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

[Number Six]

There will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method. Yet nobody believes it.

I have simulated dozens and dozens of bets, systems and their variants, some up to 50k bets, some up to 100k bets. Nothing has ever survived beyond that. The best I tested beat 92,000 bets, around 300,000 spins. Through all this I came to find that every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation. The losing streak is typically close to 5 SDs, and that will completely ruin any system and progression. These drawdowns can last hundreds or thousands of spins. The worse they are the longer they take to correct. It's not a matter of "can" I lose, it's "when" can I expect it to happen. If a mechanical trigger has the same probability of winning as a random selection, how can there be any difference? People should try to understand that systems are for fun only. For 99% of players roulette is and always will be the same type of casino game: pretty good odds offered for a rare but potentially large one-off or short-term payout. It amazes me how people like Fender can't grasp why we shoot his "holy grail" systems down. Put HG in the tread title and you get slaughtered for the sake of the gullible.

Educated Idiots

Do you have an argument, or are you just a prick?

[Nathan Detroit]

A solid  bet selection combined with a   well managed positive progression   can   be  a winner.

Either Up and Pull or the Guetting progression.

Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINMGS!!!

[Number Six]

If the variance of the bet is low enough any progression would work for ever. It's like Two Cat said, if you knew you'd never lose more than 5 EC bets on the trot you could double up and you'd never lose. Rather than looking for magical "movements on the carpet", an unbustable negative progression, esoteric connections between numbers, players should be looking for the low variance bet.

[Mr J]

Regardless of the type of progression, few would disagree......you need a solid 'bet selection' strategy to help you along. The thing that bothers me, when I see a poster have BOTH views. In one post it'll say, yes, bet selection is quite important. Then a few weeks later, same guy says it makes NO difference which number(s) you choose. To those individuals: please be consistent, choose one view.  Ken

[Spike!]

 Is this what you mean by the maths being "flawed", or not able to account for what actually happens in terms of "standard" probability?>>

I never said they were flawed, I said they change when you have the edge and the casino doesn't.  Its based on the best you can ever do is make random choices. Even a mechanical system does no better than random. The math in roulette assumes that no accurate guess can be made about the next outcome because every spin is independent of the last spin.

[Spike!]

every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation.>>>

Thats because a trigger cannot take into account the fluctuation. If it did, it would no longer be mechanical. Fluaction is what kills all games in the casino. Learn to read the fluctuation in roulette and it all of a sudden becomes your friend and not your enemy. Cutting your typical losing streak to 3-5 losses is ideal for a progresion, but at that point you don't need one, flat betting will handle it.

>>It amazes me how people like Fender can't grasp why we shoot his "holy grail" systems down.>>

They lack even the most basic understanding of how random works. People sometimes send me systems and I rarely look at them because systems can't win. There is no rhyme or reason to random, the best you can do is try and stay one spin ahead of it more than 50% of the time on the EC's. But its a lot of work, can't be explained, and is a pain in the arse to learn. If it was easy, blah blah...

[Davemd]

every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation.>>>

Thats because every trigger cannot take into account the fluctuation. If it did, it would no longer be mechanical. Fluaction is what kills all games in the casino. Learn to read the fluctuation in roulette and it all of a sudden becomes your friend and not your enemy. Cutting your typical losing streak to 3-5 losses is ideal for a progresion, but at that point you don't need one, flat betting will handle it.

Hi Spike,

Just wish I knew how ?

Davemd.

[Spike!]

Just wish I knew how ?>>>

Wishing won't work. If you start today studying randomness, in a year you might be halfway there. It can't be taught, it can only be learned. Somebody who knows how can give pointers, but you need to do all the heavy lifting yourself.

[Davemd]

Just wish I knew how ?>>>

Wishing won't work. If you start today studying randomness, in a year you might be halfway there. It can't be taught, it can only be learned. Somebody who knows how can give pointers, but you need to do all the heavy lifting yourself.

Please give me the pointers spike,

Davemd.

[Spike!]

I just did. Study random for a year and you'll start to grasp it. Study the EC's. Most people give it an hour or two and give up.

[Davemd]

Ok spike thank you,

Davemd.

[Number Six]

Regardless of the type of progression, few would disagree......you need a solid 'bet selection' strategy to help you along. The thing that bothers me, when I see a poster have BOTH views. In one post it'll say, yes, bet selection is quite important. Then a few weeks later, same guy says it makes NO difference which number(s) you choose. To those individuals: please be consistent, choose one view.  Ken

Mr J, what is a "solid" bet selection? And how is the bet selected?

In reality a progression system is simple: the bet doesn't matter. When you apply a progression, your net comes from the number of progressions won, not the number of bets won. So, how you select the numbers to bet, if you're using some sort of rule-based procedure, is irrelevant. Just pick random numbers, cuts time.

If you're looking at some sort of subjective bet selection then it's a different ball game.

[Spike!]

If you're looking at some sort of subjective bet selection then it's a different ball game.>>

I believe Ken is very good at narrowing down his bet selection so his progression has the best chance of success.  I think he changes the process once in awhile, which is always a good idea.

[Mr J]

"Mr J, what is a "solid" bet selection?" >>> Ok, the opposite of this....bet 22 cause thats your B-Day and bet the 16 cause you got your cherry popped when you were 16. "how you select the numbers to bet, if you're using some sort of rule-based procedure, is irrelevant" >>> I disagree.  Ken

[Number Six]

I disagree.  Ken

Good. Can you explain why and use examples?

Show us how you're more likely to win a 2-number bet selected by a system than 2 numbers selected randomnly, or based on the reasons you mentioned above.

[Number Six]

-