Roulette 20/100 Flaw versus Brett Morton Money Management!

20/100 Flaw versus Brett Morton Money Management!

PART 1

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick's forum board

- - - - - - - - - -

Someone quoted John Patrick as saying I don't win much but I don't lose much either.
Now he was critical of this statement but there is a reason for it.

We who have lived with gambling all our lives understand the relationship between what we win and what we lose.

The Equation is simple enough.
The magnitude of profit is usually a function of the magnitude of wagering.

One of the most common failures in gambling is progressive betting.
Several small wins are satisfying but when the next small win does not happen and it turns into a progression which often recovers the day but sometimes results in ruination.

Giving up on a progression is hard because losing can mean the erosion of several days work.

The gambling flaw is inherent in this.
Christopher Pawlicki highlighted this fact.
The equation for winning small returns often calls for a progression.
The progression ultimately however snatches away the previous wins.

For example 20 + 20 +20 +20 +20 has been achieved with 50 + 100 + 80 + 120 + 100 The final destructive act is a 100 that does not recover .
Even without a progression 100 absorbs the 5 sets of 20 + wins.

I call this the 20/100 flaw.

20 is therefore 20% of 100.
A good result by any standards.

In order to control the erosion of previous wins the ratio of win to wager
needs to be as close to parity as possible.

Say 80 + 80 +80 +80 + 80 with 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100

If the 100 goes then we still have nearly 4 days work intact.
We can walk away and get them again another day.
Not many gamblers can achieve 80%.

This is the flaw.

There must be plenty of gamblers here who understand this but any replies should be better than 3 and out.
The math does not work.

- - - - - - - - - -

JOHN PATRICK Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick's forum bpard

- - - - - - - - - -

excellent point but go back to your opening paragraph and it is not clear ............You said, "he was critical of this statement ................"

I THINK you meant he was CRITICIZED for this statement ...............

and you're right..................there were a couple of people who laughed at it as meaning I was content with small wins..........adn that ALL I wanted to do was lose a little each day.........

I am glad you picked up on what I really meant by saying that (naturally) I would like to win more, but I am more interested in holding losses down.........

and THAT point that you made about people who do NOT gamble every day, not realizing this is the total and complete point I try to embellish in their minds every day............

Someone else (I think it was Rick K., a few days ago), also touched on that fact .................how really hard it is to win..........and that you HAVE to somehow, someway, condition yourself to win small to ensure you don't lose big ..........to be able to stay alive in this journey called gambling..........

You showed the SERIES you use ..........

What are the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick's Forum Board

- - - - - - - - - -

" What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)"

Well, that is my question to everyone!
What I am doing here is highlighting the problem we have with the percentage we go for.

The greater the difference between the amount we wager and the amount we accept, as a win, the more of a problem we have.
Let's say (as you have stated) that 5% is a professional aspiration. So we wager 100 for 5.

That might seem reasonable but look at the result say over 5 days.
+ 5 +5 +5 +5 +5 = 25 . that's great we are winning 5 each day and we haven't lost. Now on day six we wager 100 and bust out!

We are now - 75!

We were going up and down with our 100.
But then we hit a bad spell and it eroded to 0.

The problem here is that we often have to go down to nearly zero
to make the continuous flow of 5's.

if our 5-day win was +60 +30 +20 + 120 +40 and this can be achieved with 100 and the 100 busts after 5 days we have.
won +170. (270 - 100) .

I often work on 100 or 70 from 200. That is I am prepared to lose 200 for these great returns and if I can manufacture 70 od chips every day with a wager of 200 chips then I am going to survive if the cumulative value exceeds 100 after bust out.

What I would like to know from yourself is what your wager is in relation
to what you accept for that session and how do you overcome this flaw.

This is where Pawlicki is making the case that the crash will come and steal away your cumulative gains. Its the problem that haunts all gamblers.
Gamblers ruin.

 

PART 2

I find Brett Morton's "Fund Management" to be very clever.
Does not just sett a limit for stop-loss with win goal - it also shows when to push for jackpot (push for more).
It also has a built-in safety net that catches before it is too late (avoid to lose it all back).

With all the necessary components to define a present session.
When to start when to quit when to push or be caught by a safety net before it's too late.

PROGRESS UP THE LADDER - PLAY AND PUSH OR FALL INTO SAFETY NETS




Now what amount makes me happy - I would say for example 50 Euro, that would feel ok or great.
So that should be my Happy-Point, the first win-target.

Loss-Limit should not be more than my Happy-Point so now i have the Loss-Limit of 50 Euro.
That was easy to set up does guidelines based upon this money management strategy.

50 Loss-Limit
50 Happy-Point

This is how Brett Morton does it.
But nothing prevents us to set higher loss-limit and lower Happy-Point.

Now when or if I reach Happy-Point and want to continue to next win target Gold-Top - then I can't lose it all as there is a Bottom Line Target - "safety net" - that stops me from losing it all.
I set the BTL (bottom line target) 10 Euro as I want as much money I can get to continue for next win target and in the same time not go home with an empty wallet.

50 Loss-Limit
10 Bottom-Line-Target
50 Happy-Point

That would mean I would have 40 to fight with to reach my second win-target (Gold-Top).
And if I would lose it all back, then I would stop with +10 as my safety net (Bottom-Line-Target).

50 Loss-Limit
10 Bottom-Line-Target
50 Happy-Point

Now I don't want to rush things so I aim for 70 as Gold-Top - the second win target.

50 Loss-Limit
10 Bottom-Line Target
50 Happy-Point
70 Gold-Top

Let's assume I win and don't stop at Happy-Point or stop at Gold-Top and continue for Jackpot.
Then I can only use the money between Happy-Point and Gold-Top to grind out profits (that would be 20).
Then Happy-Point is my second safety net.

50 Loss-Limit
10 Bottom-Line-Target
50 Happy-Point
70 Gold-Top
?? Jackpot

You can adjust this strategy as you feel like.
Brett Morton says that you should have Loss-Limit around the same amount as Happy-Point.
But he also says he stop playing many times before he reaches first win-target.
Bottom-Line-Target you can set to minimum so you have more money to fight whit as you play for next win target.

So when you walk into the casino or at home you make up your money management plan.

Loss-Limit
Bottom-Line-Target
Happy-Point
Gold-Top
Jackpot

Now you can look at the image again and you will understand.

 

The math for me is simple. It's 3 net wins and out on the upside and 7 net losses and out on the downside. That's a ratio of 10 between the brackets. It's well inside the swing changes that are common in Even Chance betting. With that scenario you need 3 session wins to outperform the single loss, and to redefine gambling for all the math nerds.

 

I'll stick with Happy Point.

 

I am agreeing with Gizmo regarding EC . Jump ship after 3 wins in a row . The 4th bet is a 15 - 1 to repeat itself .

 

ND, I don't mean in a row. I mean three net wins above the start point. And that is 7 net losses below the start point.

 

I understand ND point of view, is not easy to catch strikes that last for several times in a row.

 

That's true. Although I have no idea what it signals.

 

No! The 4th bet is 50/50!

 

The odds of an EC repeating itself is the subject . The principle if diminishing probabilities is raising it`s head .


ND

 

and trump will start world war three. Gads you guys are so one sighted. Here is the binomial equation:
.5 X .5 x .5 x .5 = .0625 ... with .0625 X 16 = 1.

 

The oddws of an EC repeating itself :

1-1 3-1 7-1 15-1 31- 1 63-1 126 -1 continue double plus 1 .


ND

 

Just an aside. Seeing a trending EC consider ther the following options :


Betting with the trend


Betting against the trend



Don`t take any action .




ND

 

The strike is a strange animal and I wrestling between gamblers fallacy and determine results that have a higher likelihood to happen.
I use Sputnik's March and one state, this state does not emerge if there are no strikes.
And the odds is one in three that two dominant events strike for several times in a row or at least that is very common.
Just look at the dozen's and how common two of them strike several times in a row with the odds one in three.
Automatic in periods one event is bound to fall into sleep and then is when the magic happens.

I want to show how skills matters playing the game, where lady luck is part of the game, but not necessarily rule out your skills.
Brett Morton 22 number bet is very interesting, they are placed with at most two numbers gap between them on the wheel layout.

I use the selection process with 22 numbers as even money bet including a Hedge Bet.

1-6
10-15
22-27
28, 29, 31, 32,

I put two units on each line and one unit on the corner.
So each time the Corner bet hit I break even or make a small profit and can repeat my bet.
I chart and track 18 numbers, even money bet and the corner bet works as a HEDGE BET.

Staking Plan.
Regression Up & Pull:

Line 2 Corner 1
Line 1 Corner 1
Line 1 Corner 1
Line 2 Corner 1
Line 3 Corner 1
Line 4 Corner 2
Line 5 Corner 2
Line 6 Corner 3

The difference is that I know when strikes will come and I jump on board or I should say the likelihood is optimal.
Made a topic at the bet selection forum with 6K views where I solve the puzzle.

One state that includes strikes with Sputnik's March can be used for any even money situation or trading or sports betting.
I run a short sample just to show you how beautiful random bits are.

The LW-Registry:
W L
W W L
W W W W W W W W W W W L
L

The actual results:
H L
W H L
H H H W H H W W W H W L
L



Sometimes it feels silly, I should not be able to catch animal strikes like this.
Just look at the odds at the beginning of this post where I quote ND.

LW-Registry:
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W L
L

Actual results:
W W W W W H H W W W H W W H L
L



Here is one with no big strike and many small strikes.
Well, i started my own gambling blog and will revile how to play and catch those strikes.

LW-Registry:

W W W L
W L
W W W L
W W L
W W L
W W W L
W L
L

Actually results:

W W W L
W L
W W W L
W W L
W W L
W H H L
WL
L

 

I rethink this after reading John Patrick's approach that has many advanced options.
He places on American wheel 16 action numbers and one line as Hedge bet.
That made me think as 22 numbers versus 15 numbers look like your average random bits with 50/50
Things tend to do that in the short term, so I reckon playing 16 numbers as your main target numbers is a pretty good idea.

JP basic approach looks like this ...

10 thru 15 - - - - 3 units PAY 15 PROFIT +5
28 thru 33 - - - - 3 units PAY 15 PROFIT +5
17-18-20-21- - - 1 units PAY 8 PROFIT +1
1 thru 6- - - - - - 1 units PAY 6 PROFIT +0

 

This is Brett Morton table and wheel layout - Europen.

1-6 +5
10-15 +5
22-27 +5
28, 29, 31,32 +2

 

Jon Patrick and Brett Morton both on the same wave length with their 22 number bet selection .It is up to the individual player how to handle the distribution of the units . But that should be no problem .


Sputnik has given already some samples .


Happy Winnings .



ND

 

Have been fooling around with this all morning after our discussion about it on the other forum this week. Works on RX RNG and live spins, nearly identical numbers for the thousand spins I threw at each. Nathan has been using it for years, he does a black EC add-on if it's been color dominant due to the high black count in the 22, very smart.

The question I come to is about optimal aggressive bet selection...2-2-2-1, 2-2-2-1, a negative progression, a positive progression, etc. What's the most efficient...that's the challenge with this.

The hit rate is obviously so high that you're tempted to try a lot with it, even a neg marty does well with it for a time if you can fit enough levels. But I'd love to see a math breakdown of the flat bets or a +1/-1 variant with it. Great potential.

 

JOHN PATRICK

You are always in action with each spin as the gap between each covered number is not larger than two pockets.
So it makes it very hard for a dealer to avoid your numbers.

JP name one line bet as insurance bet where you break even, optional.
1 to 6.

Basic staking:
For example 3311.

Just to illustrate the combination.

VARIATIONS OF BETS

Our bankroll dictates our session money.
Small bankroll and 3311 would be fine.
Here is some staking with higher values with 1$.

a.

Numbers 10 to 15 Bet 4 Profit 12
Numbers 28 to 33 Bet 4 Profit 12
Numbers 1 to 6 Bet 2 Profit Even
Numbers 17 to 21 Bet 2 Profit 6

b.
Numbers 10 to 15 Bet 5 Profit 15
Numbers 28 to 33 Bet 5 Profit 15
Numbers 1 to 6 Bet 3 Profit 3
Numbers 17 to 21 Bet 2 Profit 3

c.
Numbers 10 to 15 Bet 6 Profit 17
Numbers 28 to 33 Bet 6 Profit 17
Numbers 1 to 6 Bet 4 Profit 5
Numbers 17 to 21 Bet 3 Profit 8

There are two ways, conservative or aggressive.

The reason we show the above combinations is to make clear that if the lines show we make our biggest return.
And if the insurance line or corner bet hit we soften the possibility of the lines not showing.

a. You predetermined to play 22 numbers.
b. Chart the tables until you find an entering point.
c. Set win goal and loss limit.
d. Decide on an initial bet or staking plan

So no more then four attempts to find an entering point or less.
Otherwise, you would be chasing loses into the big hole.

The question is if you are going to flat betting or use a small progression.
Or even lower you bet size if you lose your first two bets.

The combinations are endless.

Regression Up & Pull.

You can pull back 12 or 11 or 10 or 9 or 8 or 7 or whatever you want.
Here is an example of an Up & Pull situation.

a. 5-5-4-3
b. 5-5-4-3
c. 6-6-5-4
d. 6-6-5-4
e. 8-8-7-6
f. 8-8-7-6
g. 11-11-10-9

But you don't need to use Up & Pull all the way to the top, you can use regression between does up as you go if you are conservative.
And want to look in profits.

a. 6-6-4-3
b. 7-7-5-4
c. 6-6-4-3
d. 4-4-3-2
e. 6-6-5-4
f. 7-7-6-5

I consider the following staking plan tonight at my local casino using Europen Wheel.
Brett Morton

3 3 3 1
2 2 2 1
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1
3 3 3 1
2 2 2 1
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1
3 3 3 1
4 4 4 2
3 3 3 1

Cheers

 

I want to mention that in the short term 22 numbers versus 15 numbers is nothing more or less a 50/50 situation.
So you actually need to have a very good even money strategy to achieve good results using 22 number bet or JP action numbers.
Here is a short sample:

W Z W W W H L W W L L L W W L H W L W L L W L W W L H W Z H H W H L W W W W W L L Z W L W W W L L W W H L

L W L W W W L L L Z L L W L L Z L L W W W W W W W W L L L H W W L L L L H W L W W L W W W L W W H H L L W

L W W W W L W L W W W W W W W W W L W W H W W L Z W L H H W W L W W W L L W W L L L L L L L L L H W L W L

For does who would like some physics into the calculation and using bi-modal effect (two opposite sectors) and the wheel layout number position.
Remember this when writing this topic and thought about Pierre Basieux, he has many solutions for the number on the table layouts connection to wheel layout.

Here is a 19 number placement: