Risky, but it works..

[aslan]

Sometimes I can be quite animated and cuttin antics and crackin wise. I see some players in a deep concentration and they just hate that stuff. But, alas, not today. My girl friend didn't go to work today because of the snow strom that hit yesterday and she is lining up chores for the ghost.

Isn't that when a ghost should go into his invisible state? :laugh:

 

[gamblingghost]

Isn't that when a ghost should go into his invisible state? :laugh:

You got that right!! I think a neg. variance day at the casino is better than this!!! You know, I could be wrong, but I think women think it is a big hoot to make a man work his butt off on silly house chores. Yes, honey, just checkin my email..... I'll be right there!!

 

[gamblingghost]

well said aslan.
and have we all done it? well i dunno, but i know i have. not very often thank goodness, but it doesn't have to be very often to inflict some rather severe damage.
triggers for me seem to be the fact that i apparently value my bankroll money much, much more and in more ways than my rational conscious seems to believe. so apparently the subconscious shock of a loss seems to sort of sneak up and take control, sorta thing.
couple that with having led a really, really lucky life, hence a over valued sense of luck and one has a recipe for disaster.
whatever, steaming and our predilection towards it is something it would be wise to get a handle on.

This gets to be a tad controversial. For me, real 'steaming' is betting it way up during a very negative emotional time due to losing. Should it make any difference if our count is still solid? I would submit, yes. I think the human element is often times underestimated by many. Can this be simulated on a computer? I don't think so. But that doesn't make it a real element that should not be considered. A very difficult subject that others can address more eloquently than me.

 

[aslan]

This gets to be a tad controversial. For me, real 'steaming' is betting it way up during a very negative emotional time due to losing. Should it make any difference if our count is still solid? I would submit, yes. I think the human element is often times underestimated by many. Can this be simulated on a computer? I don't think so. But that doesn't make it a real element that should not be considered. A very difficult subject that others can address more eloquently than me.

The worst kind of steaming is, as you say, betting it up when the count is negative. But it is still steaming behavior if you throw your RoR calculations and bankroll decisions to the winds due to negative emotions during a losing streak. The steaming behavior you describe is equivalent to my betting the roulette wheel, or the time I tried to get it back playing Baccarat, which I didn't tell you about. :laugh:

 

[gamblingghost]

The worst kind of steaming is, as you say, betting it up when the count is negative. But it is still steaming behavior if you throw your RoR calculations and bankroll decisions to the winds due to negative emotions during a losing streak. The steaming behavior you describe is equivalent to my betting the roulette wheel, or the time I tried to get it back playing Baccarat, which I didn't tell you about. :laugh:

mmm, you say "tried" to get it back. Doesn't sound like this story had a happy ending?

 

[aslan]

mmm, you say "tried" to get it back. Doesn't sound like this story had a happy ending?

It wasn't pretty.

 

[gamblingghost]

It wasn't pretty.

Sorry about that. hmm, I am curious, did you have a lion for a pet?

 

[aslan]

Sorry about that. hmm, I am curious, did you have a lion for a pet?

Aslan, part Cairn Terrier, part unknown -- if they canonized dogs, he'd be first on the list.

 

[tthree]

modified Martingale..

Start with $7000

always bet minimum ($100) after you win.

when losing...

1. $100
2. $100
3. $150
4. $200
5. $300
6. $500
7. $1000
8. $1500
9. $3000

lose 9 hands in a row & your done... (- $6,850)

make it your goal for the day to just win $500 or $1000.

which will usually happen within 15 to 30 minutes.

quit & get outta there.

You will most likely win 15 straight sessions or more with this strategy.

so your saying to yourself....."what if I lose 9 straight hands on my opening shoe?" Like I said, its very rare...and by the time something like that happens, you will already have made that money back from your previous winning sessions.

don't have the balls to bet that high ? Then do the same at a $10 table. (start with $600 or $700....win you win a $100, get out)

Depending on your luck, this could be a long term winning solution for u....but i'm sure others here will now :whip: me for it..

....also, when your losing 6, 7, or 8 hands in a row...try to play unconsciously. Don't let your emotions get to you. Do it and be done with it... Most of the times you'll win. sometimes you'll lose...

The obvious falsehood: by the time you lose 9 in a row you will already have made the money back from your previous winning sessions.

You have the same probability of losing 9 in a row at any time. That includes the first time you step up with your first bet. Even if you put a probably in there it would not be true. Probably means to me more often than not. If that were true it would work.

The math is simple. Your expected return in the long run on a bet in a game were you have a disadvantage is negative. You remember second grade where they taught you it doesnt matter what order you added numbers the total is the same(the communitive law of addition if I remember right). You agree flat betting has a negative expectation right. This addition problem shows your total win or loss for your betting system.

Total winnings = session1total + session2total + ... + lastsessiontotal

I hope your with me so far. Each session is the total of all the bets in that session. Now lets redefine session1 as the total of all your 1st bets in any progression and session2 as the total of all your 2nd bets on up to your lastsession as the total of all your highest bets in your progression. Basic 2nd grade math, its the same total(remember the law above). All your bets are there.

THIS SAME TOTAL IS NOW EXPRESSED AS THE SUM OF A SERIES OF SESSIONS EACH BEING PLAYED AT A FLAT BET. I ASSUME YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT FLAT BETTING HAS A NEGATIVE EXPECTATION. THIS SUM OF FLAT BET SESSIONS ALL WITH NEGATIVE EXPECTATIONS WILL ALSO HAVE A NEGATIVE EXPECTATION. ASK YOUR 3RD GRADE KID IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ITS TRUE. ITS BASIC MATH TO THEM.



All you progression guys dont test it in a casino. Play a free game online, you can play much faster. Play for weeks. Just see how no test run stands the test of time for free before you learn it the very very expensive way. You also wont be saying if I only had more money I know it would work.

 

[MemphisMan]

I can't tell you how many times, I've lost 9 in a row before. Progressions don't work PERIOD. You're so much better off not using any and learning how to count. That said, if you insist on still using a progression, you can use Thunder's Grind, which is my modified version of Oscar's grind. It's safer than your system.

Here's a sample for being at a $10 table. You don't bet more until you've lost at least two hands and then have won one. You raise your bet with each win until you're back to where you were before the losing streak started.

W $10
L $10
L $10
W $10
W $20 -- profit of $20 instead of $10 flat betting.

L $10
L $10
LL $20 (Doubled and lost)
W $10
L $20
W $20
LL $60 (Split and lost)
L $30
L$30
W $30
W $40
L $40
W $40
W $50
W $60 -- profit of $30

can you elaborate and expand on the effectiveness, and what to expect with this strategy good sir?

 

[FLASH1296]

You can easily lose 9 or more in succession.

There will always be hordes of benighted befuddled fools who cannot fathom The Law of Large Numbers.

YES my friends, innumeracy is what this is all about; as this applies to nearly all members of the human race.

 

[aslan]

You can easily lose 9 or more in succession.

There will always be hordes of benighted befuddled fools who cannot fathom The Law of Large Numbers.

YES my friends, innumeracy is what this is all about; as this applies to nearly all members of the human race.

Innumerable innumerate humans! Wow!

 

[Renzey]

I haven't made one false claim yet. If you believe I have, then feel free to delete everything.

From your original post that by the time you lose 9 in a row, you should have won at least that much from previous sessions: Not True!!

You should lose 9 in a row after you've won some amount less. The amount less would be equal to your basic strategy disadvantage x the cummulative total of all bets in those sequences -- I'm pretty sure. Don't want to take the time to calculate it. Done so many things like this before.

 

[aslan]

From your original post that by the time you lose 9 in a row, you should have won at least that much from previous sessions: Not True!!

You should lose 9 in a row after you've won some amount less. The amount less would be equal to your basic strategy disadvantage x the cummulative total of all bets in those sequences -- I'm pretty sure. Don't want to take the time to calculate it. Done so many things like this before.

Intuitively, if we know it's a loser in the long run, then on average you should be losing when you finally arrive at losing 9 (or any number) in a row. But you must go to large numbers before you can say anything happens "on average."

 

[blackriver]

I guess I have lots of time...because I work on progressions many a time. I have made money; ok, blame it on variance or the sacred flow, but I'm still in the profit.

yeah, i blame the sacred flow. howd he know thats what we were gonna think?