Somewhat safe progressive..

[aslan]

Somewhat safe progression...

I am now ready to unveil my somewhat safe betting progression system. It has been years in the making. Please do not be quick to dismiss it. I have found a way to minimize the effect of the house edge over all other progressions developed to date. It is really very simple, and I think it's genius is in it's simplicity as well as its application. This system will only work effectively with perfect basic strategy, and any counting, hole carding, or shuffle tracking skills serve only to enhance its overall effectiveness.

It goes like this: You begin with one unit, which is your basic betting unit. It can be $5, $10, or $25, whatever, depending on your bankroll. If you lose, you then bet one unit. If you lose again you bet one unit. You continue to bet one unit until you win. If you win, you bet one unit. If you win again, you continue to bet one unit until you lose. (Note: Those proficient in card counting will want to adapt the system to a floating basic unit; that is, when the count warrants, the basic betting unit should be temporarily raised to a level consistent with the player advantage.) When you lose, you go to your basic betting unit, that is, one unit. In this way, you minimize the effect of the house edge compared to all other progression systems to date. Another benefit is that you never get into escalating betting pyramids that can destroy your session bankroll. Still, another benefit is that you will seldom have large losses, if ever, if you are betting within your affordable bankroll. Sadly, you are not likely to have large wins either, but it seems to be worth it in terms of overall risk reduction. I have noticed, too, that if you always stop when you have won 4 units, you will have many winning sessions. Where you stop on losing sessions is best decided by you, but I would suggest a small loss preferably. You may play many session in one day, and you are almost guaranteed to have many winning sessions, but not all. The reason you will not have all winning sessions is due to two factors: (1) negative variance, and (2) the house edge. But short of counting, this seems to be the best progression developed to date. I call it the Aslan System (aka Aslan Slow Lose Antiprogression Natural System).

Caution: Persons using this system in connection with one of the various card counting systems may experience large losses from time to time. However, gains will more than compensate for such losses if play is continued.

 

[shadroch]

@21gunsalute: There a some sickos who get off on that kind of stuff. Notice that whenever we question a part of his strategy that can't possibly work he'll change the details slightly. I believe he's had a history of this with prior posts.

I would love to know what his other handle's maybe, if you know them pm me...he seems to be a very entertaining subject.

Strange, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

 

[vking58]

@21gunsalute: There a some sickos who get off on that kind of stuff. Notice that whenever we question a part of his strategy that can't possibly work he'll change the details slightly. I believe he's had a history of this with prior posts.

I would love to know what his other handle's maybe, if you know them pm me...he seems to be a very entertaining subject.




Strange, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

Well you got your damn answer now is just a matter of time before i get banned but i dont give a contenital damn!

 

[Sonny]

...is just a matter of time before i get banned but i dont give a contenital damn!

Banned...again.

-Sonny-

 

[shadroch]

Between "upper state New York and " contenital damn" anyone want to guess where our fallen comrade hails from?

 

[aslan]

Between "upper state New York and " contenital damn" anyone want to guess where our fallen comrade hails from?

I never heard the expression "contenital [sic] damn," but it sounded like something a Britisher might say, since they differentiate between themselves and those who live on the continent (Europe).

 

[London Colin]

I never heard the expression "contenital [sic] damn," but it sounded like something a Britisher might say, since they differentiate between themselves and those who live on the continent (Europe).

As exemplified by the famous (though possibly apocryphal) newspaper headline: "Fog in Channel: Continent cut off." :grin:

 

[aslan]

As exemplified by the famous (though possibly apocryphal) newspaper headline: "Fog in Channel: Continent cut off." :grin:

The British sense of humor is indeed difficult to fathom.

The extent I know of the use of the word continental is in the context of "continental breakfast." alluding to a Danish pastry or roll and coffee, from my journey's through Europe in the mid-sixties. I often wondered what an "English breakfast" might then be--bacon, eggs, juice, toast and coffee, or tea and crumpets. :laugh: Fill in the missing information, if you don't mind, Colin. Aslan, Colonist, Chesapeake Colonies, Former British West Indies

 

[sagefr0g]

The British sense of humor is indeed difficult to fathom.

The extent I know of the use of the word continental is in the context of "continental breakfast." alluding to a Danish pastry or roll and coffee, from my journey's through Europe in the mid-sixties. I often wondered what an "English breakfast" might then be--bacon, eggs, juice, toast and coffee, or tea and crumpets. :laugh: Fill in the missing information, if you don't mind, Colin. Aslan, Colonist, Chesapeake Colonies, Former British West Indies

errrhh, i was thinking the term was used in the same sense it was used back in the revolutionary war amongst American colonists, sorta thing.
where they would say something " wasn't worth a continental" comparing that something to what started out to be a bit of a shaky currency.

 

[aslan]

errrhh, i was thinking the term was used in the same sense it was used back in the revolutionary war amongst American colonists, sorta thing.
where they would say something " wasn't worth a continental" comparing that something to what started out to be a bit of a shaky currency.

There you go!

During the Revolution, Congress issued $241,552,780 in Continental currency.

Continental currency depreciated badly during the war, giving rise to the famous phrase "not worth a continental".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency

​

Thanks, Frogman!

 

[London Colin]

The British sense of humor is indeed difficult to fathom.

The extent I know of the use of the word continental is in the context of "continental breakfast." alluding to a Danish pastry or roll and coffee, from my journey's through Europe in the mid-sixties. I often wondered what an "English breakfast" might then be--bacon, eggs, juice, toast and coffee, or tea and crumpets. :laugh: Fill in the missing information, if you don't mind, Colin. Aslan, Colonist, Chesapeake Colonies, Former British West Indies

Wiki tells us all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Europe (including a link to an extensive page on breakfast habits around the world)

The headline was supposedly real (from the 1940s or 1950s), and thus only inadvertently humorous, demonstrating our attitude towards the rest of Europe : that the entire continent is an appendage to our tiny island, rather than the other way around.

As the Wiki page says, the term 'Full English Breakfast' denotes a large, cooked breakfast of sausage, bacon, eggs, etc., but few people, if any, would have such a breakfast every day.

 

[Mr. T]

I can relate to these postings here as I live in London for 7 years in the sixties. Now I am dating myself here just like Aslan.
It still amases me that the British would start their days with a full breakfast or full stomach. Never quite like the smaller continental breakfast either.
My son who lives in Britian for 9 years recently, never caught on to the English breakfast either. In fact he doesn't have any breakfast at all.
So when Colin tells me that the traditional English breakfast is fading away nowadays I can only say there is still hope for your country, mate.

 

[elkobar]

Exactly! Using the Martingale system and a $25 bet, after he loses his 15th hand in a row his next bet will be a very manageable $ 8,019,200 (320,768 X25), having lost only $8,019,195 to this point. Under Mike's system his next bet will be only $800 but he will be in for $6850 during this losing streak if my math is correct (and it is very late and I am very tired, but I trust my calculator).

Both are excellent systems. Will it be hemlock or aresenic?

Hi
21gunsalute;
I mentioned also to have a predetermined exit point, (mine is losing 4 hands) the table limit will prevent a long martingale; in townsville we have a $350 limit, on the $10 tables, so you could only lose 6 hands.
Elkobar

 

[21gunsalute]

Hi
21gunsalute;
I mentioned also to have a predetermined exit point, (mine is losing 4 hands) the table limit will prevent a long martingale; in townsville we have a $350 limit, on the $10 tables, so you could only lose 6 hands.
Elkobar

So what's the upside to this system? And your premise is not correct. You may have a table limit but that isn't going to stop you from losing more than 6 hands in a row.

 

[mikeinjersey]

the basic betting unit should be temporarily raised to a level consistent with the player advantage.

huh ? Sounds like you bet 1 unit everytime and almost never bet higher.

 

[Sonny]

huh ? Sounds like you bet 1 unit everytime and almost never bet higher.

You might raise your bet about 25-30% of the time. The difference is that progression players are looking for times when they are more likely to win the next hand (maybe only 1% of the time, and even then only by a hair) while APs are looking for times when they have an advantage over the house (much more often). Not only are progression players looking for the wrong thing, they are using a system that won't find it even when it happens.

But I think Aslan's post was mostly meant for entertainment purposes even though it does contain some good advice

-Sonny-

 

[mikeinjersey]

You might raise your bet about 25-30% of the time.

while APs are looking for times when they have an advantage over the house (much more often).

So generally speaking , those times of raising are either only because of #1 their countin cards , or #2 they 'feel' their streak is about to get good. (ex. they haven't seen a lot of face cards yet, but have seen a lot of low cards)

 

[Sonny]

So generally speaking , those times of raising are either only because of #1 their countin cards , or #2 they 'feel' their streak is about to get good. (ex. they haven't seen a lot of face cards yet, but have seen a lot of low cards)

It could be for any number of reasons depending on what type of strategy they are using. With card counters, it would be because they know that the cards left in the deck give them an advantage over the house. For shuffle trackers, they know that the next section of cards gives them an advantage. For location players (sequencers, steerers, next-carders, sorters, CSMs, etc.) they expect that their next card will give them an edge. For holecarders, wheel watchers, scavengers and other post-bet techniques they are expecting to have information that will give them an edge. There are many other techniques that give the player an advantage so there are quite a few legitimate reasons for an AP to raise his bet. Adjusting your bets based on feelings and/or perceived streaks is not one of them.

-Sonny-

 

[mikeinjersey]

Adjusting your bets based on feelings and/or perceived streaks is not one of them.

-Sonny-

Sounds like the same type of hocus pocus material as -

sequencers, steerers, next-carders, sorters , holecarders, wheel watchers, scavengers

if ya ask me. :laugh:

 

[Sonny]

True, many of the techniques sound crazy and the advantages can be unbelievable, but they are all legitimate techniques that can give you a proven advantage over the casino. Unlike progression systems which are all based on the same fallacy. Some strategies have been proven to be effective and others have been proven to be ineffective. The choice is yours.

-Sonny-