SINGLE vs. MULTI-DECK STREAKS!

progressions fail for two reasons:

1. They increase your average bet size, but in a losing game, all this does is increase the speed at which the house drains your funds. doesn't matter whether it is craps, BJ or roulette. All are losing games (except BJ for counters) and betting more in a losing game just loses faster.

2. There are table limits in effect which limit the max bet so that extreme progressions can't work. IE you can't double on each loss, beyond some point due to table maximum bet size.

For counters, it is pretty simple. When the count is low, you had better have a small bet out. When the count is high, you had better have a big bet out. How you use "cover" to make that happen is irrelevant. Either it happens or counting will lose also.

Could we please get off of this pattern stuff. On random, non-related events, you can see patterns _after_ the fact, but you can _not_ predict them before they happen. So the discussion is useless.

There are _no_ Roulette systems to win. There are no craps systems to win unless the dice are altered, or you believe the few people that claim to be able to control the dice to some limited extent so that they are no longer quite as random as they normally are. But with random dice, forget it.

You can see all kinds of stuff after the fact. Sports analysts come up with such garbage all the time. Each time the running back runs for over 100 yards, team X wins. The question they don't understand is, "is the fact that the running back ran for 100 years a cause of winning the game, or did the fact that the team was winning the game allow the running back to hit 100 yards?"

Again, they see patterns after the fact, but can't predict a thing about the next game, until it is over and then they say "see, I told you, this was a pattern.."

Yes, I agree, no one can beat Roulette or craps in the long run.

By that I mean, those dice degenerates that live on the craps table everyday, getting grinded up by the odds.

No, being there all day will eat up your dough!

But unless people beat the game from time to time, and had a few systems that won occassionally the games WOULD NOT EXIST.

But the patterns exist! Trouble is it's like an atheist, or Jewish man, or a Christain; they all have their own beleifs and may try to persuade one to beleive otherwise. Either you beleive or one don't because he refuses to see the logic of the other.

Counters can face a nightmare, despite their skill, as statistical swings and the casino's measures will always be haunting him and his bankroll.

And do not even tell me you have never experienced the high count and cards running sour over you.

Could it be a thing called luck, or could a predictable pattern exist that others have found that you do not know about nor really want to know?

"progressions fail for two reasons:

1. They increase your average bet size, but in a losing game, all this does is increase the speed at which the house drains your funds. doesn't matter whether it is craps, BJ or roulette. All are losing games (except BJ for counters) and betting more in a losing game just loses faster. "

BUT AS THORP STATED, 'WHEN THE COUNTS HIGH IT JUSTIFYS DOUBLING UP'; NOT A QUOTE. SO WHEN THE COUNTS UNUSUALLY HIGH IT WORKS MOST OF THE TIME; NOT ALWAYS.

"2. There are table limits in effect which limit the max bet so that extreme progressions can't work. IE you can't double on each loss, beyond some point due to table maximum bet size."

THERE ARE WAYS TO ALTER THE INCLINE OF THE MATINGALE. when the counts high it's advantageous and a fantastic cover!!!!!!!!! (ask me offlist through email)

"For counters, it is pretty simple. When the count is low, you had better have a small bet out. When the count is high, you had better have a big bet out. How you use "cover" to make that happen is irrelevant. Either it happens or counting will lose also. "

AND THE CASINO HAS YOUR NUMBER, LIKE THE FARMER SETTING TRAPS FOR THE FOX STEALING HIS CHICKENS night after night; or twice a week at midnight. Sooner or latter the fox meets the trap or shotgun. Of course the fox can be cunning and less predictable in when he will show up, different measures.

**see my profile**

Likewise, a counter could lower his edge from time to time utilizing a *little deviation* by using progression to lengthen and insure a longer career. They know what you are doing, have more catalogued than you have memorized.

1. We are not talking the same language. When the count is high, you are _not_ a progression player, you are an advantage player that is simply using a cover strategy to disguise how you get your big bet out. There is nothing wrong with that as I have already said. A _real_ progression player does not count, he just modifies his bet based on various (non-working) strategies, to supposedly beat the game. They don't work.

2. having a big bet out when the count is high and a small bet out when the count is low is the _only_ way to win, when counting. Nothing else will work... How you get that big bet out is another matter. As I have said in the past, I generally use a parlaying scheme part of the time, which doubles my bet after a win by just leaving all the chips in the circle. Modifying this from time to time isn't a problem, at least it hasn't been for me. IE bet 1, win, true count rises significantly. Parlay to make it 2. Lose. You can double again with little trouble as now you look like you are playing a progression rather than counting, when in reality you are just trying to ramp up to your big bet in an obfuscated way...

3. Half the battle is to not be noticed in the first place.

1. I have experienced very high TCs and lost almost every hand. I have experienced very low TCs and won almost every hand. But those are exceptional cases that are fortunately not very common.

2. yes, I understand the idea of variance, swings, risk of ruin is always non-zero, etc. Things can happen.

3. Yes, people can and do win at _every_ casino game. Here and there. But not over the long run. If I thought that was acceptable, I'd just put a bunch of money in the slots, mindlessly punch the spin button, and let 'er rip...

4. No, there is no pattern. Not until after you have _finished_ and looked back. _then_ you might see a pattern. But not while it is happening.

If you believe in that kind of malarkey, that's fine. I don't think you will find many _serious_ counters that do. But whatever you do, stay away from people selling bridges and ocean-front property. :)

And also do not wander anywhere near where P.T. Barnum is buried. :)

It's all just pure math.

I will not do your homework on this anymore than DOPPLEGANGER will answer my question! IF HE KNOWS HOW?????? Maybe all he Knew was COPY & PASTE, but he can't or won't do it either????

I have done my homework to replicate some pseudo-progressions. I don't believe progressions work...they don't. There is no way to profit on streaks. However, betting styles of progressionists can be mimicked to get out the money when the count is good. In fact, progression betting ploppies are great for counters -- the more non-AP bettors spreading bets, the better.

Since you are so bold, and have the guts to admit that a counter can use progressions as a deversionary tactic as well as sometimes it's justified MATHEMATICALLY, I share this with you.

Not VOODOO, but it is occult, and most have not the brain, or are stuck like Working(employees) class republicans who will vote Bush. MORNIC ISN'T IT!

Perhaps we should save the politics for the Politics page. As for the game, many of us (knowingly or not) benefit from this diversionary tactic. We really can't look like we are playing straight from Counting 101 and expect to last, and I imagine many of us don't play quite that way. After all, who here hasn't pressed bets while losing, exclaiming, "you can't win forever" as long as the count is rising. I don't believe in Martingale be any means, but I have no problem with the pit believing I'm betting Martingale. Very different things, of course. It's all part of the act.

I think people here may be misunderstanding your posts. I initially thought you were saying you could gain an increased EV from progression play. I'm (we're) saying you get maximum EV from playing solely per the count (or with other recognized AP techniques like shuffle-tracking or ace sequencing) and any deviation, including progression cover plays, SUBTRACTS from EV. Your hybrid system should still have a solidly positive EV, as the money hits the felt with the count, as long it was set up with the assumption that the progression part subtracts from EV while increasing variance. It may pay off in longevity, with a good enough act, to pay for itself in lost EV. You may also get better comps to make up the difference as well.

Of course, it is OK advice since the next spin has a 50-50 (less 0-00 of course) chance of hitting red or black

Are you talking about the name of someone that wrote a book on how to beat Roulette? Put 'em right in there with the books on how to beat craps, how to beat any truly random game.

The only winner is the person selling the book...

Because black is way more of a cool colour than red. When there have been seven reds, it means black is due to hit. When there have been seven blacks, it means black is on a roll, baby. Also, black numbers are yellow on the table felt, so you get two colours for the price of one. How cool is that? Unless you are Chinese, and then red is definitely more lucky.