### Author Topic: The logic behind negative progressions  (Read 9379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### kav

##### The logic behind negative progressions
« on: June 30, 2016, 06:15:46 AM »
There are various misunderstandings about progressions, what they are used for and what is the logic behind them.

Many people relate the use of negative progressions (up as you lose) with gambler's fallacy (GF).
They think than one increases his bet because one believes that a win is due.
It is not exactly like that. I think I can explain mathematically why negative progressions can offer an advantage.

Let's take the Even Chances. Let's say we bet on Red.
Our aim is that our won bets are higher in value than our lost bets. This way with less wins we can recoup more losses and reach a profit.

BEFORE each spin, we have 50% of winning.
Let's say we lose the first spin, in which we bet 1 unit.
Now (AFTER the spin) the probability of losing the 1st spin is 100% and winning the 1st spin is 0% (since we already know the result).
For the 2nd spin the probabilities are 50%-50%.
Now what we have?
We have a "sure loose" spin, on which we bet 1 unit.
And we have a 50% win spin. It is reasonable to bet more on a 50% win spin than a 0% win spin, if you want on average to have wins of higher value than loses. It is reasonable to bet higher when your probabilities are higher.

This is the main logic behind every negative progression. It is not based on GF. It is based on trying to bet more on a 50% win spin than a 100% lost spin. The negative progression player, uses the knowledge of the past lost spins, to calculate how much to bet on the next spin.
And no, It does not work always, because there is no certainty when the win will come.

Yes, very aggressive progressions will lead to doom, because of bankroll depletion and table limits. But these are practical problems, not problems with the "higher average win" rationale of the negative progressions.

The true weak point of the negative progressions is quite the opposite than most people think. It is the fact that they often begin with only 1 unit and if we win on the first spin, we win the minimum amount. This defies the concept of "higher value wins". This could be solved by starting with a higher amount and decreasing the amount after a win. Because AFTER a win we have bet X amount on a 100% win probability spin, so on the next spin with only 50% win probability we should bet less. But if we increase the initial bet the practical problems of bankroll depletion and table limits, become more pressing.

Conclusion
Although based on sound logic, negative progressions often fail due to the following reasons:
• They start with minimum bets, that lower the average win value in case of win on the 1st spin
• Bet increases are practically limited by our bankroll and casino betting limits.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 01:32:48 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Harryj, december, Bayes, Reyth

#### Jesper

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2016, 06:44:59 AM »
Using martingale, the player think more than one spin a head. The player can lose a number of spins in a row, but must win at least at a certain number.  If an extreme imbalance  in 200 spins and the number of losses in a row not extend the  maximum Martingale is the only progression which stand it.

We play an EC, as there is Martingale most used.
LLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLW.......until 200.

The above will kill any method but Martingale, and the player knows (or should know) the risk of losing 8 times.

The methods we use wins when we get numbers it can stand, just that!

The following users thanked this post: december

#### Jesper

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2016, 06:52:23 AM »
If we assume it is just one player on the table. Then we can see it as the bank bet opposite to the player.

If the player use martingale as negative progression, and play red, we can say he force the bank to play the same at the opposite EC (black and zero) using positive progression. If the player wins he get less than the true odds.

If the player use reversed martingale, the bank is forced to play martingale.

The reason the bank win at the end is not the method, it is the house advantages, and the much larger bankroll.

The following users thanked this post: juice

#### kav

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2016, 06:52:41 AM »
Jesper,

Progression analysis: Fluctuation and Streaks

#### Sheridan44

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2016, 09:12:32 AM »
Also, flat betting (a neutral progression) gets a lot of flack. But if used in an intelligent manner, it can offer certain advantages over positive and negative progressions.

Case in point the "walker" or "escalator" type methods...where you go up the payoff chain without increasing your bet size.....

1 unit on EC, then 1u on a dozen....then a double street....quad....single street....split....SU....etc.

In the abstract at least, you are maneuvering the house into a position of paying out higher amounts without the player increasing his or her bet size. In a sense, the roles are "reversed", and it is kind of like "forcing" them to play a type of "martingale".
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 09:16:10 AM by Sheridan44 »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### Bayes

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2016, 11:17:33 AM »
I used to think positive progressions were the way to go, and they are if you have the edge. But mathematically the best way to play a NE game is aggressively, which means a negative progression. Actually I don't even like the term "progression" because it suggests a fixed and inflexible plan.

Sticking with the even chances, the majority of decisions are choppy, and by far the best strategy is to raise stakes after a loss (not necessarily every loss) and reduce after a win. This "locks in" wins, whereas raising stakes after a win "locks in"  losses, which is not what you want.

If done carefully and in a controlled way, there's no way you can lose.  I realize this is a big claim, but it's true. Bet selection isn't so important IMO. Good MM is king, but again IMO, you have to get past the fixation on playing mindless mechanical systems. Sooner or later they all fail. Stick to the principle, not a system.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth, Sheridan44

#### Jesper

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2016, 11:32:24 AM »
If we test l'ambert  negative we win if we have reach about 50% win. If we do it reverse we have to have a good streak to get out plus, we must win about 65% of the spins.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### Reyth

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2016, 02:01:53 PM »
I used to think positive progressions were the way to go, and they are if you have the edge. But mathematically the best way to play a NE game is aggressively, which means a negative progression. Actually I don't even like the term "progression" because it suggests a fixed and inflexible plan.

Sticking with the even chances, the majority of decisions are choppy, and by far the best strategy is to raise stakes after a loss (not necessarily every loss) and reduce after a win. This "locks in" wins, whereas raising stakes after a win "locks in"  losses, which is not what you want.

If done carefully and in a controlled way, there's no way you can lose.  I realize this is a big claim, but it's true. Bet selection isn't so important IMO. Good MM is king, but again IMO, you have to get past the fixation on playing mindless mechanical systems. Sooner or later they all fail. Stick to the principle, not a system.

Gosh ur kinda like so enigmatic?

#### Bayes

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2016, 03:32:30 PM »
Reyth, I'll clarify later. Caught up watching Andy Murray at Wimbledon at the moment.

#### Reyth

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2016, 03:59:30 AM »
lol well ok but I mean like I can't figure you out because its like you seem to say that we can win AND can't win in roulette... O_o o_O

#### kav

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2016, 06:29:42 AM »
lol well ok but I mean like I can't figure you out because its like you seem to say that we can win AND can't win in roulette... O_o o_O
Reyth,
He is absolutely right. We can and can't. There is no 100% answer. Luck will always play a role.

#### Reyth

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2016, 07:43:27 AM »
I can certainly accept the view that we CAN win in roulette.

#### Bayes

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2016, 12:02:00 PM »
If we test l'ambert  negative we win if we have reach about 50% win. If we do it reverse we have to have a good streak to get out plus, we must win about 65% of the spins.

Yes, the D'Alembert loses when played "out of the box", i.e. +1 on a loss and -1 on a win. This is because eventually it hits a negative variance where the "ratchet" effect isn't sufficient to get back to even, never mind make a profit. When you increase from 1 unit to 2, that's a 100% increase in stake, but after after say 10 losses in a row, the stake has increased to 10 units, and a further loss represents only a 10% increase in stake from 10 to 11 units. Any ratcheting from then on is unlikely to clear losses unless you have a long run of wins.

Modifications of the D'Alembert perform much better; you keep the basic principle and ratcheting action but decrease/increase the "gap" between + and - according to circumstances (how much you need in order to get back to your target, or clear prior losses). In general, instead of +1 on a loss and -1 on a win, you use +X on a loss and -Y on a win (where X and Y don't necessarily have to be the same value).

Raising stakes after a win is preferable to raising after a loss because the principle to keep in mind is that of putting more on the winners than on the losers. Seems obvious when you put it like that, but what does a positive progression do? The opposite. You end up putting more on the losing bets than on the winning bets.

I did a quick simulation of 1000 bets using two martingales. One positive and one negative. Of course I'm not suggesting you should use a "full" negative marty, but it does illustrate the point.

The following users thanked this post: december, nowun, Reyth

#### Jesper

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2016, 12:16:29 PM »
I have done some play on line using modified D'Alembert , and I think I showed it here.  I used 100 units as start (on 1 cent table) and used a soft progression for the ups and downs, in fact a ladder.

The part of rising have to be  in percent stable. That's why I used 1 cent table to be able to use fractions.   100 if loss, 110, if loss  112........
It is a large difference, comparing to start with one, win five times and lose five times.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 12:50:01 PM by Jesper »

The following users thanked this post: december

#### kav

##### Re: The logic behind negative progressions
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2016, 12:35:11 PM »
Bayes,
We both have expressed our respect for the divisor concept (roughly: betting a fraction of your losses).
I would be very interested to read your approach based on it.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 12:56:49 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth