The only time an up as you win progression works well is if you have the edge. And if you have the edge, you can do exactly the same thing by flat betting, without the volatility of a progression. Just take the amount you won using the progression, divide it by the number of bets made, and flat bet that amount. If your edge is consistant, you'll win the same amount as the progression.
All this means is both negative and positive progressions are mostly a vast waste of time.
Classical gambling progressions, negative or positive, are useless (whether or not you have an edge).
People who have an edge and want to maximize bankroll growth with no risk of ruin use proportional betting (I.e. risking a set % of the bankroll on each individual bet).
Try picking 10k bet results (in which you have an edge). Using an excel spreadsheet:
- Plot a bankroll growth graph using flat betting
- Plot a bankroll growth graph using, say, half-Kelly bets
- Compare and see for yourself!
I recommend the book "Fortune's Formula (nolinks://nolinks.amazon.com/Fortunes-Formula-Scientific-Betting-Casinos/dp/0809046377)" by W. Poundstone.
The Kelly Criterion falls to flat betting also. After 10 bets, figure you profit using the Kelly, divide it by the number of bets, and flat bet that amount. Do that every 10 bets (omitting the Kelly) and the result is almost identical and a hell of of a lot less work than the Kelly. All you need is a consistant edge. With the Kelly, you have to adjust your amount on every bet, who wants to do that.
I hear that.
I for one don't re-size on every single spin (way too focused the bet selection method) but every 5 to 10 spins or so.
The Kelly is just another progression. I pick a goal when I reach it for the session, flat betting, I leave. I'd love to use a progression, but I've tested them to death and there just isn't any advantage.
It's a risk vs. reward thing. A negative/martingale progression player risks the entire capital on a single attack to gain 1 unit (which I think is crazy).
Proportional betting is flat-betting, except that it treats every spin as a new session and re-sizes your bets accordingly. Value doesn't matter, what matters is that you're always only risking, say, 2% of your bankroll. If your bankroll grows, your bet size grows proportionally. With flat betting you only re-size on a new session, which makes it slow.
Kelly betting is about using your edge to find that optimum risk/reward ratio, above which you would be at a risk of ruin, and below which you wouldn't be using the full potential of your edge.
By the time a flat-bettor doubles his starting bankroll, a Kelly-bettor has x3 or x4 his starting bankroll (despite both having the same edge and 0% risk of ruin).
By the time a flat-bettor doubles his starting bankroll, a Kelly-bettor has x3 or x4 his starting bankroll>>
Not if you keep up with it. Recalculating your flat bet every 10 bets is a progression too, I guess, but its better using the Kelly. I firmly believe you should play to win as few bets as possible to reach your goal, and the Kelly doesn't work too well if your session consists of 15 bets. Whats the point.
A % of bank staking plan will make more than flat betting if you have an edge, and also protect your bank during the downturns.
QuoteI firmly believe you should play to win as few bets as possible to reach your goal
If you have an edge, why would you want to do that? playing as few bets as possible is sensible if the expectation is negative (ideally, you shouldn't play at all in that case), but it just doesn't make sense to limit the bets when you have an edge. Supposing you found a biased wheel, why would you not milk it for all it was worth?
Our edge can come from a couple of places, but usually a version of visual ballistics.
If you have an edge, why would you want to do that?>>>
Why not just where a sign around your neck that says 'Here I am again, taking your money'. You don't want them studying you, just make your money and get out. Think of it as robbing a bank, because thats about what you're doing.