Progressions and Discipline

[kasle]

I know everyone here hates progression play, so please don't talk to me like I'm retarded. Just thinking out loud based on some experience

I was wondering if discipline/emotion/intuition can at all be considered an x-factor of sorts when it comes to progressions. I have been experimenting with a little progression that starts out as a Martingale for the first 3 losses then goes into a Labouchere to hedge against the Martingale going out of control. With Martingale, you can lose everything without even knowing what hit you, but at least with Labouchere you can start to feel your demise coming once your line looks like 10,14,18,26,38 or something.

The philosophy behind progressions is small gains in exchange for a big(ger) loss. But what if you can get out at the right time to sort of turn the tables? I know "getting out at the right time" are the famous last words of the progression player, but it seems that if the progression is conservative enough, you will have several chances to get out at the/a right time (ex. get a blackjack) even if you are in the red.

Doing this minimizes the devastation of a progression w/o taking away the small gains. Sure, sometimes you will quit right before that big lucky streak, but you also WON'T have that infamous story to tell that every progression player has about how they lost 77 hands in a row and had to sell their house.

Anybody have any experience with conservative progressions while using a cut-off point to avoid the big loss?

 

[The Chaperone]

You are retarded.

-Chap

 

[NightStalker]

I can formulate various progressions

I know everyone here hates progression play, so please don't talk to me like I'm retarded. Just thinking out loud based on some experience

I was wondering if discipline/emotion/intuition can at all be considered an x-factor of sorts when it comes to progressions. I have been experimenting with a little progression that starts out as a Martingale for the first 3 losses then goes into a Labouchere to hedge against the Martingale going out of control. With Martingale, you can lose everything without even knowing what hit you, but at least with Labouchere you can start to feel your demise coming once your line looks like 10,14,18,26,38 or something.

The philosophy behind progressions is small gains in exchange for a big(ger) loss. But what if you can get out at the right time to sort of turn the tables? I know "getting out at the right time" are the famous last words of the progression player, but it seems that if the progression is conservative enough, you will have several chances to get out at the/a right time (ex. get a blackjack) even if you are in the red.

Doing this minimizes the devastation of a progression w/o taking away the small gains. Sure, sometimes you will quit right before that big lucky streak, but you also WON'T have that infamous story to tell that every progression player has about how they lost 77 hands in a row and had to sell their house.

Anybody have any experience with conservative progressions while using a cut-off point to avoid the big loss?

to lower your variance, increase your variance, increase your daily ahead probability, increase your longetivity-entertainment time, lower your daily losses, but I cannot change the expectation. Let me know which one you like?

 

[21gunsalute]

The philosophy behind progressions is small gains in exchange for a big(ger) loss. But what if you can get out at the right time to sort of turn the tables? I know "getting out at the right time" are the famous last words of the progression player, but it seems that if the progression is conservative enough, you will have several chances to get out at the/a right time (ex. get a blackjack) even if you are in the red.

What planet do you hail from?

 

[Sonny]

I was wondering if discipline/emotion/intuition can at all be considered an x-factor of sorts when it comes to progressions.

I honestly believe that it can be considered an x-factor. It can also be considered intuition, an instinct, a hunch, luck, or any other name you want to give it. Unfortunately, any strategy based on those things is bound to lose money.

But what if you can get out at the right time to sort of turn the tables?

What if that losing streak starts on the first hand of a session? The only way to escape it is to get a lucky win and stop playing forever. And since the house is always more likely to win the next hand, betting any amount of money will usually end in bad luck.

Now if someone was well disciplined they would learn one the hundreds of ways to legitimately beat the game and make money without luck. Call it the s-factor for skill.

-Sonny-

 

[kasle]

I honestly believe that it can be considered an x-factor. It can also be considered intuition, an instinct, a hunch, luck, or any other name you want to give it. Unfortunately, any strategy based on those things is bound to lose money.



What if that losing streak starts on the first hand of a session? The only way to escape it is to get a lucky win and stop playing forever. And since the house is always more likely to win the next hand, betting any amount of money will usually end in bad luck.

Now if someone was well disciplined they would learn one the hundreds of ways to legitimately beat the game and make money without luck. Call it the s-factor for skill.

-Sonny-

I've had a fair amount of luck with conservative progressions, and I'm not just talking short-term. It's not because I claim to be the first person to beat the system, it's because I constantly hedge against risk as much as possible. I have no problem reducing lines, cutting them in half, etc. on the fly to avoid the big loss. And then on top of that, if I just keep getting killed, I always have a set amount to walk away at.

Sometimes this means I play a LOT of hands just to lose $50 instead of $500. Sometimes I lose my first 10 hands straight and have to walk.

I grouped emotion and discipline together last time, and I think that was a mistake. I am referring to purely discipline and intuition from a statistical perspective, not like "i'm feeling a 21 coming soon" but like "these bets are getting too big, if I lose 4 hands in a row now I'm going to be in deep ****."

That's usually when I get out. I'm learning to count, b/c I understand it is the only way to statistically succeed. But I like to play online too, where counting is useless, because I need to practice basic strategy and the hands are much faster.

But all I am saying is this: Having discipline increases your chances of success at anything else in life, so a disciplined, conservative progression, and knowing clearing a line isn't life or death, will likely hedge you against a big loss at a proportionally lower expense than preventing you from those small gains.

 

[shadroch]

You might want to research "Oscars Grind". It, in itself, is not a winning system, but when you combine it with some casino promos, it is of value.
Playing it on the right type of Virtual BJ machine on a day that is 8X normal slot points is a longterm winner, as one example.

 

[Midwestern]

You might want to research "Oscars Grind". It, in itself, is not a winning system, but when you combine it with some casino promos, it is of value.
Playing it on the right type of Virtual BJ machine on a day that is 8X normal slot points is a longterm winner, as one example.

very interesting post.
most progression betting strategies are long-run losers but is that only because the math on them is done for games which are 1-to-1 payouts?

i wonder if there's been any math done on progressions for betting situations where payouts are much higher ratios...

 

[Canceler]

No math, but...

most progression betting strategies are long-run losers but is that only because the math on them is done for games which are 1-to-1 payouts?

i wonder if there's been any math done on progressions for betting situations where payouts are much higher ratios...

It’s just the same old question, with the same old answer:

Q: How will simply changing the size of my bet reduce the house edge?

A: It won’t.

 

[Midwestern]

i agree with what you say, but i wasn't necessarily thinking Blackjack though.
i was imagining a scenario for a sport like horseracing, where payouts can be 5-1 for a win and typically 50-1, for an exacta

 

[MangoJ]

i agree with what you say, but i wasn't necessarily thinking Blackjack though.
i was imagining a scenario for a sport like horseracing, where payouts can be 5-1 for a win and typically 50-1, for an exacta

That doesn't help you. If the bet itself are -EV and outcome are uncorrelated, all progression systems (moreover, ALL systems of any kind) fail. This is not restricted to even odds, but also for higher payouts (see roulette).

The situation where progression systems are indeed applicable are correlated outcomes. Each single bet itself then may be -EV, but with the correlation between outcomes - past performance will give you additional information for the next bet which may turn next bet +EV.

For that very reason, casino and bookmakers will make sure you can only bet between uncorrelated events. The uncorrelation has to be a careful design element of the specific game, i.e. a shuffle or a throw (often stated as "roulette has no memory").
In terms of Blackjack, this uncorrelation of outcome is broken by the shoe. Hence there is a "progression system" - but the progression is not based on simple win/loss patterns, it is based on played card value patterns. This very "progression system" is betting with the count - and yes, it works.

 

[kasle]

You might want to research "Oscars Grind". It, in itself, is not a winning system, but when you combine it with some casino promos, it is of value.
Playing it on the right type of Virtual BJ machine on a day that is 8X normal slot points is a longterm winner, as one example.

I just read that long thread on here a few years ago about OG. Seems more conservative than what I am doing, and I might mess around with it

 

[zoomie]

I honestly believe that it can be considered an x-factor. It can also be considered intuition, an instinct, a hunch, luck, or any other name you want to give it. Unfortunately, any strategy based on those things is bound to lose money. [ . . . ]

I don't know, Sonny. Have you seen the movie Intacto? Worth seeing if you are a student of luck. :eyepatch: