why progressions don't work

[rob567]

The problem with progressions, and for that matter all progressions is twofold.

1. The progression cannot overcome mathermatical stability. Simply put the house edge will remain regardless of the progression. Reduction in risk at one point is redistributed to another point in the equation.

2. The progression cannot overcome the absorbitive state within the stochastical probability matrix. In other words regardless of triggers to use, or lengths of progressions, or monetary distribution of progression, there is always one state to the matrix after the progression runs out in which you lose. Therefore in the long term you will lose more than you win since there is no time that the opposite side suffers from the same state. The only way to overcome this, is to find a progression that can not be beat. Which in roulette is impossible due to table limits and infinity.

House edge will always exist, you need to find another way to deal with it. It's the equivalent of gravity it exists wether you like it or not.

If a progression isn't helping then it becomes redundant within the solution.  There is only one alternative, flatbetting.

The solution to beating roulette will lie within manipulating another variable.

[Arteinvivo]

There is only one alternative, flatbetting

I disagree, there are many alternatives to flat betting. A progression is nothing more than a flat betting scheme in disguise so don't panic at the sight of a progression.

Ex. 1,2,4 suppose you were to lose every 2 bets and win on the third trial you would be hitting under expectation but still be winning using a simple martingale.

[MattyMattz]

There is only one alternative, flatbetting

I disagree, there are many alternatives to flat betting. A progression is nothing more than a flat betting scheme in disguise so don't panic at the sight of a progression.

Ex. 1,2,4 suppose you were to lose every 2 bets and win on the third trial you would be hitting under expectation but still be winning using a simple martingale.

Well said Art.

Matt

[admin]

Stuart posted his Fibonacci plan, and it deserved its own thread. [link=nolinks://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1210160155]Posted here[/link]  

[rob567]

bikemotorman said:

"A wise man once said dont fight a streak or the tables direction if red is hitting play it, last night I saw seven reds in a row also the same blacks later yes I caught the streak."

I think this is a psychological thing. We remember the times that we get 7,8,9 or even 10 in a row.

We easily forget the times when the grind brings us back down. The laws of series keeps it all in check.

Remember that you are only ever playing one session regardless of technique or system. As long as you consistantly leave when the wave is riding above the statistical average you will be the casinos worse nightmare. They can't stop you from leaving the table each time you are ahead. They just hope you stay long enough to give back those winnings when the table turns in their favor and that you become discouraged enough to leave when down. Then hope you come back with the belief that the next time will be different.

Monte Carlo

[rob567]

Arteinvivo said:


I disagree, there are many alternatives to flat betting. A progression is nothing more than a flat betting scheme in disguise so don't panic at the sight of a progression.

Ex. 1,2,4 suppose you were to lose every 2 bets and win on the third trial you would be hitting under expectation but still be winning using a simple martingale.


Reply:

Simply wrong, I'm not going to sit here and write out the mathematical equations, but all that a progression does and I mean all progressions is reassign the risk to further down the series. If the progression can lose and all do because of table limits then it becomes equalized. That is if there is no house edge. Since there is then you have a negitive long term expectancy. That is what the last line of the stochastic matrix does.

Monte Carlo

[TwoCatSam]

Monte makes a darn good argument.

But, MC, give us something positive.  

I agree that if a person always left the table when they are up, they would always win.  And if you put salt on a bird's tail, it can't fly.  The trick is getting up at the table and the salt on the bird's tail.  Both seem pretty hard to do.

Walking away a winner is great, but first one has to become a winner.  Ah, there's the rub....

Sam

[rob567]

ok TwoCatSam fair enough, you want something chew on.

You need to find a way to exploit the game by making it more predictable. You can do that by reducing volatility. It's that volatility that makes you lose sufficient ammounts to break your bank before the casinos. (which is bottomless)

Just remember Newtons third law - every action has an equal an opposite reaction.

In this case a reduction in volatility will result in shorter losing runs and also shorter winning runs. but with a reduction in the amplitude of the waveform above and below the statistical norm you have a greater chance of getting a marginal and predictable profit. You also have a greater ability to survive the downturns.

Once you know what is the limits of one standard deviation is; you will know when to capitalize on the profit. Look to make a consistant 15-20%, not a rare 200%. Remember the turtle won the race.

Monte Carlo

[TwoCatSam]

Monte Carlo

Thank you for that answer.  I will, as you say, chew on it.

Sam

[geoff365]

Session progressions work quite fine. 8-)

[toby]

!

[rob567]

hmmm, maybe what I am trying to say is a bit more complex than I thought.

Since a progression offers no actual advantage per se on outside bets then there is no reason to incorporate them. Hence flatbetting. On inside bets thats a different story. The house doesn't want to set the table limit on inside bets too low and possibly causing it to cut into cashflow and profits. The math is much more complex and the spread sufficient to seize a marginal short term advantage but at extreme risk due to the very large bankroll requirements. You would have to plot the unit loss ratio against the odds of loss. Still the absorbative state still exists and I would guess that equalization will occur in a large dataset.


Toby, you have given two options to my statement.

in a) you wish to find a progression that overcomes the odds but statistically that is impossible unless you change certain criteria. You would have to remove the table limit and find an unlimited bankroll to support an infinte progression. This would negate the absorbative state.

in b) you wish to place your bankroll up against the casinos. Today the casino has more than enough money to absorb a loss and wait for you to return their money with intrest.

I am not certain if the next statement was part of b) but you are looking for a rare occurance as a trigger. Again doesn't matter, waiting for a rare event to occur in an infinite dataset only results in a delay of the time cycle. The mathematics of the common occurance will still apply in the same manner. You just won't lose as fast so you will perceive yourself as winning more. Since the math is identical and the outcome is the same.

In order for skipped spins to actually affect the outcome they would have to be applied to system in a manner that affects the potential. The above case of a rare occurance simply ignores them. Infinity minus 4 is not a finite number. Essentially all your sessions are just one session regardless of time or location. It's the nature of infinity.

Yes I know that many of you are saying but I am not dealing with infinity, I am only dealing with my session today of 50, 100 or whatever spins.

I know the next statement will be very hard for a lot of you to accept.

Regardless of you or the guy standing next to you. You are not playing the same game he is. You are playing a continuation of all the games you have ever played. Essentially you are playing a single session. Yet all the rules will still all apply. It's the strange beauty of chaos. Regardless of how you jumble up the numbers you end up at the same ending.

The dataset is infinite. The end result of all the numbers follows the laws of series. But so does every other number if you simply ignore the left out ones. So does every seventh number. doesn't really matter what you don't include. it only matters what you do.

Sounds like I am arguing that you can't win. That is not true, you have to accept chaos for what it is and remember that in the end it will maintain that randomness. But randomness as a structure is a pattern and that is truely expoitable.

Monte Carlo

[TwoCatSam]

Monte Carlo

I agree with everything you say, except the part about you and I standing side by side playing different games.  I will study on that while painting the carport.

Do you have any thoughts on numerology?

TCS

[TwoCatSam]

-