Progressions - Why?

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hi all,

I came to think of this when discussing a progression yesterday...

(And I guess this is the proper place to post it. )


The following is only valid for you who play without an advantage!
And by advantage I mean that your selected numbers (f ex 12 numbers) hit more than they should (f ex better than 12/37).
If you have an advantage (your 12 numbers hit in 14/37) then by all means: USE a progression - but a positive one (up-as-you-win).


[highlight]But for the rest of us:

WHY USE PROGRESSIONS?[/highlight]


In my (not so) humble opinion, progressions are of no benefit at all.
I will show you why I think so.


(In the following you have to accept that I use 1,000,000 sessions as the example - it's because I don't want a lot of decimals that I have to round and so have big rounding errors in the end)


Suppose the usual Martingale progression (even bets - double up on a loss).

So you make the first bet 1,000,000 times. 1u each bet. Thats, 1,000,000u payed.
In 1,000,000 trials you will hit in 18/37 and quit the progression.
That is 486,487 hits - and 513,513 losses.
So you payed 1,000,000u and got 486,487 x 2 back = 972,974u = a loss of 27,026u (or -2.7%)

So we are down 27,026u and we double our bet for the second bet.
As we ended 486,487 sessions because we won on the first trial, we now bet 513,513 times.
And we bet 2u each time = 1,027,026u

In 513,513 trials you will hit 18/37 or get 249,818 hits, each returning 4u = 999,272u.
Making a loss of 27,754u (-2.7%)

The loss has GROWN by 728u!
Shouldn't the progression make us lose LESS?

WE HAVE A TOTAL LOSS OF 54,780 units!

Maybe it will be fixed at the next level?

So we double up to 4u per bet and bet the 263,695 times we lost. That's 1,054,780u payed.
In 263,695 trials you can calculate to have 18/37 hits = 128,285 hits, each giving 8u back so we get 1,026,280u back.

This time a total loss of 28,500u.
It has grown even more! By 746u this time. Even MORE than last time.

And the total loss is now 83,280u...

Maybe it will be fixed at the next level?


So we lost 135,410 times where we double up to 8u each bet. This is a total of 1,083,280u.
As we will hit 18/37, we will have 65,876 hits each giving 16u = 1,054,016u back and a loss of 29,264u.
A growth of 764u MORE!

And a total loss of 112,544u.
(In % of the exposed total of 4,165,086u, it's that damned 2.7%...)


The loss is constantly growing when you raise the bet.
Is that good?

Personally, I don't think so.



But that was the Martingale progression. Maybe another one will give different results?

I'll give you another example: Suppose I bet a 7-numbers sector. So I use this progression:

1st - 5th level Bet 7 x 1u
6th - 7th level Bet 7 x 2u
If I haven't hit in seven spins I end it there. And then the total loss = 63u

This is a Martingale-TYPE of progression:
Instead of doubling the bet, it is increased just enough for a net win, and only when needed.
(In reality, that's what the even-bets Martingale does also)


Level 1: I bet 1,000,000 times and I hit 189,190 times.
I bet 7,000,000u and get 6,810,8406u back - a loss of 189,160u (-2.7%)

Level 2: I re-bet (1,000,000 - 189,190) 810,810 times, betting a total of 5,675,670u.
I hit 153,397 times giving  5,522,292u back, reducing the level-loss to 153,378u.
Total loss now 342,538u of 12,675,670u bet (-2.7%)

Level 3: I re-bet (810,810 - 153,397) 657,413 times, betting a total of 4,601,891u.
I hit 124,376 times giving 4,477,536u back, reducing the level-loss to 124,355u.
Total loss now 466,893u of 17,277,561u bet (-2.7%)

Level 4: I re-bet (657,413 - 124,376) 533,037 times, betting a total of 3,731,259u.
I hit 100,845 times giving 3,630,420u back, reducing the level-loss to 100,839u.
Total loss now 567,732u of 21,008,820u bet (-2.7%)

Level 5: I re-bet (533,037 - 100,845) 432,192 times, betting a total of 3,025,344u.
I hit 81,767 times giving 2,943,612u, reducing the level-loss to 81,732u.
Total loss now 649,464u of 24,034,164u bet (-2.7%)

Here comes Level 6 where I bet 2u on each number:

Level 6: I re-bet (432,192 - 81,767) 350,425 times, betting a total of 4,905,950u.
I hit 66,297 times giving 4,773,384u INCREASING the level-loss to 132,566u.
Total loss now 782,030u of 28,940,114u bet (-2.7% )

The level-loss increased by MORE than 50% and is now higher than after level 3...

Level 7: I re-bet (350,425 - 66,297) 284,128 times, betting a total of 3,977,792u.
I hit 53,754 times giving 3,870,288u reducing the level-loss to 107,504u.

[highlight]Total loss now 889,534u of 32,917,906u bet (- guess what... Yes -2.7%)[/highlight]



Now let's compare with betting the 7 numbers seven times FLAT - 1u bets all the time at each number.
(The first five levels are of course the same as I bet 1u/number.)

Level 6: I re-bet (432,192 - 81,767) 350,425 times, betting a total of 2,452,975u.
I hit 66,297 times giving 2,386,692u REDUCING the level-loss to 66,283u.
Total loss now 715,747u of 26,487,139u bet (-2.7%)

Level 7: I re-bet (350,425 - 66,297) 284,128 times, betting a total of 1,988,896u.
I hit 53,754 times giving 1,935,144u reducing the level-loss to 53,752u.

[highlight]Total loss now 769,499u of 28,476,035u bet (-2.7%)[/highlight]
And I quit.

So I exposed some 4.5M units LESS to the vig and I had 120,000u LESS LOSS when I flat-bet...


But progressions are made because you can stand a losing session longer.
In this case you only flat bet 49u per session (7 levels x 7 numbers x 1u) - what will happen if you continue?
Compare to the progression!

OK.
So the progression will use three more levels:
Level 8 and 9 bet 3u/number and level 10 is 4u/number.

Progression (I show level 7 again):
Level 7: I re-bet (350,425 - 66,297) 284,128 times, betting a total of 3,977,792u.
I hit 53,754 times giving 3,870,288u reducing the level-loss to 107,504u.
Total loss now 889,534u of 32,917,906u bet (- guess what... Yes -2.7%)

Level 8: I re-bet (284,128 - 53,754) 230,374 times, betting a total of 4,837,854u.
I hit 43,585 times giving 4,707,180u INCREASING the level-loss to 130,674u.
Total loss now 1,020,208u of 37,755,760u bet (-2.7%)

Level 9: I re-bet (230,374 - 43,585) 186,789 times, betting a total of 3,922,569u.
I hit 35,339 times giving 3,816,612u reducing the level-loss to 105,957u.
Total loss now 1,126,165u of 41,678,329u bet (-2.7%)

Level 10: I re-bet (186,789 - 35,339) 151,450 times, betting a total of 4,240,600u.
I hit 28,653 times giving 4,126,032u INCREASING the level-loss to 114,568u.

[highlight]Total loss now 1,240,733u of 45,918,929u bet (-2.7%)[/highlight]


Flat bets 1u/number:
Level 7: I re-bet (350,425 - 66,297) 284,128 times, betting a total of 1,988,896u.
I hit 53,754 times giving 1,935,144u reducing the level-loss to 53,752u.
Total loss now 769,499u of 28,476,035u bet (-2.7%)

Level 8: I re-bet (284,128 - 53,754) 230,374 times, betting a total of 1,612,618u.
I hit 43,585 times giving  1,569,060u reducing the level-loss to  43,558u.
Total loss now 813,057u of 30,088,653u bet (-2.7%)

Level 9: I re-bet (230,374 - 43,585) 186,789 times, betting a total of  1,307,523u.
I hit 35,339 times giving  1,272,204u reducing the level-loss to 35,319u.
Total loss now 848,376u of 31,396,176u bet (-2.7%)

Level 10: I re-bet (186,789 - 35,339) 151,450 times, betting a total of 1,060,150u.
I hit 28,653 times giving  1,031,508u decreasing the level-loss to 28,642u.

[highlight]Total loss now 877,018u of 32,456,326u bet (-2.7%)[/highlight]

So flat bet exposed some 13.5M units less to the house-vig and LOST some 350,000 units less...

And I can - as it seems - stand the same losing sequence using less units...

Why use progressions?

BECAUSE:
Other types of progressions let you stay longer because you don't win it all back in one hit but need several hits to finish.
Like la Bouchère, d'Alembert, Oscar's grind and such.

In short: You need a smaller bank-roll to stay longer.


But then I ask: WHY DO YOU WANT TO STAY LONGER?


One reason I often hear is that a losing bet "will even out in the long run".
So you hope that your losing bet will eventually "swing back" and become a winning bet.


And to some extent that is true: In the very long run all numbers will close to even out.
But the thing is that it is only MATH-PEOPLE who say that and really MEAN it.
[highlight]
BECAUSE THEY TALK ABOUT PER CENT![/highlight]

They DON'T mean amounts in NUMBERS or losses in UNITS.


So YOU have to decide if you BET PER CENT or if you BET UNITS.

If you bet per cent; by all means - continue believing that the numbers will even out...
Because they do.
Per-centage-wise...


The rest of us (we who bet units) can look at it this way:

The mathematical average for any number to hit is 2.7% (1/37) and it's all too easy to show, given a substantial amount of roulette-numbers.
In a sample of - say - 3,700 spins each number will hit just about 100 times.
And in a sample of - say - 37,000,000,000 spins each number will hit just about 1,000,000,000 times.

But say that in the smaller sample one number has hit for only TWO PER CENT: It has hit 74 times instead of the expected 100. Waaay below.
That's actually TWENTY-SIX losses for a difference of 0.7%

Now look at the larger sample and say that the hit % of that same number has INCREASED to 2.69%.
That's only a difference of 0.01% from the expected 2.7% and only 1/70 of the above.
It's VERY CLOSE to the expected 2.7%.

But it is only 995,300,000 hits instead of the expected 1,000,000,000.

And that means 4,700,000 losses.

So while the AVERAGE "HIT PER CENT" has INCREASED from 2.0% to 2.69% the NUMBER OF LOSSES has ALSO INCREASED - from 26 to 4.7 MILLIONS.


[highlight]And this is called to "even out in the very long run"?[/highlight]

Yeah, sure.
I'll buy that any day.
/KFS

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

great Job! My respect.

I have a question, that I have often asked, but never got a good answer.

If we would like to bet 5 times to get our win (your example of 7 numbers).
What would happen if we turn our progresion to:

1st - 2nd level Bet 7 x 2u
3rd - 7th level Bet 7 x 1u

or for a 5-Step-Martingale on Even-Chances:
1. bet 16
2. 8
3. 4
4. 2
5. 1
br
winkel

[Worm]

Lack of patience?

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hi winkel,



I once saw a progression for the "Pivot" method - where you bet one selected number from Even to Single...
But this one was opposite - you started by betting the high-pay-outs and finished bey the Even bet.
I think. Long time ago...

But I didn't test it or something, just remember because it was the total opposite from the usual...

Test it.
KFS

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Just have to show this...

DON'T use a "reversed" Martingale (as per winkel's example above)!


1,000,000 starts of a 4-level Martingale on the evens (18/37).
This makes it possible to compare to the result above:

And a total loss of 112,544u.
(In % of the exposed total of 4,165,086u, it's that damned 2.7%...)

Level 1 (8u): We start by betting 1,000,000 times 8u = -8,000,000u
We hit 18/37 = 486,487 times x 16u = +7,783,792u
A loss of 216,208u of 8,000,000u bet (-2.7%)

Level 2 (4u): Bet 513,513 times = -2,054,052u
Hit 249,818 times x 8u = +1,998,544u
Level loss = 55,508u (-2.7%)
Total loss = 271,716u of 10,054,052u bet (-2.7%)

Level 3 (2u): Bet 263,695 times = -527,390u
Hit 128,285 times x 4u = +513,140u
Level loss = 14,250u (-2,7%)
Total loss = 285,966u of 10,581,442u (-2.7%)

Level 4 (1u): Bet 135,410 times = -135,410u
Hit 65,876 times x 2u = +131,752u
Level loss = 3,658u (-2.7%)
Total loss = 289,624u of 10,716,852u bet (-2.702510028131395%)



Lvl  "Regular"            "Reversed"
----------------------------------------------
1     -27,026   -27,026   -216,208   -216,208
2     -27,754   -54,780    -55,508   -271,716
3     -28,500   -83,280    -14,250   -285,966
4     -29,264  -112,544     -3,658   -289,624


The much greater loss is because of the higher bets (16 and 8 ) are lost sooo many times in the "reversed" version...

Regards,
KFS

And tomorrow is working day...

I'm just getting used to be doing "nothing"...

[lucky_strike]

Thanks for a great post.

DON'T use a "reversed" Martingale (as per winkel's example above)!

Well why cant we use it.
Lets assume you use Masse Égale and play 10 3 1.

You play 9 times to get +1 with 10.
When you up +10 then you lower you bets and play 3 3, two attempts to get +1 = +3.

Then you repat the same with 1 1 to get +1 = +1.

If you win all 3 you have +14.
You only have to know how to get +1 in 9 steps 9 out of 10 times lol

So what is the conclusion here, well if you know how to get +1 in 9 steps there will be no house edge. lol
Because if you have an la partage rule you just put a small % on zero for evey bet you place. lol

lol you only have to win the firs bet and lose the rest and you still in profit.

R
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B..SD +3.00
R..R
B..B +
R..R +
R.....-
R
B
B.....-
R..R
B..B +
R..R +
R.....-
B..B
R..R +
R.....-
B..B
R..R +
B..B +
B -
R..R
B..B +
R..R +
B..B +
R..R + 10
B..B + 3
B.....- 1
R
R
B..B
R..R +
B..B + 1
B.... - 1
B

Cheers Lucky Strike

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hi Lucky,

DON'T use a "reversed" Martingale (as per winkel's example above)!

Well why cant we use it.

If you calculate your example like I did above, you will have the answer to your question

You only have to know how to get +1 in 9 steps 9 out of 10 times lol
So what is the conclusion here, well if you know how to get +1 in 9 steps there will be no house edge. lol

The conclusion must be that it's your bet-selection that makes ALL the difference between success and failure.
IM(ns)HO

/KFS

[lucky_strike]

Okay...

LS

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

To All,

This is what the MATH-PEOPLE mean when they say that "it will even-out in the looong run":


     Trials    Exp. Hits   Say Hit% =            Hits    Misses     Won units     Net units   Net in %

       3700          100   2.675%                  99         1          3564          -136   -3.675%
      37000         1000   2.689%                 995         5         35820         -1180   -3.189%
     370000        10000   2.699%                9953        47        358308        -11692   -3.16%
    3700000       100000   2.6999%              99897       103       3596292       -103708   -2.803%
   37000000      1000000   2.69999%            998997      1003      35963892      -1036108   -2.8%
  370000000     10000000   2.699999%          9989997     10003     359639892     -10360108   -2.8%
3700000000    100000000   2.6999999%        99899997    100003    3596399892    -103600108   -2.8%
37000000000   1000000000   2.69999999%      998999997   1000003   35963999892   -1036000108   -2.8%

37000000000   1000000000   2.7027027...%   1000000000         0   36000000000   -1000000000   -2.7027027...%
37000000000   1000000000   2.7777777...%   1027777778         0   37000000008            +8   +0.000...%


Yes: If the hit% is increasing and going closer and closer to 2.7%, the loss% is decreasing, also coming closer and closer to -2.7%
So that's to even out - isn't it?

But the number of LOSSES AND LOST UNITS are STEADILY INCREASING.
That's NOT to even out - is it?

And, as I show, you'll need a [highlight]  BETTER than 2.777% (1/36) hit-rate IN AVERAGE  [/highlight]  to get a profit in units.

Regards,
KFS

[iboba]

With progression Im fulfilled,strongly support it,and addmit maths.only to 400/for testing validity of any system/--with all humble respect of you maths.knowledge--that doesnt have nothing in common with daily/nightly roulette game.100000--1000000--10000000 spins,.....WHO MADE THESE NUMBERS??IN WHAT PURPOSE???The only way to test it is;sit at the roulette table,all night,bet arround 400 spins/with prepared attacking system/and see the results----and so on,tomorrow same,thats a criterion.WITH SUCH KIND OF MATHS YOU CAN NEVER BEAT CASINO.amen,Iboba

[iboba]

-