Thread: Can Your System Beat LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW

Does your system profit after: LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW ?

This one will.

Since this system wins against:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW
and
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWW
and
WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW

it outperforms the Martingale, Labouchere, Fibonacci, Star, Carsch and Oscar's Grind.

To be able to absorb fourteen consecutive losses, the total bankroll requirement is just 184 units (compared with the Martingale's 32,767 units).

I have never lost 14 decisions in a row, nor would I drop 184 units from a single bad run.

Originally Posted by Egalite

I have never lost 14 decisions in a row, nor would I drop 184 units from a single bad run.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. "Good for you", maybe? I think you've missed the point.
Please tell us how your system would fare against each:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW

WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWW

WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW

The method I've come up with scores +16 units for the first pattern, +3 units for the second, and +16 on the third.
Please respond in fashion.

For example, a simple 1-2 negative progression would result in -18 units on the first; +17 on the second; and -25 units with the last.
Oscar's Grind: 1st: -8 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -68 units
Typical 8-step Martingale: 1st: -255 units 2nd: +17 units 3rd: +17 units
Carsch: 1st: -93 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -92 units
etc...

Sounds spectacular.......

I must say any system that can recover 14 loses in a roll with just 3 bets must either be damn hell of impressive or running a very steep progression.

Originally Posted by tomla

Sounds spectacular.......

It is quite something.
In my initial testing, I played it not in even-money scenarios, but on the Field in Craps. The player has a 5-4 disadvantage betting this way.
I was able to double my starting bankroll of 184 units three times quite easily (184 to 1472 units).
Employed in Baccarat or on the Pass/Don't Pass Lines in Craps, it would only be stronger.

Originally Posted by Edwincheng

I must say any system that can recover 14 loses in a roll with just 3 bets must either be damn hell of impressive or running a very steep progression.

You'd think so but like I said, it's just 184 units. Actually, in my experience, I never went beyond 99 units.
Steep would be the 32,767 units required with the Martingale.

Well good for me then. There is no way I would get hit by a draw-down of +100 units from a single bad run, nor would I play any progression to the bitter end nor how you would usually find it written, so I guess "it really is good for me". Is there a point to this thread, or are we expected to pant for a little while longer.

Yes, there is always a point.
I will play live later today and intend on posting my results.
If I am successful doubling my original 184 units, I will announce this in a post and will PM the system (at no cost) to several others to try for themselves.
In this case, I would first send the system to Mattman and Anotherusernametaken and let them decide for themselves if the system has merit.

Ok, I ask anyway, does the progression come with it's own bet selection, or can that be anything you like?

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

Does your system profit after: LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW ?

This one will.

I would much rather you show me how your system will work if the outcome were: WWWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLWLWLLLWL aLL your examples end with a streak of three. The nemesis of most MM systems is an early win followed by the ugly losing streak. Flat betting your initial string of 14 losses followed by a simple three step progression would recoup 11 units. A more aggressive progression could show a tidy profit. T101

I belive Sure Win would win.

For LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW

Sure Win Bet and Win, Parlay Next Bet

1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
16
22
29
39
52

And come out +4 and you only need two wins in a row.

For WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWW

Gives you +2 although my excel chart says +3 so I may bet my 1 unit bet one hand too many.

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

I'm not sure how to respond to this. "Good for you", maybe? I think you've missed the point.
Please tell us how your system would fare against each:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW

WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWW

WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW

The method I've come up with scores +16 units for the first pattern, +3 units for the second, and +16 on the third.
Please respond in fashion.

For example, a simple 1-2 negative progression would result in -18 units on the first; +17 on the second; and -25 units with the last.
Oscar's Grind: 1st: -8 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -68 units
Typical 8-step Martingale: 1st: -255 units 2nd: +17 units 3rd: +17 units
Carsch: 1st: -93 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -92 units
etc...

Well I make it a rule to never just dismiss something out of hand.. but this must be based on a parley...right?

(In response to EhtelGaeb)

Really an interesting system and I do like it. As I say, a good system is designed to withstand terrible luck in the short-term.
However, this "Sure Win" system does not qualify since it cannot beat the WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW paradigm.

Great post. Thank you, EhtelGaeb.

Incidentally, I've just completed my first session today and pulled ahead +207 units, thus doubling my starting bank.
Later this afternoon, I will play once again in an attempt to turn this 391 unit bank into 800.

Egalite:

Re: bet selection

Good question: I've been using it for Field bets on the Craps table. I decided to do this for two reasons: i) It's much faster than playing either the Pass or Don't Pass since results are per roll instead of per point/seven-out; ii) If this system is successful with the odds being 5-4 (house edge) instead of the usual 1-1, if it works on the Field then it ought to be all the more powerful when the odds are even-money.

If I were to use this at Baccarat, I would bet Banker only on no-commission EZ Bac games, or I would bet Player only to avoid the commission taken on winning Banker bets on standard 5% commission tables.
So in response to your question, no triggers, no special bet selection since all bets are 50/50 anyway.

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

(In response to EhtelGaeb)

Really an interesting system and I do like it. As I say, a good system is designed to withstand terrible luck in the short-term.
However, this "Sure Win" system does not qualify since it cannot beat the WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW paradigm.

Great post. Thank you, EhtelGaeb.

Incidentally, I've just completed my first session today and pulled ahead +207 units, thus doubling my starting bank.
Later this afternoon, I will play once again in an attempt to turn this 391 unit bank into 800.

Yep, you're right. I'm at work and could only sneak in the first two but Sure Win can only sustain 18 cumulative losses

1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
16
22
29
39
52

69
92
123

is the entire progression.

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

since this system wins against:

Llllllllllllllwww
and
wlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwlwww
and
wllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwllwww

it outperforms the martingale, labouchere, fibonacci, star, carsch and oscar's grind.

To be able to absorb fourteen consecutive losses, the total bankroll requirement is just 184 units (compared with the martingale's 32,767 units).

l	1	-1	-1
l	1	-1	-2
l	1	-1	-3
l	1	-1	-4
l	1	-1	-5
l	1	-1	-6
l	1	-1	-7
l	2	-2	-9
l	2	-2	-11
l	2	-2	-13
l	2	-2	-15
l	3	-3	-18
l	3	-3	-21
l	3	-3	-24
w	4	4	-20
w	8	8	-12
w	16	16	4

w	1	1	1
l	2	-2	-1
w	1	1	0
l	2	-2	-2
w	1	1	-1
l	2	-2	-3
w	1	1	-2
l	2	-2	-4
w	1	1	-3
l	2	-2	-5
w	1	1	-4
l	2	-2	-6
w	1	1	-5
l	2	-2	-7
w	2	2	-5
l	4	-4	-9
w	2	2	-7
l	4	-4	-11
w	2	2	-9
l	4	-4	-13
w	2	2	-11
l	4	-4	-15
w	3	3	-12
l	6	-6	-18
w	3	3	-15
l	6	-6	-21
w	3	3	-18
l	6	-6	-24
w	4	4	-20
w	8	8	-12
w	16	16	4

w	1	1	1
l	2	-2	-1
l	1	-1	-2
w	1	1	-1
l	2	-2	-3
l	1	-1	-4
w	1	1	-3
l	2	-2	-5
l	1	-1	-6
w	1	1	-5
l	2	-2	-7
l	2	-2	-9
w	2	2	-7
l	4	-4	-11
l	2	-2	-13
w	2	2	-11
l	4	-4	-15
l	3	-3	-18
w	3	3	-15
l	6	-6	-21
l	3	-3	-24
w	4	4	-20
l	8	-8	-28
l	4	-4	-32
w	5	5	-27
l	10	-10	-37
l	6	-6	-43
w	7	7	-36
l	14	-14	-50
l	8	-8	-58
w	9	9	-49
l	18	-18	-67
l	10	-10	-77
w	11	11	-66
l	22	-22	-88
l	13	-13	-101
w	15	15	-86
l	30	-30	-116
l	17	-17	-133
w	19	19	-114
l	38	-38	-152
l	22	-22	-174
w	25	25	-149
w	50	50	-99
w	100	100	1

Total bankroll needed: 175 units.

im a sucker for that field bet))))

Played about a half-dozen sessions yesterday making Field bets and Banker bets on EZ Bac tables. Here are the results:

Starting bank: 184 $1 units

First Session (Field): +$55 ($1 units)
Second Session +$50 ($1 units)
Third Session +$102 ($2 units)
Fourth Session +$335 ($5 units)
Fifth Session +$35 ($2 and $5 units after first progression failed)
Sixth Session +$65 ($2 units)
Seventh Session +$100 ($2 units)
Eighth Session (Bac) +$265 ($5 units)

Total: +$1007

Consequently, I have PM'd the system to mattman for assessment.

LOTI: You win -- well played (although my system wins more units) ;p

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

Played about a half-dozen sessions yesterday making Field bets and Banker bets on EZ Bac tables. Here are the results:

Starting bank: 184 $1 units

First Session (Field): +$55 ($1 units)
Second Session +$50 ($1 units)
Third Session +$102 ($2 units)
Fourth Session +$335 ($5 units)
Fifth Session +$35 ($2 and $5 units after first progression failed)
Sixth Session +$65 ($2 units)
Seventh Session +$100 ($2 units)
Eighth Session (Bac) +$265 ($5 units)

Total: +$1007

Consequently, I have PM'd the system to mattman for assessment.

Have you always played this way or did this MM evolve and only come to you recently? How long have you been using this MM? When you do lose, what then? DO you forge on or call it a day?

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

Played about a half-dozen sessions yesterday making Field bets and Banker bets on EZ Bac tables. Here are the results:

Starting bank: 184 $1 units

Where can you play EZ Bac for $1? On-line??

I need a system that beats "the field" like most people need plasma,,, craps is a great yelling game

Originally Posted by sevenshooter

I'm not sure how to respond to this. "Good for you", maybe? I think you've missed the point.
Please tell us how your system would fare against each:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWW

WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWW

WLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWWW

The method I've come up with scores +16 units for the first pattern, +3 units for the second, and +16 on the third.
Please respond in fashion.

For example, a simple 1-2 negative progression would result in -18 units on the first; +17 on the second; and -25 units with the last.
Oscar's Grind: 1st: -8 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -68 units
Typical 8-step Martingale: 1st: -255 units 2nd: +17 units 3rd: +17 units
Carsch: 1st: -93 units 2nd: +3 units 3rd: -92 units
etc...

By looking at your strings, the three wins at the end of each really tell it all. I get very similar results to yours using a mild negative progression on losses, with a 3 step positive progression on the wins. It is a pretty solid MM, but at times, getting 3 wins in a row is quite difficult.

Throw your twist on it out to the board.....maybe we can help make it even stronger.

LOL-did not read through to see LOTI lay it out there as I described. I'm thinking it is a grand martingale up on the wins for SS?

Originally Posted by Egalite

Where can you play EZ Bac for $1? On-line??

Was playing craps for $1. EZ Bac for $5.

Update: Mattman has run sims and we are shooting ideas back and forth at the moment.
Will keep everyone posted. Little more time is needed.

Despite having won every live session played using this "new" system of mine, Mattman's simulations have shown it to be a long-term loser. Imagine that. I do thank the Mattman for all the hard work he put into taking a good, serious look at this.

I am posting the system below for your entertainment:

Premise: A series of three wins (WWW) statistically occurs once in eight trials.
1) WWW
2) WWL
3) WLL
4) WLW
5) LLL
6) LLW
7) LWW
8) LWL

One win: WWW WWL WLL WLW LLL LLW LWW LWL

Yet as the order of events changes, it is possible for three wins to come around more than what is statistically expected:

Two wins: WWW LLL LWW WLL LWL WWL LLW WLW
Three wins: LWW WLL WLW WWL WWW LLW WLW LLL

The Progression

1-1-1 (+3) -1
1-1-1 (+2) -2
1-1-1 (+1) -3
2-2-2 (+3) -5
2-2-2 (+1) -7
3-3-3 (+2) -10
4-4-4 (+2) -14
6-6-6 (+4) -20
8-8-8 (+4) -28
10-10-10 (+2) -38
15-15-15 (+7) -53
20-20-20 (+7) -73
26-26-26 (+5) -99
35-35-35 (+6) -134
50-50-50 (+16) -184
Total: 184 units

When the first bet of each series at any level is lost, we advance to the next level.
When the first bet is won and the second is lost, we remain at the same level and go back to the first bet of the series.
When both the first and second bets are won yet the third bet is lost, we regress one level. This means the progression is actually working in our benefit in reverse.
When all three bets are won consecutively the progression is over, profit is netted and we return to the first bet of the first level.

Results:

1) +51 units
2) +51
3) -94
4) +74
5) +56
6) +77 (+215 units)

1) +55
2) +50
3) +102 (double units)
4) +335 (5x units)
5) +35 (2x and 5x)
6) +65 (2x units)
7) +100 (5x units)
8) +265 (5x units)

I had much success playing this system on the Field in Craps despite being a 5-4 underdog.
Rolls of 2 and 12 are paid 2-1 and thus count as two consecutive wins.

7shooter, firstly thanks for posting the details.

Having used a deep Fibonacci for many years, it can be a real issue getting a back to back win or even 2 from 3, sometimes I reverted to flat betting after a long losing series, OFTEN both methods failed. If your gong to do something to the bitter end, "sure-win" IMO would be a better option. "Sure-Win" doesn't have a limit, but I personally won't recommend it.

Originally Posted by Egalite

7shooter, firstly thanks for posting the details.

Having used a deep Fibonacci for many years, it can be a real issue getting a back to back win or even 2 from 3, sometimes I reverted to flat betting after a long losing series, OFTEN both methods failed. If your gong to do something to the bitter end, "sure-win" IMO would be a better option. "Sure-Win" doesn't have a limit, but I personally won't recommend it.

Thanks for the input, Egalite.
Maybe one of the reasons it worked so well in craps is because once every 18 rolls either one 2 or one 12 is expected (but not both).
The progression is 15 levels deep yet since single chops and double wins allow for the prog to extend over even more events (>15 rolls) we usually see one 2-1 payoff.