Author Topic: Progression Hybrid  (Read 4055 times)

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Progression Hybrid
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:43:52 PM »
If you are looking for a progression which is not aggressive but could turn the things around with less wins than loses,check this out:

The progression begins by betting 1 unit
If you win you stay on the same level
If you lose you add 1 unit to your bet,therefore second bet becoming 2 units
Every time you lose you add 1 unit
An example:

Bet: 10 Result: -10 Total: -10  LOSS
Bet: 20 Result: -20 Total: -30  LOSS
Bet: 30 Result: -30 Total: -60  LOSS
Bet: 40 Result: -40 Total: -100 LOSS
Bet: 50 Result: -50 Total: -150 LOSS
Bet: 60 Result: -60 Total: -210 LOSS
Bet: 70 Result: -70 Total: -280 LOSS
Bet: 80 Result:+80 Total: -200 WIN
Bet: 90 Result:+90 Total: -110 WIN
Bet:100 Result:-100 Total: -210 LOSS
Bet:110 Result:-110 Total: -320 LOSS
Bet:120 Result:+120 Total: -200 WIN
Bet:130 Result:-130 Total: -330 LOSS
Bet:140 Result:+140 Total: -190 WIN
Bet:150 Result:+150 Total: -40 WIN
Bet: 50 Result:+50 Total: +10 WIN

It seems like D'Alembert but it's not,actually is better because D'Alembert progression it's mechanical (plus 1/minus 1) regardless from your betting sequence and your capital.
With this progression you continue to raise by 1 unit till you be in profit (or broke) regardless if you won or lost the previous bet,that's because it takes under consideration the total and not just the previous decision.
Another interesting characteristic is that when eventually drops the negative balance to -40 (above example) it doesn't continue with 160 bet,instead bets just enough to convert the negative total to positive.
Also you should have noticed that turns the table around by winning only 6 out of 16 results (6 wins / 10 loses).
Impressive,don't you think?


 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2015, 02:30:45 PM »
Actually this progression is called "Maxim Principle"
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2015, 03:12:26 PM »
Actually this progression is called "Maxim Principle"

It is an improvement on the Fitzroy progression,however none progression could be consider as a system,progressions could only be supplementary to a system,a useful addition IF there is a good bet selection.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2015, 10:49:25 PM »
Quote
Why did you bet 50 in the last round?

Oh, I get it, you monitor your balance and only bet for 1 unit profit if that should be possible, otherwise just follow the +1.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 10:52:18 PM by Reyth »
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Thanked: 306 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2015, 08:38:33 AM »
Why not start with 1 unit in stead of 10.
You did not write on which chance you were wagering.
FR , ER or AR ?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 07:21:25 PM »
You said that if a win then stay on the same level yet in your " analysis" you increased the bet. why ?
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2015, 08:53:16 PM »
Why not start with 1 unit in stead of 10.
You did not write on which chance you were wagering.
FR , ER or AR ?

It is an example for someone who bets 10,but you can consider the initial 10 bet as 1 unit,unit has the value you want.
You may want 1 unit=1 Euro and someone else 1 unit to be 10 Euros.
Even chance selection is not the point of this topic,therefore it doesn't matter.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2015, 09:16:00 PM »
You said that if a win then stay on the same level yet in your " analysis" you increased the bet. why ?

Oops! It was my mistake because you never stay on the same level,the simpler way to consider "Maxim Principle" is like "D'Alembert" BUT instead of 1 unit up when you lose and 1 down when you win,raises by 1 unit after each bet regardless if lost or won till you are  1 unit.
Also when the next bet exceeds the amount needed in order to be  1 unit in overall,reduces the last bet accordingly in order to win just 1 unit.
There is also a variation of "D'Alembert" which called "half peak",this name is no coincidence because every D'Alembert progression needs approximately the half of the progression in order to recoup.
For example: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5  6  5  4  1  instead of  -1 -2 -3 -4 -5  6  5  4  3  2  1
I consider "Maxim Principle" slightly better than "half peak", if you encounter series of 1 loss and 1 win alternating one after the other,both of them win 1 unit every second result,but "Maxim Principle" achieves this by steadily increasing bets,while D'Alembert remains on the same bet levels going one step forth and one step back.
The true difference between them can be realized when a session with many lost bets occur,the Maxim Principle could recoup easier under such occasions,while the D'Alembert the deeper it falls,the harder becomes to get out.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2015, 02:55:29 AM »
I read about this method, its called "the rich man's system" or something like that because it requires a large bankroll at times.  Forgot where I saw it.  Hmmm, I think it was "Banker's System"...
 

thelaw

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2015, 03:44:52 AM »
This system is very similar to the "foolproof system" which fails very quickly. I ran several tests myself years ago, and it tanked.
 

becker

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2015, 07:41:01 AM »
Of course it tanks. There is a reason for that.

If we will look at the increments what we will notice is how unevenly they are distributed. For example it is not same volume of increment from 1 to 2 or 13 to 14. So when it catches more stretched sequence, there is no way it can pull it out. Exactly because of that.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2015, 12:57:56 PM »
I agree with your view,Blue Angel, that progressions should  only be used with a Bet selection method.
Have you considered INCREASING stakes after a WIN  -  in a short time span ?   
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1491
  • Thanked: 207 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2015, 08:27:20 PM »
I agree with your view,Blue Angel, that progressions should  only be used with a Bet selection method.
Have you considered INCREASING stakes after a WIN  -  in a short time span ?

Increasing stakes after a win is declaring that you expect a second win in the row,on the other hand,increasing after a loss is like you expecting a win after a loss.
The more you bet the less wins you need to recover loses,the less you bet then the more wins you need to recover.
In my point of view both ways have positive and negative elements,but it has much more sense to follow something which is happening more than its probability,therefore to be able to win with flat stakes.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Progression Hybrid
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2015, 04:39:04 AM »
I only bet flat stakes B.A. though I am not totally against progressions / regressions .
You mentioned only betting progressions / regressions allied to a Bet Selection method  and I agreed .  But that implies that your selections need to exceed the normal expectation and   they don't run in tram lines do they ? There are usually runs of wins and losses which we cannot  predict with certainty so using progressions / regressions may be of help.
Most progression methods use the UP AS YOU LOSE idea which can quickly escalate to ruinous amounts unless using a Stop Loss which is difficult to calculate. I view with horror those ideas  which are designed  to lose a thousand points to win a succession  of one points.

I think that it would be better to use a short UP AS YOU WIN strategy to limit losses but wins can escalate rather than the losses escalating.  I think we should be bolder in our betting and take full  advantage when Chance favours us.
The suggestion is for those who  routinely use progressions and I am not one of those. I am more into ideas rather than winning money and not losing is my priority.