WHEN to kick a method to the side??

[Mr J]

WHEN is the time to STOP playing a method? Regardless of the TYPE. If you say 'when it loses more than it wins', thats fine but over what period of time? What if your method does great in testing but you lose on the FIRST try at the casino? Kick it to the side after the FIRST try? WHEN WHEN WHEN do you say ENOUGH with this method, time to TRY a different one?  Ken

[Spike]

What if your method does great in testing but you lose on the FIRST try at the casino? Kick it to the side after the FIRST try? >>

How much testing did you do? Failing the first time means nothing if you did enough testing.

[Mr J]

lol, My questions rarely have anything to do me. I like to see whats on everybodys mind, just lookin for opinions bud.  Ken

[VLSroulette]

WHEN to kick a method to the side??

In my opinion when it has taken -50% from the overall profits (shall it had generated it).

Say you play a system and your personal accounting of it has it at +$5500, then you would NOT limit the time of use nor the winning you could achieve with it, but shall it reach -50% from the highest point of net earnings (on this case 5500 / 2 = 2750), you shall dismiss it, as more certainly you don't want to find out if the house edge grinds you to $0 and minus; you keep half the earnings and never, ever play such system again.

I have heard about someone at the spanish-speaking scene who -tired of the systems only working in the beginning just to give it all back-, implemented a strategy of "changing systems once it exhausted". For him playing a system has to be structured in such a form that if you are up with it, you should bet it till exhaustion point (when it peaked and it is starting to go down). His exact current system? His exact betting criteria? I don't know! But I would like to translate and post here his response to a gentleman's winnings which happened after martingaling over and over and having only 2 chips left. The man applied the anti-martingale, recouped the earnings and even walked away in profit:



(...)what the gentleman did is the smartest thing you can make when playing roulette: CHANGE YOUR WAY OF ATTACKING IT CONSTANTLY.

He was betting the even chances with a negative progression (Martingale) and he did choose not to stick in a rigid way to a system, hence he chooses to change his form of attack, and what he did with his final two chips left was an anti-martingale, a positive progression.

What made him lose (the showing of a long series of the not played even chance side) then made him win (the continued showing of a side of the even chance which he played and he progressed when winning)

Both events will happen, sooner or later (succession of a winning or losing series), if we always bet the same way, we will end up falling. When this particular series shows, what would we rather be playing? In favor or against it?

Wouldn't it be better NOT to attack always the same way, and once we obtained profitability/return to stop attacking as we were doing and go for the opposite event?

What that gentleman really did wrong was –having obtained wins with the martingale–, to keep ambitioning more, instead of putting aside that form of attack forever, before showing losses with it.

When this series occurs, how will it hit us? Attacking against it happening or attacking in favor of it happening?

Those who always do the same can't make that distinction, the good or bad serie will come and it will reach us.

Those who constantly vary their form of attack make it harder for randomness.

If you control players such as the gentlemen in order to bet against them, one out of every 128 times you shall find somebody who will experience what happened to him and climbs the balance, and hence on this case the gentleman will recover and you will lose.

The same thing I say, if you are betting against someone and win money with it, stop betting against this person when you have won and change your form of attack.

Greetings

Goodhand.



What is interesting about this is: why to continue playing once you have won (reasonably) with a system, when the expected path is for it to even out to $0, taking it all back and then some? The only way to really win with a system is to putting it aside forever once it is up.

How much loss to take on a certain system shall it fail from the first session? How much is reasonably up? That depends on the system I guess.

Furthermore... Are we immortals? NO.

We will only be able to play a limited amount of systems on our limited amount of time on earth, if winning some with a system at a point of using it is a consistent betting scheme why not applying it?

Who knows? If we aren't to live forever that could be the ultimate strategy to end up in profit at the end of our lives. Slicing a bit on every one of those many systems that seem to work at the beginning and never allow them to even out.

This may sound unconventional, but we need to have all sides explored out of this game. It seems some are applying this technique with success.

Regards,
Victor

[Spike]

My questions rarely have anything to do me.>>

Then you kick it aside in testing. Anybody that takes an almost untested system to the casino is an idiot. Bottom line. I tested my method for almost a YEAR before I ever played it for real money. But I'm not an idiot..

[Nathan Detroit]

Spike,

But then again your way of testing  is  far superior to what is commonly  known as " testing" by the midnite key board brigade. OUCH !

Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

[Mr J]

I forgot to add (for those interested), I stop when when I am minus TWICE the amount of my progression. $5,600 is the average. Of course we all have our own STOP measures, this is mine.  Ken

[VLSroulette]

Thanks for caring to reply your own question dear Ken.

Appreciated.

[kav]

I forgot to add (for those interested), I stop when when I am minus TWICE the amount of my progression. $5,600 is the average. Of course we all have our own STOP measures, this is mine.  Ken

I guess you mean, when you lose twice, back to back.
Because if you stop when you are minus $5,6K, after 17 failed systems (you mention in another post) you should be  like minus $95K!

I believe one should take into account the overall profit-loss ratio. Losing $5,6K is nothing if you had gained $30K with the same method - I wouls still consider it profitable.

[Mr J]

It usually is back to back but before that, its not uncommon to have 1-4 other loses on that same method. When I get to minus $5,600 (thats average keep in mind), its time to quit. Ken

[Twocando]

Don't just kick a method away. Polish it, maybe you are on something. Tweak it if it fails to work the opposite will be the method. Then you just play against the method.

Not everything is thought of - Can anyone tell me something about the figure 40 on the wheel and table. What does it mean?

Twocando

[Mr J]

"Not everything is thought of" >>> Oh, oh dont let too many people in on that secret.    Ken

[Mr J]

-