Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

If Progressions Don't Beat the House Edge, What Good Are They?

Started by Spike!, May 20, 2010, 11:42:39 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spike!

Ken is the only person I know who wins regularly using a progresion, because he has a huge BR and a 500 step progression. (exageration) So if everybody knows a progression can't and doesn't beat the house edge, or give you an edge, whats the point in using them? Don't they just give you the illusion of winning? Whats the point of that.

The reason I even bring it up is progressions stop people from doing any real work on finding a good bet selection. Progressions are fun and seductive and make you feel like you're really accomplishing something. They're like a drug, and just like a drug, you get addicted to them.

Mr J

"progressions stop people from doing any real work on finding a good bet" >>> I'll half agree with that, I have no shame.  Ken

bombus

I disagree.


I'm actually addicted to flat betting. The thrill of getting in front with no progression to bolster the bet selection is more like a drug to me. But if I need to make some serious money, then there's nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts to get the job done.


I do occasionally bet just like Mr J, and it is not like a drug at all. It is nothing but a means to an end. One attraction for me is that it is a closed game, and not open ended, meaning once a bet commences there is no deciding when to stop, or how long to play, or what plus/minus position to pull out at. There is either a win or a loss at the end of the effort. It usually pays quite handsomely as well.

It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll and pay some bills and stuff...Ken would agree.


And progressions do come in many, many recipes, so it's a shame to throw them all into one pot.


Spike!

I'm actually addicted to flat betting>>It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll>>>nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts>>

Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all gamblers go thru. Addiction, aggression, satisfaction, all are emotional states. Is this how a normal person would describe their job? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy habit. I'm just sayin... ;)

bombus

Quote from: Spike! on May 21, 2010, 02:15:01 AM
I'm actually addicted to flat betting>>It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll>>>nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts>>

Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all gamblers go thru. Addiction, aggression, satisfaction, all are emotional states. Is this how a normal person would describe their job? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy habit. I'm just sayin... ;)

Ken is the only person I know>> he has a huge>>> The reason I even bring it up>>> fun and seductive>>> just like a drug>>

Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all psychopathic stalkers go through. Is this how a normal person would describe their relationships? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy fixation. I'm just sayin... ;D

Spike!

Many pro gamblers drop dead in their 50's from all the stress. All that adrenaline rushing isn't good for you, it takes 20 years off your life. Doyle Brunson is 75 and still going strong. He never gets upset or excited or shows any emotion at all. In poker, he's unreadable. He says its all business to him, no emotion is needed. I love watching him play, he's very firendly and nice, and like a block of granite as far as emotions go. He's the pro's pro.

bombus


TwoCatSam

Folks and People; Friends and Neighbors

There is scarce reason to employ a progression until you have conquered dispersion.  I will give my example again.


Suppose you knew--and, of course, you can't--that you would never lose more than five in a row.  You might lose one or five, but never more than five.  Then a Martingale would make you rich.  That's because you have a dispersion of five and no more.  You would never see the runs of twenty reds or evens or whatnot.

What I've always hoped to do--and this probably isn't possible--is to reduce dispersion to the occasional "run from hell" which is so rare that the normal winners overcome it and produce a profit.  (Mr J's  "Two's Company" may do just that.)

The reduction of dispersion is what people are seeking when they wait for X to happen four times and then bet Y.

A system which only ignores seven numbers and covers all others has very low dispersion, but when dispersion comes the cost of the Martingale is staggering. 

I view the progression as a house of cards.  People sit and build these darn things knowing they will crash.  Others use a progression knowing it will crash.  The later just costs money when it does!

I'm movin' dirt............

Sam

Mr J

"progressions do come in many, many recipes, so it's a shame to throw them all into one pot" >>> I very much agree. My 'ways' of playing lumped in with a Marty......no way, IMO.  Ken

Noble Savage

Quote from: Spike! on May 21, 2010, 05:29:51 AM
Doyle Brunson is 75 and still going strong. He never gets upset or excited or shows any emotion at all. In poker, he's unreadable. He says its all business to him, no emotion is needed. I love watching him play, he's very firendly and nice, and like a block of granite as far as emotions go. He's the pro's pro.

Agreed. I love watching him play for the very same reason.

Bayes

What Sam said.  :)

If you do manage to control dispersion, to the extent that you don't suffer wild swings flat betting, but at the same time don't make a flat bet profit, then a progression can come in very handy.

Number Six

Quote from: Bayes on May 21, 2010, 01:38:58 PM
What Sam said.  :)

If you do manage to control dispersion, to the extent that you don't suffer wild swings flat betting, but at the same time don't make a flat bet profit, then a progression can come in very handy.


I also agree. It's not as easy as it seems. Of course, "xy systems" are the classical attempt at controlling variance but they will never work. Virtual games are exactly that - virtual, they have no bearing on reality. I guess a lot of people don't get it because not everyone has the ability to run long simulations, from which some (perhaps a lot) knowledge of fluctuation and long-term randomness is derived. They also demonstrate that using mechanical triggers is absolutely no different to just betting random picks on every spin.

Spike!

The reduction of dispersion is what people are seeking>>

And it can only be achieved one way, good bet selection. But thats too dfficult, so everybody puts the cart before the horse and works only on progresions.

>>using mechanical triggers is absolutely no different to just betting random picks on every spin.>>

LOL! This is so true, it should be an unwritten roulette law. There will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method. Yet nobody believes it. If you don't have the edge, you lose. Its really that simple. You think any bank would loan a casino a dime if they didn't offer only games where they're guaranteed winners?

Bayes

QuoteThere will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method.

Spike,

Your claim that an edge is possible in a random game rests on the distinction between so-called "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" methods of bet selection, but the mathematics makes no such distinction.  Is this what you mean by the maths being "flawed", or not able to account for what actually happens in terms of "standard" probability?



deFault

-