Incremental Negative Progression Betting System

Basic jist. You lose you go up a unit, you win you go down a unit. If you hit a black jack you go down 2 units. If you win a double down you go down 2, if you lose you just go up 1. Splits go down total number of wins, or half total number of losses. Here's a picture:



If anyone has some software to run this against a billion hands I'd like to see it.

Thanks,
Mark

PS My full article is on markcoveny.com MarkCoveny.com

I tried this on Bodog using practice chips and within 15 minutes went belly-up.

This is known as the d'Alembert system.

Like all betting systems, it only "works" if you experience more wins than losses, which simply won't happen in the long run.

Well if you take a 6% edge and you do exact probiblities it's 47 wins which cancel out 47 loses and product 47 units. The 6 extra loses put me down 21 units, but my total is still postive 26 units. However my system actually doesn't react directly to wins and loses. There are some modifications at the top of the post. On the d'Alembert System I didn't see structured betting. Roulette has a much higher house edge than say the player on bac at 1.24%. Wizard of Odds

In order to run a simulation, I would need to know more information:

• What is your initial bankroll?
• What is your goal? (How much do you want to win vs. your bankroll?)
• What is your betting increment?
• What are the minimum and maximum bets?

I have a simple win/loss simulation with a house edge of 0.40% ready to go. It isn't a full blackjack simulation, but it should serve the purpose.

Also, how does a $10 bet turn into a $20 win? Every bet you have shows a win of 2x, instead of 1x.

Progression betting / regression betting systems don't work. In any game, you are liable to get more losses in a row than your bankroll covers. For example, in blackjack, where you only win roughly 45% of your bets. The odds of losing 10 in a row ($550 in total at a $10 table) is 0.2533%.

While this seems miniscule, this % applies to every bet. Over 400 hands bets (about 4 hours), the odds are that you will be hit with such a streak is about 67% (though I think Paco will correct me on this).

Under Atlantic City rules the probability of a net
win is 43.31%,
tie is 8.80%, and
loss is 47.89% according to the Wizard.
==============
On average if you play 435 hands then 35 will result in ties. If we don't count ties (i.e. ties don't break a winning or losing streak), then your probabilities of getting a streak of losses of at least N or more are as follows:
N probability
6 98.537%
7 88.363%
8 66.973%
9 43.703%
10 25.857%

Your odds of a streak of 10 or more wins is 11.346%, but your betting system does not allow you to win much money for this fortune.
======================
Betting systems fundamentally are using time as a variable. Time means a lot to humans, but it means nothing to inanimate objects.

Ten in a row is still pretty tough. It is 67% for a run of eight or more.

Quote: pacomartin

Betting systems fundamentally are using time as a variable. Time means a lot to humans, but it means nothing to inanimate objects.

I've seen this quote before, or something like it, and it always has a zing to it. But, I am sure the OP would dispute this point. Here is a quote from his website:

Quote: MarkCoveny

If you truly want to be a winner, I have the “golden rule” for you: Set the amount you want to win, BEFORE YOU GO. I can not stress this enough. Get a number in your mind that you would be satisfied with before you leave the house. LEAVE when you achieve this goal regardless of where you are in the system.

The OP believes if you leave after hitting a win goal, then come back tomorrow, next week, or some other time in the future, then the cards will not remember you so that you can repeat the procedure. He clearly believes inanimate objects can tell time. So does my pet rock.

Of course, his advice is good ... provided you leave and never come back.

I can write the simulation, but I know how it would turn out. There'd have to be a lot of money up front for me to do such a thing. I think Mr. Wizard used to offer such a service as well for would-be progressionists.

Yippee!! I found the link: https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/challenge2.html

--Dorothy

Quote: MarkCoveny

If you truly want to be a winner, I have the “golden rule” for you: Set the amount you want to win, BEFORE YOU GO. I can not stress this enough. Get a number in your mind that you would be satisfied with before you leave the house. LEAVE when you achieve this goal regardless of where you are in the system.

The golden rule works regardless of how you are betting. If your goal is to increase your bankroll by 20% you will probably get there using Mark Coveny's system, but you would probably get there using flat betting. The betting system works because the goal is modest. But there is no inherent advantage to the system.

I think it's a decent goal to have a "win" goal and adjust your betting pattern (or leave) once you've hit that goal. We do that for our sessions in Vegas. We come in with a certain amount and leave once that's gone and we will go ahead and buy show tickets or book an expensive dinner if we hit the win goal. At that point the win is gone but it's been parlayed into something significant as a reward instead of a bunch of black chips that we would pull out and lose later in the day.

Quote: boymimbo

I think it's a decent goal to have a "win" goal and adjust your betting pattern (or leave) once you've hit that goal. We do that for our sessions in Vegas. We come in with a certain amount and leave once that's gone and we will go ahead and buy show tickets or book an expensive dinner if we hit the win goal. At that point the win is gone but it's been parlayed into something significant as a reward instead of a bunch of black chips that we would pull out and lose later in the day.

Just so you understand that in the long run these goals make no difference in the amount you win or lose (except to the extent that they keep you from playing and therefore reduce your total expected loss -- but so does not playing at all). If they have utilitarian value for you, that can only be a good thing.

--Dorothy