100-spin sequences for his test and came up with very interesting conclusions. If he just tested millions of spins sequences he couldn't reach any usefull conclusion. I quote horus post:

- - - - - - - -

He looks for what he considers to be the most useful information.
Namely:

what are the absolute worst and best things that could theoretically happen?
what were the worst and best things that actually did happen in 600 rounds?
what were the average worst and best things that did happen?
what typically happens if you don't get out while your ahead , but instead play the full round of 100 games?
during a round, how often can you expect to get ahead by at least 10, 20 or 30 chips?
in a 100 game round, how many times does your bankroll net-status typically reverse from losing to winning?
how often does this net-status never reverse but remains losing throughout a 100 game round?

So all in all, it's a very detailed and interesting piece of analysis.

In the following tables we see the results for  3 dififferent methods of betting:

Flat betting
Linear betting: add 1 chip to the previous bet every time you win up to a total of 4 chips. You always revert back to 1 chip after a loss.
Geometric betting. This is letting a winning bet ride. So let's go for x3 again. (1,2,4,8) Revert back to 1 unit on a loss.

PS: I want to thank horus for this amazing post in betselection.
Thanks for explaining.  On my sencere opinion one entire type of qwestion is missing.. is " how often?".
I'm burning my brain with progressions almost every day.. making simulations trying to find best ways of betting . It's not easy even with the edge.
On that paper is presented in the way too optimistic.  Reality is a bit more complicated then that. Probably l exaggerate in my search for a perfection, sett too strictly expectations , but it's much more difficult then this paper presents.
It looks like expected loss is less then average expected win on that paper. I would be happy if it worked that way, but somehow it's just doesn't.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 839
• Thanked: 148 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2016, 08:13:55 AM »
Your rational is analogous to this line of thinking: Just because the enemy has a stronger army (advantage) there is no point in devising a strategy/tactics for our attack.

If these tables can not convince you that different wagering plans have different bankroll fluctuation characteristics and can produce different results, then I don't know what can.

Kav,

I'm not denying that different wagering plans produce different bankroll fluctuations, just that ultimately they're not efffective if you don't have an edge. You admit that yourself because you say that they all produce the same result.

You say "let's get practical". Practical advice would be to record some ball timings for the particular wheel of interest. Mr Perfect has written a nice series of posts on VB but there's very little interest, unlike threads about progressions which seem to promise a quick fix solution. Understanding why progressions don't work is essential if you want to make progress towards consistent profits, otherwise you'll continue to believe that the solutions lies in coming up with just the right progression.

The following users thanked this post: kav, MrPerfect.

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 386
• Thanked: 150 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2016, 09:58:45 AM »
Think of your progression as a drawn out flat bet (which it is).

Because your progression amounts to a flat bet, you can make it as convoluted as you deem necessary to suit the bet placement method.

Forget about the short term and the long term as roulette is akin to the quantum physics of an atom being in two places simultaneously. You are always in the short term and always in the long term every single spin.

Rest assured there will be times when you do in fact have an edge. The flat bet arrangement should be such that it will capitalise somewhat on those times when an edge exists.

There will also be times when you don’t have an edge. The flat bet arrangement should be such that it will shutter down somewhat on those times when no edge exists.

Both at the same time of course.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 10:00:46 AM by Trilobite »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 839
• Thanked: 148 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2016, 10:36:38 AM »
The flat bet arrangement should be such that it will capitalise somewhat on those times when an edge exists.

The flat bet arrangement should be such that it will shutter down somewhat on those times when no edge exists.

What you're describing is more or less the rationale behind a positive progression (increase after a win and reduce after a loss). In that case why does your progression include steps in which you increase stakes after losses?

I would argue that the premise behind positive progressions is ultimately flawed although it seems plausible. Yes they can boost profits BUT success depends on knowing when those wins will come. In other words, bet selection should be the priority. And you implicitly acknowledge this when you say that

Quote
Of course the whole MM is attuned to my specific bet placement so is most likely unsuitable for anything else.

The point being made in this thread is that progressions and money-management techniques are not SUFFICIENT to make a profit. And in fact they're not NECESSARY either, because if your bet selection generated a profit flat-betting then no progression is needed; just flat bet high stakes or the house maximum.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 839
• Thanked: 148 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2016, 10:43:53 AM »
what are the absolute worst and best things that could theoretically happen?
what were the worst and best things that actually did happen in 600 rounds?
what were the average worst and best things that did happen?
what typically happens if you don't get out while your ahead , but instead play the full round of 100 games?
during a round, how often can you expect to get ahead by at least 10, 20 or 30 chips?
in a 100 game round, how many times does your bankroll net-status typically reverse from losing to winning?
how often does this net-status never reverse but remains losing throughout a 100 game round?

But the tables don't show the results if these stats are taken into account versus the results if they're not. And nowhere does he even say just how the stats should be used. In which case, what is the point of them?

The trouble with trying to use these kinds of stats is that you always end up back in the gambler's fallacy box because they always involve some kind of trigger. And since spins are independent, triggers are ineffective.

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 751 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2016, 02:42:08 PM »
So much effort in this. In the long run the lose is 100% up to a grade of 99,999999999999999999%.
Sometimes  about the same as win a billion lottery. There are winners! There are losers! big and small of both,
That is a game!

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 839
• Thanked: 148 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2016, 05:28:07 PM »
That is a game!

There is a game, and there is physics. System players don't understand the difference.

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2478
• Thanked: 545 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2016, 01:39:57 AM »
That is a game!

There is a game, and there is physics. System players don't understand the difference.

And AP in this forum do not understand " physics ". There are too many parameters involved  to calculate the " data" before No More Bets are called. Ask  any physicist .
There is too much certainty in some posts
Progressions are better than Flat Bets.
System players don't understand the difference between a game  and physics.
etc..

Where random operates NO ONE can tell what future spins will be therefore we should all be aware that we are just guessing- some with an "Educated  Guess " and some haphazardly. THAT is the only certainty !
The acid test of System , Method, whatever, is DOES IT PRODUCE A PROFIT !

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 283 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2016, 04:03:05 AM »
Quote
There are too many parameters involved  to calculate the " data" before No More Bets are called. Ask  any physicist .-Scepticus

Scepticus,

Perhaps you can explain the parameters, and why it's impossible to calculate them?

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 386
• Thanked: 150 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2016, 05:42:10 AM »
Quote
What you're describing is more or less the rationale behind a positive progression (increase after a win and reduce after a loss). In that case why does your progression include steps in which you increase stakes after losses?

It's not a progression, it's a procession. The whole flat stake takes 70 steps to complete, and there are 15 in built occasions when it goes down on a loss too, and that's without considering the funky d'alembert. The stake moves along regardless of any win or loss, until the 12 unit profit is reached. Then it goes back a bit or back to the start.

Quote
I would argue that the premise behind positive progressions is ultimately flawed although it seems plausible. Yes they can boost profits BUT success depends on knowing when those wins will come. In other words, bet selection should be the priority. And you implicitly acknowledge this when you say that..

"Of course the whole MM is attuned to my specific bet placement so is most likely unsuitable for anything else."

You can never know when the wins will come and that's why I don't like the idea of a static flat bet. I designed this bet to proceed regardless, so if wins come early then profit accumulates quickly. If wins come later then higher stakes compensate.

Quote
The point being made in this thread is that progressions and money-management techniques are not SUFFICIENT to make a profit. And in fact they're not NECESSARY either, because if your bet selection generated a profit flat-betting then no progression is needed; just flat bet high stakes or the house maximum.

Well in my opinion because we don’t know when the wins will come, a static flat bet at the house limit is wasteful and uneconomical. I think it's better to take small, high percentage profits, and then use larger portions of the stake to recover from any expensive stretches of negative edge for low percentage profits.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Mike, Reyth

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 839
• Thanked: 148 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2016, 09:27:34 AM »
Quote
Where random operates NO ONE can tell what future spins will be therefore we should all be aware that we are just guessing

And you have the nerve to say that *I* am a "fundamentalist".

Scepticus,

You claim to be able to predict future spins with your nine block system and win CONSISTENTLY. Even AP's don't say they can beat the wheel mathematically.

So please, enough of the nonsense.

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1559
• Thanked: 544 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2016, 11:49:11 AM »
In this discussion I mis the certainty that every system can end with a loss or a win so far it is a short run.

The kind of betting selection does not influence this statement.More important  is largeness of the numberbet.

Long run trials of any system shall lose with a loss of about 2,7%.

A simple system with a strategy and hit and run can be succesful.

A test trial  must close with a hit. That means that an event has an open end.

The samples of the SSB system are real examples how i do my research.

Every time I mis real reports of testtrials."I hear saying you "Buy the book".

I have no tools to judge the results in the table.Words, words and more words!!!

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 386
• Thanked: 150 times
##### Re: Why Progressions Fail
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2016, 12:36:35 PM »
In this discussion I mis the certainty that every system can end with a loss or a win so far it is a short run.

The kind of betting selection does not influence this statement.More important  is largeness of the numberbet.

Long run trials of any system shall lose with a loss of about 2,7%.

A simple system with a strategy and hit and run can be succesful.

A test trial  must close with a hit. That means that an event has an open end.

The samples of the SSB system are real examples how i do my research.

Every time I mis real reports of testtrials."I hear saying you "Buy the book".

I have no tools to judge the results in the table.Words, words and more words!!!

Sorry, you say what?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2016, 12:40:47 PM by Trilobite »