|
|
 |
|
|
Trying to get an answer to Noel's question: NEGATIVE or POSITIVE PROGRESSION -Which Is "Usually" The Better?Introduction: Noel asked this question at the MESSAGE BOARD and I thought that I should take the opportunity to compensate for an earlier, very sloppy answer... So; I will try to explain this in full and thoroughly. Top of page IN GENERAL TERMS, if we are talking about using a negative or positive version of the same progression, you can say that it depends on the decisions - your sequence of wins and losses. To make it really obvious, I will show you the "general rules" using two extreme sequences. A NEGATIVE progression will give you a better result than the corresponding positive, when your sequence is made up by alternating winnings and losings, like Win - Lose - Win - Lose - Win - Lose... This is due to the fact that, when you lose you are increasing your bet so the next winning will always be bigger than the latest loss. When you win, you decrease your bet so that the next loss will be smaller than the latest win. If we increase the bets by 1 unit after a loss (like the d'Alembert...) and bet only 1 after a win, the above sequence will give this result (we start at one unit and only bet Black): Bet 1 Win = +1 Bet 1 Lose = 0 Bet 2 Win = +2 Bet 1 Lose = +1 Bet 2 Win = +3 Bet 1 Lose = +2 As you can see, the bankroll grows 1 unit for each win. A positive version of the same progression, bet on the same sequence goes like: Bet 1 Win = +1 Bet 2 Lose = -1 Bet 1 Win = 0 Bet 2 Lose = -2 Bet 1 Win = -1 Bet 2 Lose = -3 Why didn't it end in -2 as it was the opposite of the first? It is because that the spins were not the opposite too - they have to be to make the exact opposite result: Bet 1 Lose = -1 Bet 1 Win = 0 Bet 2 Lose = -2 Bet 1 Win = -1 Bet 2 Lose = -3 Bet 1 Win = -2 (This sequence bet the negative way will end at +3 as it is completey opposite of the first positive progression, ending -3.) The corresponding rule for Positive progressions is: A POSITIVE progression will give a better result than the correponding negative, when your sequence is made up by streaks of winnings (and often also losings), like Win - Win - Win - Win - Win - Lose... This is due to the fact that you increase your bet after a win, making the next win even bigger and you decrease your bet after a loss making the next loss even smaller. If we use the same progression as above, the positive version will be: We increase the bets by 1 unit on a win and bet 1 unit only, after a loss. This will be the result of the example sequence: Bet 1 Win = +1 Bet 2 Win = +3 Bet 3 Win = +6 Bet 4 Win = +10 Bet 5 Win = +15 Bet 6 Lose = +9 As you can see, the bankroll grows for each win but the first loss is BIG giving only little left - if the third bet was lost; nothing. A negative version of the same progression goes like: Bet 1 Win = +1 Bet 1 Win = +2 Bet 1 Win = +3 Bet 1 Win = +4 Bet 1 Win = +5 Bet 1 Lose = +4 (The same applies to this progression as the negative, regarding opposite results - the sequence must be opposite too, to give the opposite reults.) Both the positive and negative progressions give a positive result here, but that's only natural as we had five winnings. The point is that the positive progression gives the better result. Then there are sequences that don't look like those extremes - and they are the majority - what about them? Well, in that case, I can't give you a precise answer as it depends not only on the sequence but also on the progression itself; different progressions will give different results from the same set of spins. And they will show a completely different result from another set - not necessarily the exact opposite one. It is therefore of outermost importance to set LIMITS for your progression: A negative progression has the habit of growing the bets to limits you didn't foresee - believe me! - and a positive progression has the habit of losing big from your winnings, leaving only small profits left that - maybe - are not enough to cover the losses. But to be able to set limits you have to know the progression! You have to know what happens in different situations; extreme like the sequences above and average mixed ones, both long and short of both kinds. You have to calculate your bankroll in every single spin and compare before and after; you have to determine what really happens and while you are doing that, you will find out when to stop betting - or continue - all depending on your current bankroll and the next bet. Note one thing: You must never use any progression without a thorough analysis! d'Alembert, the positive way, can serve as an example of a progression you have to know: Start Bet: 1 unit Increase the bet by 1 unit on a win Decrease the bet by 1 unit on a loss This progression looks simple enough but it is really dangerous if you don't check your bankroll all the time. Suppose you win and win again. After this, you actually win three more times in a row! You started with one unit and your last bet and winning was five. Now you bet six units and lose. You lower the bet to five, lose, bet four and lose, bet three and lose... STOP! That last bet; was that so smart? When you won the fifth bet, your bankroll was up 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 units. Then you bet 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 = 18 units! Had you won, you would have been even but so you should be, even if you didn't make that last bet at all (6 + 5 + 4 = 15). To gain anything in this situation, you should have stopped after the second loss as that would be a four units profit. But the system says that we shall continue and let's suppose we do and we lose the two last bets (2 + 1). Then we're down six units in total, despite we had FIVE winnings in the beginning. Obviously this progression allows for too many losses compared to the winnings and this is one of the many things you have to determine, using your own progression, positive or negative doesn't matter - you must analyze it thoroughly! I know the next question: What progression do I recommend? The fact is: I don't! I actually do not recommend any progression. I once was a genuine progression player; I made variations of the old ones and I made new ones of my own fasion (some of both are published on this site) all the time trying, subconsciously, to REDUCE THE LOSSES knowing that I couldn't actually win. The thing is; for most progression to work, there has to be more wins than losses and then also flat betting would work - the progression giving a higher net. But when there are more losses than wins (as there generally are) most progressions do not work at all giving a higher net loss than flat betting would, as you constantly lose and win different sums instead of a flat bet every time. In the long run all progressions will even out and get close to the losses on flat-betting - in percent, that is - namely the house edge of (at single-zero wheels) 2.7%. There are not so much money involved when flat betting and thus the losses in units are lower. I will end by showing all this in a test (that's why this article is published in the Test Dept in the first place) comparing the "half" variation of d'Alembert (top), both negative and positive, with flat betting. As we will see, one cannot determine that a progression is better than flat betting or if a positive is better than a negative. Of course the figures differ but the differences are so small, compared to the values involved, that they must be looked upon as equal. The rules for the progressions are as follows: NEGATIVE Progression: Start Bet 1 unit Increase the bet by 1 unit after a LOSS. Limit: None - the day end will limit Reset the bet to 1 unit after a WIN - a new session starts immediately. POSITIVE Progression: Start Bet 1 unit Increase the bet by 1 unit after a WIN. Limit: None - the day end will limit Reset the bet to 1 unit after a LOSS - a new session starts immediately. The Progressions are reset to 1 before the first bet every day. The Flat Betting is 1 unit every spin that the progressions are betting. Start Spin is #11 every day Due to the fact that the results would be close to the same if ten tests would be performed, starting at spin #11 to #20 for each day, I instead made six rounds - one for each of the even money bets Red, Black, Low, High, Even and Odd. REMEMBER: The results reflect only the files used for the test! Only the full days files were used. Results for NEGATIVE PROGRESSION: This table is Copyright © 2000 by XerxX Bet on Spins U Bet U Won NetRes W/L % ------------------------------------------------- Red 349751 715018 697056 -17962 -2.512 Black 349751 718066 696910 -21156 -2.946 Low 349751 717258 696634 -20624 -2.875 High 349751 715944 697004 -18940 -2.645 Even 349751 716203 696792 -19411 -2.710 Odd 349751 716540 696942 -19598 -2.735 Total 2098506 4299029 4181338 -117691 -2.738 Results for POSITIVE PROGRESSION: This table is Copyright © 2000 by XerxX Bet on Spins U Bet U Won NetRes W/L % ------------------------------------------------- Red 349751 679599 661996 -17603 -2.590 Black 349751 678146 658984 -19162 -2.826 Low 349751 678837 660354 -18483 -2.723 High 349751 680034 663112 -16922 -2.488 Even 349751 679292 661390 -17902 -2.635 Odd 349751 678495 659922 -18573 -2.737 Total 2098506 4074403 3965758 -108645 -2.667 Results for FLAT BETTING: This table is Copyright © 2000 by XerxX Bet on Spins U Bet U Won NetRes W/L % ------------------------------------------------- Red 349751 349751 340732 -9019 -2.579 Black 349751 349751 339960 -9791 -2.799 Low 349751 349751 339400 -10351 -2.960 High 349751 349751 341292 -8459 -2.419 Even 349751 349751 340662 -9089 -2.599 Odd 349751 349751 340030 -9721 -2.779 Total 2098506 2098506 2042076 -56430 -2.689As you can see, the different bets should have made different results at different decisions: For RED we should have bet NEGATIVE For BLACK we should have bet FLAT For LOW we should have bet POSITIVE For HIGH we should have bet FLAT For EVEN we should have bet FLAT For ODD we should have bet NEGATIVE And to get as small loss as possible IN TOTAL, we should have bet POSITIVE I hope that you now understand why I think that the question of which is the better way - negative or positive progression - is impossible to answer. My personal feeling is: If the losses in percent are the same, why put so much money at stake as you do with a progression? And so my advice is: Do not use progressions! If there is a system depending on it I think you should try the system without the progression. If the system IS the progression (like d'Alembert or such) my advice is to forget it - also the ones I have made myself and published! But I know that some of you like progressions, like I once did, and for you I have this advice: EXAMINE YOUR PROGRESSION THOROUGHLY BEFORE USING IT! This will save you a lot of money as you will find the pitfalls when working with pen and paper instead of at the casino, and it will not cost you anything but some time - maybe the most valuable time you have ever spent! | |
|
| |
|
| |
|