I document it more fully in my Blog at https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post2666

System applies best to 'even money' type wagers such as BlackJack

It shapes your bankroll path to give it a slight downward trend under typical 'neutral luck' situations, but can see your bankroll rise rapidly if you have the occasional winning streak.

You can only lose 91% of your buy-in and your play can last far longer than if flat betting.

NOTE. It Does NOTHING to change the house edge and is not in any way an ADVANTAGE PLAY.

It's just an amusing way to play some games spinning out your bankroll

How it works.

Very simple. You buy in for an amount you want to play with and are prepared to lose and then you proceed to make each wager 10% of your remaining bankroll balance. You round that 10% down to the nearest Dollar.

Example.

Buy in for $100

Place first 'even money' wager of 10% of $100 = $10

If you win, your bankroll will become $100+$10 = $110 meaning your next wager will be $11

But, if you lose, your bankroll will become $100-$10 = $90 meaning your next wager will be $9

NOTE. A win, followed by a loss will see your bankroll reduce. The win does NOT cancel out the loss.

NOTE. A loss, followed by a win will also see your bankroll reduce. The win does NOT cancel out the loss.

Eg, if you win your first wager and lose your second, your bankroll will go...

$100, $110, $99 leaving you down by $1

Eg, if you lose your first wager and win your second, your bankroll will go...

$100, $90, $99 also leaving you down by $1

The system really comes into its own when you have a few more wins than losses.

If you are unlucky enough to get your bankroll down to $9, then you are stopped out from wagering because 10% of $9 = 90c is less than the $1 table minimum. You could play 10c table min game if you wish.

Here are a few bankroll charts showing the course of a $100 bankroll, comparing flat betting $10 to betting a rolling 10% of Bankroll.

Quote:OnceDear

The system really comes into its own when you have a few more wins than losses.

link to original post

Which can be said about every betting system since the beginning of time.

If the number of wins and losses is equal, each win will result in a larger bet that would be countered with a loss, so your overall result is a loss, and each loss will result in a smaller bet that would be countered with a win, so your overall result is also a loss.

Remember, the object is to expose as little of your money as possible to the house edge.

Quote:ThatDonGuy

Remember, the object is to expose as little of your money as possible to the house edge.

link to original post

He's taking a more risky, heart pounding approach. Don't be a killjoy..

All -EV betting systems seem to be a matter of taste.

https://archive.org/details/montecarloanecdo00bethiala/mode/2upQuote:TigerWuNot sure why that printing says "unknown author." It was written by a guy name Victor Bethell. He wrote another book about Monte Carlo, too.

link to original post

10% is nice and easy to work out while playing. It also met a nice balance where I was faced with a 300x wagering requirement on a bonus. When I played it on day one, I found myself making (insane) wagers of £600 per hand of BJ. That was from a bankroll that was inflated by an early win streak. My objective was to expose a massive amount to the house edge, because I had no choice but to wager through those requirements. Meeting the WR by flat betting would have taken me far too long and would have not been volatile enough. Losing all was not going to be a problem.Quote:MentalI don't think OD is claiming that 10% is some sort of magic number for this betting system. If the player has an edge, then Kelly gives us a percentage that is optimal for growing the expected value of the log of the bankroll. Kelly would say the optimal percentage for a -EV play is zero. However, choosing any percentage below 10% would increase bankroll longevity. Increasing the percentage above 10% would increase the chances of getting to place a really large bet in any given session.

All -EV betting systems seem to be a matter of taste.

link to original post

To those that understand Kelly Criteria, they would see how handy it would be if one had a 10% edge.

My objective was to survive Wagering Requirements of 300x in reasonably speedy time. Until that was done my bankroll was just a plaything that could not be withdrawn. A plaything that I could be reckless with and one that I wanted to get many hours of play from. But not too many.Quote:ThatDonGuyWhile it does stretch out your play longer than flat betting, you are more likely to lose than with flat betting, and you showed how yourself:

If the number of wins and losses is equal, each win will result in a larger bet that would be countered with a loss, so your overall result is a loss, and each loss will result in a smaller bet that would be countered with a win, so your overall result is also a loss.

Remember, the object is to expose as little of your money as possible to the house edge.

link to original post

I understand it was a great chance to play around with a system. However, it would have prolonged the agony if you were losing while satisfying the WR. It would have shortened the period of fun when you were winning.Quote:OnceDearMy objective was to survive Wagering Requirements of 300x in reasonably speedy time. Until that was done my bankroll was just a plaything that could not be withdrawn. A plaything that I could be reckless with and one that I wanted to get many hours of play from. But not too many.

link to original post

This is a bit like WMS coin-out must hit progressives. If you are winning, the progressive hits quickly. If you are losing, the pain just goes on and on. Masochists might appreciate it.

Quote:Mental

This is a bit like WMS coin-out must hit progressives. If you are winning, the progressive hits quickly. If you are losing, the pain just goes on and on. Masochists might appreciate it.

link to original post

I discovered the hard way over the years that flat betting and making the least number of units needed to reach my goal, and exposing as a little of my bankroll as possible, was the only logical way to play. Right now I'm back to one unit and I'm out. Win and leave, do not let the proverbial door hit me on my fanny on the way out.. And I gave up on Baccarat already, turns out there's only two unique live tables in all the online casinos in Michigan. Bummer..

It was literally my first day playing Blackjack for real money. Best case scenario: I cleared WR at all. Worst case, I could play for many hours and decide to switch up to 20% or more. As it happened, over about 6 hours of play, I met WR, Made £6k and had some fun. I'd never played a £600 x 2 wager before, that's for sure.Quote:MentalI understand it was a great chance to play around with a system. However, it would have prolonged the agony if you were losing while satisfying the WR. It would have shortened the period of fun when you were winning.Quote:OnceDearMy objective was to survive Wagering Requirements of 300x in reasonably speedy time. Until that was done my bankroll was just a plaything that could not be withdrawn. A plaything that I could be reckless with and one that I wanted to get many hours of play from. But not too many.

link to original post

This is a bit like WMS coin-out must hit progressives. If you are winning, the progressive hits quickly. If you are losing, the pain just goes on and on. Masochists might appreciate it.

link to original post

That's all these systems are good for, having fun. They have no value beyond that.

Of course, now we know that there are often ways around WR

$;o)

One thing about this system (method, or whatever) it's for an expendable and fixed BR. One must resist the feeling that it's sustainable or worthy of further buy-ins when one does get stopped out.

As you say

Quote:MentalAll -EV betting systems seem to be a matter of taste.

link to original post

Indeed. And all ARE -EV

And of course.... Trends. Patterns. Goals. Stop losses. Hit and run. Win and Leave. Educated Guessing. All Complete and utter Lobblocks.