Roulette Martingale alternative (Carsch)

I don't play Roulette. Double 0 NG. Besides, why would I want to sit or stand around a crowded table when I can sit at my own little kiosk and have a sandwich or talk on the phone?

Since I use 6 data streams on a Baccarat shoe and I have a LOT of shoes it's easy for me to see 350 or so outcomes pretty quickly. My initial observation is that "pick one" set of 3 looking for its best % return works out pretty nicely as Penny described. The problem is waiting time as Penny points out. To use something like this with real $ one would need a stop loss I think. Say after 3 failures stop and wait for the next occurrence. Of course this doesn't mean we won't land on consecutive failures IAR but the %'s seem to favor recoup. So this brings us back to reduction of streak lengths AND progressive betting in order to profit.

Let me fool with this a bit and see if I like it better than my selection process. Interesting stuff.

 

Narcissist. I don't want you to define me. Your impression of yourself is enough. I'm glad you are stuck with it.

 

Explaining Reading Randomness can be very frustrating at times .

But then again never wise up a chump like Sp. says .

 

Here's a similar but different progression like Carsche for EC bets. This one is credited to Richard Fink, a commenter from the BACCARAT NATION YouTube channel. This progression and Carsch and others similar aim to recover debt in two consecutive winning bets instead of one, as in Martingale, thereby reducing risk of a catastrophic massive single Martingale loss.

He calls it:

“Win Twice, Collect Thrice”

1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 22, 29, 39, 52, 69, 92, 123

After a win, parlay the bet. If a parlayed bet loses, move one level to the right. If a parlayed bet wins, reset to level 1.

 

The problem with this one is W-L-W-L events keep escalating which is inferior to the carsch method.

That said, my statement above should not be construed as endorsing carsch either as negative progressions that escalate to many units are flawed.

 

I don't really see what you're saying about Carsch "avoids bet escalation with WLWLWL patterns."

Isn't 1 1 2 2 4 4 8 8 16 16 a bet escalation?

Anyway though, I usually avoid either type of such bet progressions as well. But if I would use one of these, the Carsch would make more sense. I like how it has the "Base Level" and two "Recovery Levels", which keeps the bets from escalating into crazy high units.

You're exceptionally smart with math I've noticed from your posts, do you have a favorite Money Management progression you like? After 33 years of gambling, I'm still wandering, looking for better ways of doing it. I usually just fall back to D'Alambert, or some variation of it, not necessarily because it's best, but just because it's familiar and easy. Labouchere looks useful too, especially at home gambling online, but maybe a little too involved to be using at a busy casino table.

 

No it doesn't escalate as it ALWAYS requires 2 back to back losses to progress to the next level.

Avoid use of use negative progressions as this reduces the debt you need to recover. The moment you raise a bet on a loss this creates an exponential loss curve. In contrast, a positive progression with an exponential profit curve is much easier to deal with.

Tip: You don't need to risk all won units to benefit from growth.

 

If you read again you will see it maintains the same bet (after the first step which parlays on a win) until it either wins the same bet again and restarts OR loses that bet twice before it escalates. LLLWLWLWw goes -1,-1,-2, +2, -2, +2, -2, +2, +2 now restart with 1 unit.

Ideal would be to have an up as you win like what happens with the Carsch parlay AND a modified D'Alembert where a profit occurs on a LWLW.

 

Charles Guetting anyone?

 

Nothing wrong with that and there are many variations on this theme.

Level 1 = 2
Level 2 = 3 →4 →6
Level 3 = 8 →12 →16
Level 4 = 20 → 30 → 40

Rules to bet twice at each number and drop back to the start of the previous level on a loss.

So 2,2,3,3,4,4,6,6,8,8 (lose), 3,3 (lose), 2,2 etc

The core of good positive progression method is to use a base bet that is not the minimum allowed on the felt. You need a ratio that allows your progression bets to be a fractional increase of the base bet. Hence Guetting starts with 2 units allowing a press to 1/3 on the second level, risking less than the gains to date. Notice how the pressing is also smaller and smaller fraction of the gain to date as you progress up the levels but each bet is still larger in absolute terms than the previous.

If you apply this same concept between sessions you get the effect of overall bankroll compounding. Each session risks a lesser percentage of the overall gain (to the point it becomes 1 or 2% if your total BR) but is still growing in absolute size and therefore accelerating. Session losses are inevitable, planned for and paid from compounded gains.

Risk as a percentage of overall bankroll is reducing, whilst gains in absolute $ terms are increasing. You need this to sustain the long term.

The remaining piece is to develop method that locks in session wins RELIABLY without huge drawdowns and session bankroll requirements (which are typical of all negative progression methods) so the loss events are less frequent (far apart) and the profit per session with respect to the session bankroll is sufficient to reliably achieve the bankroll compounding effect.

Beat the casino through the magic of inter session compounding and conservative risk management.

 

Yes and in case this is misunderstood the reason is you need a place to retreat to if you start out with a lot of losses. Math is not my strong suit but I guess starting at second or third level with the Guetting.

Sidebar: all of this progression talk assumes one cannot change outcomes through bet selection.

 

You mean like noticing a strong winning phase with only a few losses? Math experts do not believe in win streaks or loss streaks. They need it to be probability outcomes. So all they look for is an assumption that probability will always phase as a constant.

 

@gizmotron that's a discussion for another thread.

 

Well then a discussion of bet selection is also a discusion for another thread. Why did you do it? Does Homeland Security know that you are saying these kind of things? The sanctity of progressions needs to be absolute and without discourse.

 

What " other " thread ? Oh the other one ROFL-

 

Thanks for the 'contribution' and speaking on behalf of all math and science from the great altar of the mystics. You can continue your posts in the mysticism thread aka "reading randomness".

There is nothing to 'believe', the math says we must expect streaks and gives precise predictions on their length with a degree of certainty that is accurate to ±2, whether one considers 50 or 50 trillion even chance outcomes.

It is quite surprising to have a prediction with such a small absolute fixed bound of certainty (±2) which is independent of the number of events one considers.

If someone asked you to bet on the longest streak of heads they will get and they flipped a coin 50 times, 500 times, 5 million times or 50 trillion times and you could nail it within ±2 every time is that not surprising?

I suggest reading the famous paper "The longest run of heads" by Mark F. Schilling to help "despell" some of the mysticism:

https://www.maa.org/sites/default/f...brary/22/Polya/07468342.di020742.02p0021g.pdf​

 

YAWN.

 

Take your head out of your south side. You are perhaps the most predictable of all math phenomena. All I did was tweak the jerk squad and you chime in like Barney Fife of the bead counters.

 

Quite clearly you are not here for anything grounded in fact, math, logic or reason.

You would rather kick up dust in the hope of funneling people into your reading randomness sales channel.

Quite sad really that rational and reasoned discussion is beyond both your ability and temperament.

 

You are a known liar. You are just like the fake news and the brain washing that predators inflict on little children in elementary schools. With their newest brainwashing that makes them sexual predators.

Nothing is for sale. It's all for free. You can't take down the statues and lie about history, but you will still be just a tool no matter what. The more that you try the more of a mathNazi you prove to be. When you attack the messenger you lose all concept of a viable argument. It's all you tools know. Cancel the opposition. Now you are the math police. What a sucker.