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.

Anyway, I might start my own thread about this rather than corrupt this one any further.

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

Cheers.