Watered down version of Martingale that I call scale betting

I wanted to explain a betting system that I game up with after years of research. I call this money management system scale betting. It is derived from the book you can't lose trading commodities. In other words it is like Martingale except it uses linear not non-linear averaging down. It can be used with MB or roulette that sort of thing with MB being a good choice and using player as your constant. Here is how the system works you start by betting black or player with your minimum or base bet. Every time you lose you add one chip to the pile. Every time you win you deduct one chip until you reach one chip then you bet that one chip until you lose. Every time you lose you add one chip every time you win you subtract one chip. I will get a license to Xtreme roulette and backtest the system but it has worked good in manual mode. I will try and add a you tube link for this process. I am not in any way way trying to sell something other than I would like to write a book or article at some point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SMfQ0yQeQ

Jeremy G. Konstenius

Quote: Jeremy

I wanted to explain a betting system that I game up with after years of research.
Jeremy G. Konstenius

Sounds like the D'Alembert System. you can read about it at wikipedia D'Alembert System
I used it with Craps pass line bets years ago.
Sure it showed some wins and some good ones at times.
But when it fails it fails BIG time, just like the rest of the systems out there.
Good Luck!

This also sounds just like the craps system Stetson Bailey uses. His site is here.
added: he passed away. His site is long gone.
A friend of mine paid $125 for the book and lost $10,000 working with it before giving up!.
Good Luck system bettors!
The Wizard always says if you have to bet a system base it off of math. That is what his site is all about. Show us the math!

Thanks for letting me know about the other system. When I try my version with simulated games I do come out in the long run but with big draw downs. I don't actually play casino games. I think the biggest advantage is in asset trading. The original system that I came up with is to add shares of stock on the way down then offload them on the way up. Gambling however is simply extreme leverage you will have major drawdowns. Interesting thing about casino games is they force you to take the disadvantage hence they are pre rigged. Interesting thing about markets like stocks is that you can take all of the advantages even with flat betting. I think that is why Blair Hull stopped playing 21 and started trading options as written about in the market wizards. I still think scaling in and out gives you the ability to change your equity curve. The bottom line is that casino games are not so good. But interestingly free market games like market making, arbitrage and that sort of thing like scaling in and out of pairs (that’s long and short two highly related products hence hedging) is intesting. I will look at the site you recommended for that system but I still have to face the facts that I will probably will be flipping futures not casino games because I would rather have a flat betting advantage. I mean think about in the scale system I am talking about grinding away for 1 dollar using a 1000 dollar bank roll and then going through major swings but then coming out in the long run 1 dollar at a time. I don’t think very many people me included would want to follow my system. But it is intesting that these sorts of thing get mentioned in terms of gambling money management.

gambling with investments in stocks, bonds, & maybe commodities has been a positive expectation situation, certainly *IF* you discount inflation and other costs. Also, it must be emphasized: this has been the case in the long run! I would just caution anyone, though, that a "system" might be the very thing that could make you blow it.

Some might argue that this paradigm of ultimate postitive expectation might change.

BTW I do believe that all investors ARE gamblers.

I had an interesting idea for a betting strategy to implement at my local casino, Cache Creek. It involves just a don't come bet, laying different odds multiples depending on the state of my bankroll. On the one hand, it increases the odds bet a couple of times at different amounts of net winnings; on the other hand, it also increases the odds bet a couple of times at different amounts of net loss. So, it has elements of two main categories of betting systems: increasing on wins and increasing on losses. So, it has the "back half" of the D'Alembert system, but increases on wins rather than decreases, as does the D'Alembert.

My strategy is not based on wins or losses, but rather bankroll benchmarks.
Here's how it works:

start with $200
when a point is established, make one $5 don't come bet
if it goes to a point number, lay single odds ($10 4/10, $9 5/9, $6 6/8)

if/whenever the bankroll gets over $250 or under $150, lay double odds ($20, $15, $12)
if/whenever the bankroll gets over $300 or under $100, lay 3, 4, 5X odds ($30 for all)

So, if I'm winning more than $50, I increase the variance with more odds, hoping to win even more. If I lose back to under $250, I go back to single odds.

If I'm losing more than $50, I increase the variance, hoping to come back. Of course, this increases the probability of busting, but it also increases the probability of coming back. Yes, this is what Sam Grafstein calls "chasing losses", but I am only talking about $200, which I am fully prepared to lose. If I come back up to over $150, I go back to single odds.

I created a WinCraps auto-bet file to test this out. The parameters:

starting bankroll $200
sessions end when:
1) bankroll less than $35 (can't make $5 + $30)
2) 200 rolls and last bet resolved
10,000 sessions

parameter
avg. num. rolls	197
avg. num. bets	53.5
avg. bet handle	$523
avg. net result	-$3.62
median net result	-$3
mode of net result	+$1 to +$7
standard deviation	$90
avg. house advantage	0.69%
winning sessions	4844
breakeven sessions	47
losing sessions	5109
number of busts	701
lost more than $100	1228
lost more than $50	2892
won more than $50	2574
won more than $100	935
won more than $150	477
won more than $200	242
biggest win	$438

So, it provides almost a 49% chance to break even or better, well under a 10% likelihood of busting and a 1-in-4 chance of winning at least 1/4 of my bankroll. Of course, things can go south pretty quickly - one session last only 42 rolls - but that's true of almost any strategy. There's always a sequence of rolls out there that will hammer any strategy, as well as a sequence that will suit it to a tea.

I plan on trying it out tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

I am still doing system research I tried the method that I thought I discovered which was the D'Alembert system and the simulator blew it apart after over a thousand spins. I have been playing with extreme roulette and interestingly their Fibonacci system seems to work ok but I need to do more research. I am not an expert at Fibonacci but I am going to start learning more about it.

I just started experimenting with my version of Fibonacci betting. I used a single 0 wheel if the numbers did not equal 36 or less there was no bet. I spun roughly 190 times betting only 90 times because there must have been roughly 100 spins that where above 36. I bet 1 dollar on every bet and won 7 times making about 100 dollars. I lost allot at 1 dollar per bet so waiting for the winners had some emotional draw downs. But interestingly low financial draw downs. So in the system I would sum the last 2 numbers and bet on that sum. Example if 2 then 4 came up I would bet 6. It was uncanny how many time it would be off by 1 number. Although please keep in mind it did not hit the fib sequence most of the time. I felt very comfortable betting 1 dollar on each bet. Also not betting over half of the time accounted for all the profits generated. I hope every one finds this interesting. Believe it or not I did not believe in fib numbers but in this case it seemed to work. I have asked the makers of Extreme roulette to code this system for further research.

Quote: Jeremy

Also not betting over half of the time accounted for all the profits generated. I hope every one finds this interesting.

I find this interesting. I think the best way to maximize your profit at a casino is to not bet. hee hee.

Your going to find this to be funny I was winning by myself with the system but when I tried showing it to someone it stopped working. I must have gotten lucky in that first test; Xtreme told me they might look at coding the system next week. Studying gambling which is something I don't do often other than the occasional lottery ticket has made me think about trading in a different way. Example in many spins averaging down blows the bank roll away because the small house advantage. In the financial markets the only systems that work exert a small advantage over the crowd but are executed many times. Example in stock index trading I might be trading a 10 dollar house advantage via the bid ask spread but I am using over 50,000 in capital. My point is I am taking small advantages many times over with futures and it will be interesting to see how it works. It was interesting to find out how deceptive a small house advantage brings. Example in gambling you never really get even a 50/50 probability but you can get that with a stock. However once you start using frequent market orders its over because you are trying to beat the casino.