## Poll

1 vote (14.28%) | |||

2 votes (28.57%) | |||

1 vote (14.28%) | |||

1 vote (14.28%) | |||

2 votes (28.57%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

2 votes (28.57%) | |||

No votes (0%) |

**7 members have voted**

However, this post is not directly about that. In my continued look at popular betting systems (ugh!), my next examination will be on the Fibonacci. The gist of it is similar to the Labouchere, that the player needs to win only 1/3 of even money bets to have a winning session. Oh, and not run out of money trying as well.

Here is my understanding of how the Fibonacci works:

- Write your winning goal on a piece of paper.
- Bet that amount on any even money bet.
- If the result from step 2 is a win, walk away.
- If the result from step 2 is a loss, then write the amount you just bet to the right of the winning goal on your piece of paper.
- Bet the sum of the right two numbers on your piece of paper. If there is just one number, then bet that.
- If you win, then cross off the right two numbers. If you lose, then add the amount bet as a new element on the list to the right side
- Go back to step 5, until you cross off all numbers or run out of money

Is this right? What if the player is not satisfied to win just one unit? Does he tend to keep repeating this process?

This will all eventually end up in both a new page and video on the Fibonacci Betting System, so I welcome input.

The question for the poll is what do you think of the Fibonacci?

The way I understood it you tried to have 2 successful wagers in a row. So if you lost ten straight following the string and won just 2x it results in a profit and significantly more than a martingale.

The sequence of the last two numbers will always result in the same string.

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55etc. Therefore you don't have to add numbers or cross off. Just keep the Fibonacci string memorized.

So let's take lose eight times, win two.

You lose 1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.

Winning two straight then is 34 + 55 = 89 units won

Profit 35 units. Notice the profit if successful is the amount of the next to last wager made plus one.

There may be more than one Fibonacci method but since the number string is always the same writing numbers down should not be necessary

EDIT: I seem to recall a variation that did require writing it down. It went like this and was meant to deal with a win/lose scenario.

You write down the sequence and try to win two in a row which ends the sequence wherever you are

If you lose all the wagers (bankroll or you hit table max) that ends the sequence.

And if you win one then lose the next you cross off the two previous wagers that added up.

From the above example, if you wagered 34 units and won, then 55 and lost, you would cross off the 13 and 21 (which added up to the 34 units wager) and go ahead with the 89 units wager (34+55=89)

The purpose of that was to effect a win with a bouncy table as well. Eventually you would still wind up with all the numbers crossed off. Unless you hit another lose lose streak

Quote:onenickelmiracleI'm really overdo to take notes.

Yeah. That's why I think this video series is a good idea (although I'm not sure the Wizard does). To me the positives are:

- Betting systems can increase the fun factor for some games, especially the this/that, player/banker, black/red type.
- If you wish to be a well rounded and knowledgeable player, you should at least know the basics of the more common systems. That way you'll recognize them when you see them.
- It's hard to tell people that their system doesn't work if you have to confess that you don't know how their system works.
- Sometimes studying a betting system will spark an idea for a more legitimate pursuit.

I'm really only familiar with the Martingale and D'Alembert systems so I'm enjoying this.

Quote:ChumpChangeKeep losing 10 in a row without putting 2 wins together in 60 hands.

Why would you play a game

where you can lose 10 in a row,

Know a game before you play

it or don't play.

I meant about what would be stupid money in gambling is wise in investing. You don't need a system if you're neg EV gambling, just gambling is the system trying to stay in denial. Worst system is I the knew I should have done that, best system is I knew I should have done that.Quote:GialmereYeah. That's why I think this video series is a good idea (although I'm not sure the Wizard does). To me the positives are:

- Betting systems can increase the fun factor for some games, especially the this/that, player/banker, black/red type.
- If you wish to be a well rounded and knowledgeable player, you should at least know the basics of the more common systems. That way you'll recognize them when you see them.
- It's hard to tell people that their system doesn't work if you have to confess that you don't know how their system works.
- Sometimes studying a betting system will spark an idea for a more legitimate pursuit.

I'm really only familiar with the Martingale and D'Alembert systems so I'm enjoying this.

Example 1:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, win, balance = $0.

Are you done at this point? Sources I read say "move two numbers down the sequence after a win. That would bring you off the list.

Example 2:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-1.

Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.

Bet #4: $3, win, balance = $-1.

Bet #5: $1, win, balance = $0.

I could ask the same question, are you done at this point, breaking even?

Example 3:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-2.

Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.

Bet #4: $3, loss, balance = $-7.

Bet #5: $5, win, balance = $-2.

Bet #6: $2, win, balance = $0.

Bet #7: $1, win, balance = $1.

It seems to me that if your last winning bet is from the first 1, then you profit a unit. If it's from the second 1, then you break even only.

Do I have this right?

Quote:WizardLet me post some Fibonacci examples. Assume a bet unit is $1.

Example 1:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, win, balance = $0.

Are you done at this point? Sources I read say "move two numbers down the sequence after a win. That would bring you off the list.

Example 2:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-1.

Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.

Bet #4: $3, win, balance = $-1.

Bet #5: $1, win, balance = $0.

I could ask the same question, are you done at this point, breaking even?

Example 3:

Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.

Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-2.

Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.

Bet #4: $3, loss, balance = $-7.

Bet #5: $5, win, balance = $-2.

Bet #6: $2, win, balance = $0.

Bet #7: $1, win, balance = $1.

It seems to me that if your last winning bet is from the first 1, then you profit a unit. If it's from the second 1, then you break even only.

Do I have this right?

But then it's just a martingale with only profit of one unit per session

By making the second win the next number in the Fibonacci sequence you can lose many in a row, just win twice and secure a decent profit (not that it overcomes house edge but at least the profit potential is higher if you go for it

Image source: CasinoGuardian.co.uk.

Note bet #9, which won. Why did the player move only ONE position to the left for the next bet? Shouldn't he have gone from 3 to 1?

Quote:darkozBut then it's just a martingale with only profit of one unit per session

By making the second win the next number in the Fibonacci sequence you can lose many in a row, just win twice and secure a decent profit (not that it overcomes house edge but at least the profit potential is higher if you go for it

I'm not sure I see your point.

With the Martingale, you need to win only once to profit a unit. With Fibonacci, you may need many wins. I would compare it with the Labourchere, where you need to win more than 1/3 of your bets to be successful.

I do not see your point about winning twice.

Quote:WizardI'm not sure I see your point.

With the Martingale, you need to win only once to profit a unit. With Fibonacci, you may need many wins. I would compare it with the Labourchere, where you need to win more than 1/3 of your bets to be successful.

I do not see your point about winning twice.

I think you missed my example earlier in the thread

The way I learned the Fibonacci was you kept rising in the sequence.

So lose 8 straight for example

1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.

Next two wagers in sequence is 34 and 55. You keep going up until you win twice in a row.

So win 34 + 55 and after losing 8 straight (54 units) you now win back 89(34+55)

This means a long streak can be survived by just two back to back wins.

This is how a martingale works in that you keep rising until you achieve a win (this case two wins)

It allows more wagers because you are not doubling each time

Besides the longer chance to rise before table max it also is better than a martingale because the profit potential rises with risks.

With martingale you always wind up with the same single unit profit. With Fibonacci in this manner the higher wagers result in higher profit

Quote:darkozI think you missed my example earlier in the thread

The way I learned the Fibonacci was you kept rising in the sequence.

So lose 8 straight for example

1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.

Next two wagers in sequence is 34 and 55. You keep going up until you win twice in a row.

So win 34 + 55 and after losing 8 straight (54 units) you now win back 89(34+55)

This means a long streak can be survived by just two back to back wins.

This is how a martingale works in that you keep rising until you achieve a win (this case two wins)

It allows more wagers because you are not doubling each time

Besides the longer chance to rise before table max it also is better than a martingale because the profit potential rises with risks.

With martingale you always wind up with the same single unit profit. With Fibonacci in this manner the higher wagers result in higher profit

I like that, but it doesn't seem to be the way the Fibonacci is explained on other sites.

Quote:WizardI like that, but it doesn't seem to be the way the Fibonacci is explained on other sites.

Well it's possible I altered it myself.

It was one of the first systems I tried as an systems player 30 years ago.

I had a very small bankroll so it never worked.

What analysis of my version do you find? It sounds better than crossing off and lowering bets

For example if you hit a bouncy table (win-loss-win-loss) you still make a profit eventually

Quote:darkozWell it's possible I altered it myself.

If I write about it, may I call it the DarkOz variant?

Quote:WizardIf I write about it, may I call it the DarkOz variant?

Yeah, I like the sound of that.

Quote:DeMangoI thought you parlayed that win, so $34 + $68 = $102 less $54 for profit of $48. Or is that just DeMango variant?

That's called switching to a martingale

I can only guess people use this system because it simplifies the next bet amount...it’s generally much easier to just use the next Fibonacci number than to multiply the last wager by the appropriate factor. If, for instance, the event had a probability of .27, then the exact factor to increase each wager by would be 1 / (1 - .27) = 1.3699, which isn’t something you can quickly calculate in your head

no you parlay the $34. Win and back to base. Martingale back to base after one win.Quote:darkozThat's called switching to a martingale

Step | Largest Bet | Net win |
---|---|---|

1 | 1 | n/a |

2 | 1 | 1 |

3 | 2 | 2 |

4 | 3 | 3 |

5 | 5 | 4 |

6 | 8 | 6 |

7 | 13 | 9 |

8 | 21 | 14 |

9 | 34 | 22 |

10 | 55 | 35 |

11 | 89 | 56 |

12 | 144 | 90 |

13 | 233 | 145 |

14 | 377 | 234 |

15 | 610 | 378 |

16 | 987 | 611 |

17 | 1,597 | 988 |

18 | 2,584 | 1,598 |

19 | 4,181 | 2,585 |

20 | 6,765 | 4,182 |

21 | 10,946 | 6,766 |

22 | 17,711 | 10,947 |

23 | 28,657 | 17,712 |

24 | 46,368 | 28,658 |

25 | 75,025 | 46,369 |

26 | 121,393 | 75,026 |

27 | 196,418 | 121,394 |

28 | 317,811 | 196,419 |

29 | 514,229 | 317,812 |

30 | 832,040 | 514,230 |

31 | 1,346,269 | 832,041 |

32 | 2,178,309 | 1,346,270 |

33 | 3,524,578 | 2,178,310 |

34 | 5,702,887 | 3,524,579 |

35 | 9,227,465 | 5,702,888 |

36 | 14,930,352 | 9,227,466 |

37 | 24,157,817 | 14,930,353 |

38 | 39,088,169 | 24,157,818 |

39 | 63,245,986 | 39,088,170 |

40 | 102,334,155 | 63,245,987 |

41 | 165,580,141 | 102,334,156 |

42 | 267,914,296 | 165,580,142 |

43 | 433,494,437 | 267,914,297 |

44 | 701,408,733 | 433,494,438 |

45 | 1,134,903,170 | 701,408,734 |

46 | 1,836,311,903 | 1,134,903,171 |

47 | 2,971,215,073 | 1,836,311,904 |

48 | 4,807,526,976 | 2,971,215,074 |

49 | 7,778,742,049 | 4,807,526,977 |

50 | 12,586,269,025 | 7,778,742,050 |

Quote:Note that despite winning 6 bets out of 16 only (37.5%), the player finally comes out ahead.

Yup. That's where the snake oil gets sold. It's also (I confess) where the fun is if you decide to tinker with systems.

I don't think the page needs it but, if you're looking for more examples, Pai Gow Poker is another popular, single bet win/lose game where systems get action.

I'm looking forward to the video.

Direct: https://youtu.be/Cds0ZebNBeE

The video is in "private" mode for now, so I welcome comments before I make it permanent. I also welcome ideas for the next betting system to analyze.

you've got this down now. Never thought I'd find these things interestingQuote:WizardI finally have what I'll call "version 2" of my Fibonacci video.

by all means do one of the "ones that usually lose but sometimes have a huge win"Quote:The video is in "private" mode for now, so I welcome comments before I make it permanent. I also welcome ideas for the next betting system to analyze.

I agree with odiousgambit: you got this down pat. While I rarely toy with systems, I want to be a well rounded player who can spot one when I see one.

There is a rough edit when you return to "live" action at the end which you might want to smooth out.

Overall: Two Thumbs Up!

--------------------

If you're taking requests, my favorite system to mess around with is the D'Alembert. I enjoy this (call it a) "cautious Martingale" because it's fun (and easy) to tweak to your tastes. Or, as I like to joke, my system has a modified D'Alembert engine that runs on high octane gambler's fallacy.

Almost everything is new with that video -- camera, microphone, and the software that put it together.

Quote:odiousgambitby all means do one of the "ones that usually lose but sometimes have a huge win"

Good idea. Many moons ago, when I was in my early 20's, I sometimes played a system that I made up, but maybe it has a name. It went as follows:

1. Decide your unit amount. Mine was invariably $5 (back then $5 blackjack was easy to find).

2. Bet on unit.

3. After a WIN increase your bet by your unit size.

4. After a loss, drop back to a one unit bet.

This system would kill you in a choppy game, but did sometimes result in a nice windfall.

Anyone ever hear of anything like this?