Thread: Is anyone using this progression????

Hi there,

I am trying to change my useless martingale to another mney management system.

I came accross with this startegy from a blackjack system.

start to bet 1 unit, play one unit till you lose two units -2
then increase bet to 2 units play A: till you win 2 times, go back to 1 unit
B: lose two times, increase to three units

I tried, but it is very slow...
Did anyone use this system, then would like to know your experiences with it in live situation...
Or if you know some killing one and would like to share it would be great...

Bambura

Originally Posted by Bambura

Hi there,

I am trying to change my useless martingale to another mney management system.

I came accross with this startegy from a blackjack system.

start to bet 1 unit, play one unit till you lose two units -2
then increase bet to 2 units play A: till you win 2 times, go back to 1 unit
B: lose two times, increase to three units

I tried, but it is very slow...
Did anyone use this system, then would like to know your experiences with it in live situation...
Or if you know some killing one and would like to share it would be great...

Bambura

This sounds like or is similar to a cancellation progression which can be quite good and you can use a stop at a certain level. Bet 1 unit and when lose to units in a row bet bet 2 units until you a) win the first 2 unit bet which cancels out the lost 1 1. If lose the 2 unit bet then stay at 2 units until win two 2 units in a row (one more 2 unit bet then lose). Then go back to 1 unit. If lose two 2 unit bets in a row bet 3 units and need to win two 3 unit bets in order to cancel out the lost -1 -1 -2 -2.

So you are always looking to finally win 2 bets in a row. You can put a stop and restart at X losses in a row to keep the drawdown low.

I don't use it. I think leonarddong's is probably better.

A

As I said before, if you can't beat a BJ table with a 3 bet prog you aren't going to beat it no matter what you do. Move on! Find a table you CAN beat with a 3 bet prog. Hell, at the wrong table you can lose 20 bets in a row as Kenny Uston proved. BJ is FIRSTLY about finding the right table and then playing that table the right way.

Originally Posted by Ellis

As I said before, if you can't beat a BJ table with a 3 bet prog you aren't going to beat it no matter what you do. Move on! Find a table you CAN beat with a 3 bet prog. Hell, at the wrong table you can lose 20 bets in a row as Kenny Uston proved. BJ is FIRSTLY about finding the right table and then playing that table the right way.

Okay, your opinion is that there is no advantage bets. In other words, unlike BJ there is never a specific time that one can say with mathematical certainty that he/she has the advantage over the house of winning a specific hand or series of hands. Though I disagree with that I accept your premise.

How does one choose a table? One must guess. Call it an educated guess if you like. I see some problems with this.

First, it is not so easy to scout tables because of the availability of tables. Take Gold Strike and Horsehoe for instance. Many times only 1 or no tables are open. Other times the table(s) is full and there is no seat. Same with Foxwood and MoSun. It's not like there are so many tables to choose from. Gold Coast, LV is probably the easiest. But moving beyond that.

Second, why choose a table? Are you saying that there are only certain signature shoes that can be beat. Correct me if I am wrong Ellis, seriously. You have stated that you must know what system to use when and what progression to use within that system in order to win. So what are you saying? That you have various methods that work on some tables but not others. Would you at least have the integrity to explain this concept further. I don't want to second guess you here.

Third, progressions. You continually state progressions don't win yet you use progressions in all of your methods except when you switch to flat betting sometimes when you are guessing streak. Even 2 hi or 3 hi are still progressions. The only time when a raised bet is not a progression is when you are predicting a positive EV. Seems to me you are making conflicting statements.

Fourth, you have repeatedly stated that mechanical methods cannot win. Inferring that one must switch methods within a shoe. It would then hold that we need a reason to switch. If your criteria for switching to a method is based on anything other then random decision like flipping a coin it must be deemed mechanical . This can be tested Ellis. It is either pure guess or has a mathematical advantage. There is no way around this in my view. What say you? Please explain to me and the forum. You want to teach - teach!

Fifth, several people here have put forth methods that will perform as good as any of yours. That includes SAP, SKOR, SKORz Twister, Anti-Twister, The System, The Holy Grail and probably there are others. The problem is that none have been shown to work to my knowledge. You must agree since you have stated same above. You say the reason is you must choose a table that works with the method and change the method to another method if that method doesn't work. Is that right? You want to teach - teach.

Sixth, money management People here know that already and they know that the switch is a guess. Whether you count chops/streaks; opposites/repeats; TBL/OTBL; etc, one must have a criteria to switch. None have been shown to work here. So quitting when you are ahead or too much in the hole - jumping from table to table is all that is left.

Teach Ellis!

Archer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis
As I said before, if you can't beat a BJ table with a 3 bet prog you aren't going to beat it no matter what you do. Move on! Find a table you CAN beat with a 3 bet prog. Hell, at the wrong table you can lose 20 bets in a row as Kenny Uston proved. BJ is FIRSTLY about finding the right table and then playing that table the right way.

Originally Posted by Archer

Okay, your opinion is that there is no advantage bets. In other words, unlike BJ there is never a specific time that one can say with mathematical certainty that he/she has the advantage over the house of winning a specific hand or series of hands. Though I disagree with that I accept your premise.

No Archer, as anyone can plainly see, that is not even remotely what I was talking about. How did you ever draw that conclusion from that paragraph?

No one can ever say ANYTHING with mathematical certainty in a casino.

Originally Posted by Archer

How does one choose a table?

As I've said a zillion times you pick the table with the strongest bias. Also it helps to know what bias the current casino card prep produces, if any. Don't expect me to explain biases again for the third time.

Originally Posted by Archer

First, it is not so easy to scout tables because of the availability of tables. Take Gold Strike and Horsehoe for instance. Many times only 1 or no tables are open. Other times the table(s) is full and there is no seat. Same with Foxwood and MoSun. It's not like there are so many tables to choose from. Gold Coast, LV is probably the easiest.

I never said it was easy. What I said was "if you can't find a bias don't play". Otherwise you are merely gambling. YOU aren't there to gamble. At least I'm not. That's for the multitudes. You aren't there to have fun. YOU are there to win!

Originally Posted by Archer

Second, why choose a table? Are you saying that there are only certain signature shoes that can be beat. Correct me if I am wrong Ellis, seriously. You have stated that you must know what system to use when and what progression to use within that system in order to win. So what are you saying? That you have various methods that work on some tables but not others. Would you at least have the integrity to explain this concept further. I don't want to second guess you here.

OK, consider yourself corrected. As I said, virtually ALL shoes have a playable bias. You do the best with the strongest because the stronger the bias the higher your hands won rate. But there are MANY biases. For instance if opposites and repeats are running at near equal strength, THAT is a bias. If repeats are stronger THAT is the bias. If opposites are strongest THAT is the bias. All require a completely different mode of play. But that is only one base. There are 4 bases.

No, I won't explain it here. There's not the time or space. THAT is what my private forum is about. It's a completely different approach to the game that requires study and practice from the ground up. It's a full course in Bac. You have no idea because you have never been on my private forum.

Originally Posted by Archer

Third, progressions. You continually state progressions don't win yet you use progressions in all of your methods except when you switch to flat betting sometimes when you are guessing streak. Even 2 hi or 3 hi are still progressions. The only time when a raised bet is not a progression is when you are predicting a positive EV. Seems to me you are making conflicting statements.

Progressions ALONE don't win. That does not mean they don't have a use.
Some of my students flat bet. Most play 2Hi. Some play U1D2 M2. But the aggressiveness of your betting approach needs to depend on the strength of the bias you are playing right now.

You are playing a system. When you lose, the OPPOSITE system would have won. THIS IS ALWAYS TRUE! The trick is to know the winning system BEFORE you play or at least during your play. EVERYBODY knows how they SHOULD have played after the shoe is over. That's elementary. But we are not merely looking for a winning system, we are looking for the best variation of the BEST system for the shoe/table at hand.

Originally Posted by Archer

Fourth, you have repeatedly stated that mechanical methods cannot win. Inferring that one must switch methods within a shoe. It would then hold that we need a reason to switch. If your criteria for switching to a method is based on anything other then random decision like flipping a coin it must be deemed mechanical . This can be tested Ellis. It is either pure guess or has a mathematical advantage. There is no way around this in my view. What say you? Please explain to me and the forum. You want to teach - teach!

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. We have the winning players to prove what we say. You don't.

When you switch systems within a shoe you are trying to correct a mistake you already made. That's probably better than doing nothing. But the goal is to not make mistakes in the first place. That is why you always look for the STRONGEST bias. Sometimes your best choice is don't play.

Originally Posted by Archer

Fifth, several people here have put forth methods that will perform as good as any of yours. That includes SAP, SKOR, SKORz Twister, Anti-Twister, The System, The Holy Grail and probably there are others. The problem is that none have been shown to work to my knowledge. You must agree since you have stated same above. You say the reason is you must choose a table that works with the method and change the method to another method if that method doesn't work. Is that right? You want to teach - teach.

That simply is not true at all. Every single system I've seen posted on this forum, including the one I posted is PURELY mechanical and therefore eventually break even. None of them trigger off the shoe at hand.

Even the way Pit Boss plays OTB4L is purely mechanical as I've tried to explain to him. That is why you can program them. All you will ever prove doing that is exactly what I have just declared. They are all eventually break even.

At the very least, Pit Boss should be screening his shoes FIRST and deciding between basing with OTB4L, TB4L and Don't Play accordingly. But that isn't all he should be doing. As is, its just a question of time before he ends up basing with the wrong system all day long. He's close but he needs to make some key changes to his approach. Right now he's depending entirely on luck. Pros never do that. If you don't have an edge at that table - don't play it. That is the secret of both BJ and Bac.

Originally Posted by Archer

Sixth, money management People here know that already and they know that the switch is a guess. Whether you count chops/streaks; opposites/repeats; TBL/OTBL; etc, one must have a criteria to switch. None have been shown to work here. So quitting when you are ahead or too much in the hole - jumping from table to table is all that is left.

Teach Ellis!

Archer

As I keep saying, testing a pile of shoes is pure amateur whether by hand or computer. It completely neglects both table selection and system selection and is therefore a complete waste of time. Not to mention the card prep. Ya'll play the same way you test. You completely ignore both table and system selelection beforehand. You are ignoring exactly what gives you an edge. Changing mid shoe is a last resort and often too late. If table and system selection is too hard or too inconvenient then you're actually saying that winning is too hard or too inconvenient. Casinos are not a good place for such people to be. I only want players willing to relearn the game from the ground up and are willing to do whatever it takes. This forum is just spinning its wheels and making the same mistakes over and over with the same result.

Archer, its a little like back counting in BJ. You are FAR better off to find a table that produces a high count to begin with. As you know, it usually keeps right on producing the same approximate count range at least for a while. But, of course the casino knows that too. That's why they came up with the no midshoe entry rule. But in Bac you're free to find the strongest bias you can find. But most don't bother - too inconvenient.