Code:
1 Players at table: 7, 6 ,5, (4) 3, 2 ,1
-2 -6 -4 -2 (3) 5, 7 ,1
(3) ______________________________
-4 *OR possibly? (1) 3, 5, 7
*5???
-6
7
Well,
after much debate and confusion. And even more trial and error. Ive got it narrowed down to two possibilitys. The reason i believe for this! Could quite possibly be, because both ways are correct?
However, if thats true! Would it also be true that one way has to work specifically with the other??? Is it possible that one of the two ways is contingent upon wether the game is dealt face up or not? Having said that. I have it posted to what i believe is to be at least one of the correct ways.
The correct way:
What exactly i mean by the correct way is if i make a flat bet and WIN we go to (3) units. Now, IF we lose our (3) unit bet and ONLY our (3) unit bet do we resort to the negative progression. NOT the 5?? unit bet as previously assumed. But i still consider THIS, as an alternative option. Is this correct? or just a mere option? MY question remains vexed. When i compare it to the difference in the trial or to flat betting.
Players at table:
Thou i have it posted as to what i believe is to be the correct way. The numbers below the line are to be only cosidered as an alternative possibility.
(see players at table: in previous post) even though this option may or may not be right contray to the other option.
Slight change in scheme:
After some hours of playing this pogression i noticed there was a flaw in the betting scheme. Besides the fact, that i would resort to the negative progression when i lost my 5 unit bet.( Now i restart the trial over when i lose the 5 unit bet) Further analysis, has led me to believe that i should only resort to the negative progression ONLY when i lose the (3) unit bet.
It is now contingent upon wether or not i win or lose double my bet.(Splits,DD)
Its easy enough to remember that we ONLY go to the negative progression when we lose the (3) unit bet. Right! But what happens if we were to lose double on the (3) unit progression(or 5and7). Glad you asked, the answer is sound and simple. Restart trial. If you win it, proceed as planned. Thats the good news.
The bad news is what happens after we lose our (3) unit bet and also lose double our bet in the negative progression. You guessed it, you proceed to the next step. (If you was to win double or single bet. Start trial over.)Note: that this is opposite of the positive. The reason for this(though not showed) is in comparison with flat betting.
A few examples
10$units)X2 means double.
10L,10L,10W,30W,50W,70W or L start trial over.
10W,30W,50X2L,start trial over.( W,proceed to7)
10L,10W,30X2W,50W,70X2,WorL,start trial over.
10W,30X2L,start trial over.
*neg prog.
10W,
30L* 20W,start trial over.
10W,30L,20L,40W, STO.
10W,30L,20X2L,40X2W,STO.
10W,30L,20L,40X2L,60WorL,STO.
And of course if was resorting to the negative progression when we lost the 5 unit bet it would be done the same way. But in these examples im not.
In my next post ill display the differences vs flat betting as opposed to vs trial. And will also post my detailed results in 50 hrs of play from now using this detailed method.
_____________________________________________________
Unfortunately and once again ive had to scratch every thing and start over. Ive realized that wether the count is pos or neg and if we win or lose a double or split, will in fact, dictate which bets we make. Because negative progressions our based on the players bankroll and positive progressions are based on the casinos bankroll it makes sense the negative progressions are somewhat contingent whether the count is positive or negative and wether we win or lose double or bet. Below is a relevant, but brief display of which bets are contingent of the count (negative or positive) coupled with the contingency of wether we win or lose double our bet. 10$ increments.
Code:
Remember win you win we go to the 30$ bet. Win proceed to 50$ bet. Lose, resort to negative progression.
Note: This is not contingent of the count.
Trial vs Flatbet: Difference
WL -20 0 -20
WLL -40 -10 -30
WLLL -80 -20 (-60)*
*Provided the RC is 0> you procedd to the last of the negative progression which is 6(60$) Win or lose restart.(Results not shown) Note: if its below 0 you restart.
WWL -10 10 (-20)*
When you win twice in a row you will now be making the 50$ bet. Win, proceed to last one (70$) * If you lose the 50$ bet, only proceed to negative progression(20$) if the count is 0> Note: if below 0 restart.
WWLL -30 0 -30
WWLLL -70 -10 (-60)*
* The same as above. Only procceed to the last negative progression bet(60$) if the RC is 0> IF NOT, restart.
I would also like to re-point the fact that if we lose double on our 30$ and 50$ bets. This is a mandatory restart. And remember, you only resort to the negative progression if you lose the 30 and 50 and ONLY the 50$ bet is contingent of the RC 0>
Below shows the contingency of the RC and wether we win or lose double on the first negative progression bet(20$) From the top.
WLLX2 -60 -20 (-40)*
Remember theres only 3 bets in the negative progression 20,40,60. and if you win any bet in the negative progression you restart.* If you lose double on the first negative bet (20) only proceed to the second one(40$) bet, if the RC is 0> IF NOT restart. Important note: If the count justifys a 40$ (RC 0>) Win or lose the 40$ bet, RESTART.(Results not shown) Do not proceed to 60$
From the top:
WWLX2 -50 -10 (-40)*
Same as above.
Note: If you ever lose double on the second progression bet (40$) right! This is also a mandatory re-start. Proceeding to step 3 (60$) is NOT contingent of the count!
1 2 3 4+
1 Player at table: (7 6 5 4 3 2 1)
-2 (-6 -4 -2 1 3 5 7)
(3) + 5 6 7 8=36
-4
(5)* *contingent of RC
-6
7
Sorry about the format, i didnt realize it was going to do that. Anyway the count dictates our next bet when we compare it to flat-betting. As long as it doesnt exceed the next bet. But when we compare it to the trial our bets our not contingent of the count. Just when the difference is equal to or less than the next bet in the negative progression. For example, when we make our 3rd positive progressive bet *(50$) and lose were only down -10$ not -20$ like when we lose our 30$ bet and there fore since were down 20 in the trial and the difference in flatbetting we automatically resort to the negative progression(20$) unless we lose double on 30 of course.
But when we lose our 50$ bet your only down -10 but your still down -20 when we compare it to flatbetting. Thats why this bet is contingent of the RC count ( 0> or higher.
I know the scheme is correct. Im still unsure of the 1 of 2 way about which bets we let carry over at the shuffle. Players at table:
Anyway starting from this very minute. Im gonna give it the test. Playing a face-up two-deck game, 3plyrs,DAS, H17, 67% pen, RSA, game. Ill post my results every 24 hrs of play.
PS: Its actually a very simple scheme to use. Its not nearly as hard as it looks.
