Thread: A One Step Progression

Note that after one win, an additional amount equal to the initial wager is added to the second bet. Could be usefull for online play where the

table limits are quite low. T1011 Step Progression.pdf

Pretty interesting, Therapy... in fact, looks almost bulletproof to me... thanks for sharing...

I'm just thinking how could you lose playing just P or DP in craps with this... I mean, is it possible to get 2 straight wins in 100 tries????? NICE!!!!

Even just going to 40 tries your only at a 10 unit bet..... WOW.... 2 back to back wins within 40 tries??? OF COURSE

Originally Posted by audionut

Pretty interesting, Therapy... in fact, looks almost bulletproof to me... thanks for sharing...

I'm just thinking how could you lose playing just P or DP in craps with this... I mean, is it possible to get 2 straight wins in 100 tries????? NICE!!!!

Even just going to 40 tries your only at a 10 unit bet..... WOW.... 2 back to back wins within 40 tries??? OF COURSE

I'm not sure that's how it's played-- Therapy, any shoe examples come with the manual? Though I can see how this MM could possibly be played, not certain yet.

Hi Matt... it's a simple 1 step progression. Can be played with any 50/50 bet.... 2 consecutive wins at anytime, you go back to the beginning because you have profit... anytime you have a loss, move up one step in the progression... can't get any easier then that

audionut & mattman: No manuals and no shoe examples. This is of course, just a MM table. Please note the amount you wager is strictly controlled by the amount you have lost. When you experience a series of W,L,W,L,W,L,W,L, you are laying out additional funds due to the increase in wager on the 2nd bet.
If you have eight straight losses, you would be at a -12 units. If there were four wins and losses as in the example above you could be at a -16 units. Not
huge, but be aware the losses add up rapidly. If your Bet Selection is prone to back to back wins, this can help you to stay in the ballgame. Tomorrow I will
post a table with three consecutive wins. More lucrative but, that third win can sometimes be elusive. T101

Yup, this would be nice to use at the dice table, hey hey!

I figured it couldn't just be a 1 up thing based on the fact that's it a consec-win MM.

Therapy- think I get the jist of what your saying, but still a bit fuzzy on how scenarios would pan out the further you got into the progression. I imagine at some point
you would begin to start skipping whole columns to make up the deficits.

Originally Posted by mattman

I figured it couldn't just be a 1 up thing based on the fact that's it a consec-win MM.

Therapy- think I get the jist of what your saying, but still a bit fuzzy on how scenarios would pan out the further you got into the progression. I imagine at some point
you would begin to start skipping whole columns to make up the deficits.

That was the point of my last Post. T101

Tx T101 for sharing.
Just to be sure:
you check your score, say -9 and bet the correspondant wager; if you win the 2 bets you're over, otherwise you add the new losses (3+3) and bet the wager correspondant to the new drawdown (-15 = 4).
Is this correct?
andrea

T101,
In row 1, if the parlay bet of 2 units loses, you are down 2 units. In row 2, the profit will be 2 units, if you win the parlay bet and not 3 units as shown.
If you lose both the parlay bets in row 1 and row 2, you are down 4 units. In row 3, if you win the parlay bet, the profit will be 0 units and not 2 units as shown.
Am I missing something? Add another column showing cumulative losses.

if you have W L then W L -WL - WL

you are only down 8 units from your buyin you had the 1 unit for each of the first bet so that is 4 units then when you add one unit from your bankroll for each bet ( +1 +1 +1) two of those units are from your BR and one of those is the houses money so WL WL WL WL would have you down 8 units. So the way I see it when you step up to the 2 unit bets you only need 9 units to have your money from the buy in back and a 1 unit profit

2 bet wins you have 4 units on the table you add another 2 units 2 it so you have 2+2+2 on the table 4 units of wich is from your BR and 2 units from the house if it wins you will have 12 units then take away the 4 units you used from your BR to place the bet that leaves you with a profit of 8 units 12-4= 8 so that just breaks you even and so I don't see a 4 unit profit

Originally Posted by andrebac

Tx T101 for sharing.
Just to be sure:
you check your score, say -9 and bet the correspondant wager; if you win the 2 bets you're over, otherwise you add the new losses (3+3) and bet the wager correspondant to the new drawdown (-15 = 4).
Is this correct?
andrea

Spot on andrebac. T101

Originally Posted by krapper007

T101,
In row 1, if the parlay bet of 2 units loses, you are down 2 units. In row 2, the profit will be 2 units, if you win the parlay bet and not 3 units as shown.
If you lose both the parlay bets in row 1 and row 2, you are down 4 units. In row 3, if you win the parlay bet, the profit will be 0 units and not 2 units as shown.
Am I missing something? Add another column showing cumulative losses.

Hey krapper007...If you lose the parlay bet of 2 units in the 1st row, your count is -2. Therefore, you drop down to row three and bet -2 units. This way you recoup your losses as well as +1, +2, +3, or +4 profit depending on the Count. Hope this answers your question. T101

[QUOTE=Evo;41896]if you have W L then W L -WL - WL

you are only down 8 units from your buyin you had the 1 unit for each of the first bet so that is 4 units then when you add one unit from your bankroll for each bet ( +1 +1 +1) two of those units are from your BR and one of those is the houses money so WL WL WL WL would have you down 8 units. So the way I see it when you step up to the 2 unit bets you only need 9 units to have your money from the buy in back and a 1 unit profit

2 bet wins you have 4 units on the table you add another 2 units 2 it so you have 2+2+2 on the table 4 units of wich is from your BR and 2 units from the house if it wins you will have 12 units then take away the 4 units you used from your BR to place the bet that leaves you with a profit of 8 units 12-4= 8 so that just breaks you even and so I don't see a 4 unit profit[/QUOTE

Hi Evo....apparently I needed a primer along with my Progression/Parlay Table.

In the sequence: W,L your Count is -2. According to the Table, a -2 Count requires a 1 unit bet. With a 2nd W,L, your Count is -4. The Table requires a 2 unit
bet. (Row 5). A 3rd W,L the Count is -8. -8 Requires a bet of 3 units, (Row 9). W,L again (4th) and your cumulative loss is -14. The confusion seems to be in not taking into account the "Count". If I have made a mistake in my example know this: The Table is correct. T101

Let me try this and please correct me if I'm wrong.

Using the W/L sequence.

1. L
2. L
3. W
4. L
5. W
6. L
7. W
8. W

Betting and logic would go like this:

1. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is 0.

2. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -2. Count is -1.

3. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is still -1 since this was a win.

4. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -4. Count is -2.

5. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -3. Count is still -2 since this is a win.

6. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -6. Count is -3.

7. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -5. Count is still a -3 since this was a win.

8. Bet 3. Win. Net gain/loss is 1.


???????

[QUOTE=Therapy101;41901]

Originally Posted by Evo

if you have W L then W L -WL - WL

you are only down 8 units from your buyin you had the 1 unit for each of the first bet so that is 4 units then when you add one unit from your bankroll for each bet ( +1 +1 +1) two of those units are from your BR and one of those is the houses money so WL WL WL WL would have you down 8 units. So the way I see it when you step up to the 2 unit bets you only need 9 units to have your money from the buy in back and a 1 unit profit

2 bet wins you have 4 units on the table you add another 2 units 2 it so you have 2+2+2 on the table 4 units of wich is from your BR and 2 units from the house if it wins you will have 12 units then take away the 4 units you used from your BR to place the bet that leaves you with a profit of 8 units 12-4= 8 so that just breaks you even and so I don't see a 4 unit profit[/QUOTE

Hi Evo....apparently I needed a primer along with my Progression/Parlay Table.

In the sequence: W,L your Count is -2. According to the Table, a -2 Count requires a 1 unit bet. With a 2nd W,L, your Count is -4. The Table requires a 2 unit
bet. (Row 5). A 3rd W,L the Count is -8. -8 Requires a bet of 3 units, (Row 9). W,L again (4th) and your cumulative loss is -14. The confusion seems to be in not taking into account the "Count". If I have made a mistake in my example know this: The Table is correct. T101

SEQ BET NET COUNT
W.....1....1......0
L......3...-2.....-1
W.....1...-1.....-1
L......3...-4.....-2
W.....1...-3.....-2
L......3...-6.....-3
W.....1...-5.....-3
L......3...-8.....-4

It gets a little confusing to me in that the count is used for the Next Bet.

Originally Posted by EhtelGaeb

Let me try this and please correct me if I'm wrong.

Using the W/L sequence.

1. L
2. L
3. W
4. L
5. W
6. L
7. W
8. W

Betting and logic would go like this:

1. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is 0.

2. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -2. Count is -1.

3. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is still -1 since this was a win.

4. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -4. Count is -2.

5. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -3. Count is still -2 since this is a win.

6. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -6. Count is -3.

7. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -5. Count is still a -3 since this was a win.

8. Bet 3. Win. Net gain/loss is 1.


???????

Ehtel...if you bet 1 and lose, your Count is -1, not 0. The "Count" is important, because without it, you would not know how much to wager to recoup your losses. T101

Originally Posted by Therapy101

Ehtel...if you bet 1 and lose, your Count is -1, not 0. T101

1. L
2. L
3. W
4. L
5. W
6. L
7. W
8. W

Betting and logic would go like this:

1. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is -1.

2. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -2. Count is -2.

3. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is -3 since we've not won 2 in a row.

4. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -4. Count is -4.

5. Bet 2. Win. Net gain/loss is -2. Count is -5 since we've not won 2 in a row.

6. Bet 6. Lose. Net gain/loss is -8. Count is -6.

7. Bet 2. Win. Net gain/loss is -6. Count is -7 since we've not won 2 in a row.

8. Bet 6. Win. Net gain/loss is 6.

Is this better? Another confusing thing to me is the the .pdf progression sheet shows profit at the -7 level second win is +1 but I think that is for L L L L L L W W (six losses straight and then 2 straight wins) My scenario shows a +6 unit profit. Of couse, that's if I've done this correctly.

Originally Posted by EhtelGaeb

3. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is -3 since we've not won 2 in a row.

After a win, the count remains at the level it was before the win. So, if the Count is -2; you win; the Count is still -2; a new Count comes after the 2nd win. T101

Originally Posted by EhtelGaeb

Is this better? Another confusing thing to me is the the .pdf progression sheet shows profit at the -7 level second win is +1 but I think that is for L L L L L L W W (six losses straight and then 2 straight wins) My scenario shows a +6 unit profit. Of couse, that's if I've done this correctly.

If you are at a Count of -7, your wager is 2 units. If you win the 1st and 2nd wagers you will have won 12 units. Subtract the -7; subtract your 2 unit bet plus the 2 units you added for the 2nd bet and they equal 4 units. 12 units won minus -7 "Count" minus 4 units you added equals: 12 - 11 = 1 unit profit. T101

Originally Posted by Therapy101

After a win, the count remains at the level it was before the win. So, if the Count is -2; you win; the Count is still -2; a new Count comes after the 2nd win. T101

Okay, I'm game to do this until I get it right soooooo.


1. L
2. L
3. W
4. L
5. W
6. L
7. W
8. W

Betting and logic would go like this:

1. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is -1.

2. Bet 1. Lose. Net gain/loss is -2. Count is -2.

3. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -1. Count is still -2 since this was a win.

4. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -4. Count is -3.

5. Bet 1. Win. Net gain/loss is -3. Count is -3 since this was a win.

6. Bet 3. Lose. Net gain/loss is -6. Count is -4.

7. Bet 2. Win. Net gain/loss is -4. Count is still -4 since this was a win.

8. Bet 6. Win. Net gain/loss is (12 Won) -(4 Count) -(2 Original Bet) - (2 Added to bet) = 4. Count resets to 0.

How's this?

[QUOTE=EhtelGaeb;41906][QUOTE=Therapy101;41901]

SEQ BET NET COUNT
W.....1....1......0
L......3...-2.....-1
W.....1...-1.....-1
L......3...-4.....-2
W.....1...-3.....-2
L......3...-6.....-3
W.....1...-5.....-3
L......3...-8.....-4

QUOTE]

SO this one appears to be correct

SEQ BET NET COUNT
W.....1....1......0
L......3...-2.....-1
W.....1...-1.....-1
L......3...-4.....-2
W.....1...-3.....-2
L......3...-6.....-3
W.....1...-5.....-3
L......3...-8.....-4

So let's assume the next two bets are wins


SEQ BET NET COUNT
W.....1....1......0
L......3...-2.....-1
W.....1...-1.....-1
L......3...-4.....-2
W.....1...-3.....-2
L......3...-6.....-3
W.....1...-5.....-3
L......3...-8.....-4
W.....2...-6.....-4
W.....6... 12 won - 4 Count - 2 Original Bet - 2 Added to bet = 4

I like this.

[QUOTE=EhtelGaeb;41917][QUOTE=EhtelGaeb;41906]

Originally Posted by Therapy101

SEQ BET NET COUNT
W.....1....1......0
L......3...-2.....-1
W.....1...-1.....-1
L......3...-4.....-2
W.....1...-3.....-2
L......3...-6.....-3
W.....1...-5.....-3
L......3...-8.....-4
W.....2...-6.....-4
W.....6... 12 won - 4 Count - 2 Original Bet - 2 Added to bet = 4

I like this.

Wait...if you are at -6 net, and your next bet is 6, wouldn't that put you at a net of 0, instead of 12? Not having a manual to any MM always seems
needlessly confusing to me, though I appreciate the effort here.

Originally Posted by mattman

Wait...if you are at -6 net, and your next bet is 6, wouldn't that put you at a net of 0, instead of 12? Not having a manual to any MM always seems
needlessly confusing to me, though I appreciate the effort here.

mattman:


The Table consists of 7 columns:


Column 1 identifies the rows 1-100

Column 2 is the Count column. It contains the accumulated losses of previous wagers where there were not two consecutive wins.


Column 3 is your 1st bet (To be determined by the Count in Column 2)

Column 4 displays the amount of your 1st win.

Column 5 is your 2nd bet. (2nd bet determined by the amount of your 1st win (col 4) + (col 3) your original bet for this series.


Column 6 displays the amount of your 2nd win.


Let's take an example without the WLWLWWLLL.


1) You have been using the Progression/Parlay and find your Count at -8.

2) We find -8 in the 9th row, 2nd column.

3) A -8 in row 9 indicates we need to wager 3 units (Colum 4)

4) If we win this bet, our 1st win totals 6 units. Our Count remains at -8.


5) Our 2nd bet is 6 units just won, plus our initial wager of 3 units in step 3) above.


6) If we win the 2nd bet, we have won 18 units total.


7) To find our profit, we need to subtract the cumulative units lost (Count -8) + 3 units for our initial wager (step 3 above) + (3 units we added in step 5 above)


8) (-8) + 3 +3 = 14. Our 2nd bet win totaled 18 units. 18 - 14 leaves a 4 unit profit.

9) At this point, having recouped the 8 unit loss and with a 4 unit profit, we begin again at row 1 with a 1 unit bet. T101

Therapy, thanks for the clarification, think I get it better now.

Was looking through some tough shoes for WW today-- how would this MM fare with: LLWLWLWLWLWLLLWLLWLLWLLWW

Looked like a rough patch, wondering if this MM could pull it off. Will retest it now, as I skipped 2 columns the first time.

Originally Posted by mattman

Therapy, thanks for the clarification, think I get it better now.

Was looking through some tough shoes for WW today-- how would this MM fare with: LLWLWLWLWLWLLLWLLWLLWLLWW

Looked like a rough patch, wondering if this MM could pull it off. Will retest it now, as I skipped 2 columns the first time.

mattman...After the 18th decision you would be at a -125 units. Why would you even use a B/S with such horrible losses? You need a Bet Selection that wins two consecutive bets every ten to twelve decisions. T101

Seems like it would, though painfully then, still survive the run I posted, but barely.

Therapy, with any B/S you use, a scenario like I posted above is very possible. Hell, it was what, 24-25 decisions until we got the required run?

The maths say that such a scenario will occur roughly every 4-8k decisions, regardless of any b/s, which means though unlikely, it could certainly happen,
with similar odds as any 12-13 streak occurring.

Thanks for the MM though, atleast it was something new to look at.

Matt

Why is EhtelGaeb's example correct then? How can the net and the count not be the same?

Originally Posted by confusedgambler

Why is EhtelGaeb's example correct then? How can the net and the count not be the same?

Hi Confused....The net loss and the Count are one and the same. Don't believe I said EhtelGaeb's example was correct. If I did I was mistaken. You really should use the quote option to help locate info to be discussed. T101

Originally Posted by Therapy101

Hi Confused....The net loss and the Count are one and the same. Don't believe I said EhtelGaeb's example was correct. If I did I was mistaken. You really should use the quote option to help locate info to be discussed. T101

post 23 looked like you quoted EhtelGaeb and liked it..meaning it was correct.

So the count and the accumulated net loss are always one and the same?