### Author Topic: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win  (Read 7364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1684
• Thanked: 283 times
• Gender:
##### Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« on: September 07, 2014, 11:27:42 PM »
Progressions:

Recently, I was having a debate with an internet friend on progressions.  He felt that his "up as you lose progression" would out perform my "up as you win progression" - when the player has the edge.

Furthermore, the recent discussion regarding the Martin Blakey system has left many people confused as well, since Martin's system also used an "up as you lose progression".

In order to clear up the confusion, and because there's so much bad information out there (written by some hoity-toity pretentious individuals), I've decided to create a comparison of the two progressions, and one showing the results of flat betting.  This way, people can learn what really performs the best.

--------------------------

In the example below, we're going to provide the players with a 6% edge over the casino.  All three players will have a starting bankroll of \$1,000 and will play off and on, over a series of several weeks, for a total of 10,000 spins.

1.  Player one will run an "up as you lose progression", based on the Fibonacci "like" sequence  10, 15, 23, 35, 53, 80, 120.   If the player looses the sequence, he simply starts the sequence over.

2.  Player two will flat bet \$50 at every spin.

3. Player three will run an "up as you win progression", betting just 1% of his bankroll at each spin.  His initial bet will be only \$10.

Which player will win the most money?

1.  Player one, after 10,000 spins, will likely win  the following:  (.06 edge) x (average bet of \$48)  x (10,000 spins played) = \$28,800.  Not bad, but the player will likely go broke before playing all 10,000 spins because of variance.

2. Player two, after 10,000 spins, will likely win the following:  (.06 edge) x (bet of \$50) x (10,000 spins played) = \$30,000.  Not bad.

3. Player three, after 10,000 spins, will likely win the following:  (1.0006)^(10,000 spins played) = \$402,703.  Such is the power of compounding interest!  As you can see, betting an "up as you WIN progression" is vastly superior, and the player was far less likely to go bust, since his bets would decrease during losing periods, and increase during winning periods.  Mathematically it's vastly superior to an "up as you lose progression" and flat betting!

At this point, common sense should have many asking why would a supposed mathematician ever advocate using an "up as you lose progression" in the first place?  The answer is, of course, he/she wouldn't!

If you believe that you may have the edge, mathematically it will always make the most sense to run an "up as you win progression", based on a percentage of your bankroll.

-Real
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 08:19:38 AM by kav »

#### albalaha

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2014, 04:28:43 AM »
If we have definitive edge, why bother about any money management? Further, a definitive little edge doesn't ensure wins for you while playing as you can not play 24x7. Even with definitive edge, bets will be suffering from momentary negative variance and you can not play 10,000 spins in a row. Therefore, you still need to be lucky, to win.

#### palestis

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2014, 06:00:12 AM »
If we have definitive edge, why bother about any money management? Further, a definitive little edge doesn't ensure wins for you while playing as you can not play 24x7. Even with definitive edge, bets will be suffering from momentary negative variance and you can not play 10,000 spins in a row. Therefore, you still need to be lucky, to win.
Computations like the one Real did above you are impossible. He standardizes all the variables so he can make his point. However, every player has his own playing style. Included in that style there can be bets of larger then usual amounts. When he wins with a very large bet amount, then the casino's 5.26% edge is peanuts compared to what the player will pocket. Then if he goes back to his regular low bet amounts, he's got plenty of money to cancel out many future edges. At the same time if that player loses with a large bet, the edge he pays is again peanuts compared to the amount he lost. When you have the variable of luck in every spin you play (good or bad), and also the changing bet amount, then you cannot use these kind of computations, especially if you assume that the player will play 10,000 spins.  A typical Las Vegas player goes there for 10 days. The casino edge adds very little to the amount he already lost. In fact  he will be wishing he only lost the amount of the edge. And if he knows what he's doing, or if he is lucky, the edge withheld is a very tiny amount compared to what he put in his pocket. In either case, the edge has no affect on the amount a player wins or loses.
Unless we specify how many times a player will play in his lifetime and the exact amounts in every spin, and the probability of good luck, then and only then we can attempt to compute the end results.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 06:01:55 AM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### kav

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2394
• Thanked: 1345 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2014, 08:36:33 AM »
I feel that Real's post is more food of thought than the secret to success.

Being dismisive and repeating the same old "you can't beat the game" is demotivating people from presenting their thoughts and ideas.
I try to encourage people to share systems, stats, strategies, observations, info, stories... anything!
albalaha, progressions offer various advantages and disadvantages over flat betting. Having an edge doesn't mean you don't need to have great  money management.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 10:52:50 AM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Third

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1684
• Thanked: 283 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2014, 01:18:12 PM »

Quote
If we have definitive edge, why bother about any money management?-Alabahala
Even when you have an edge, you still must deal with what we call "variance".  In gambling, "variance" is the "good luck" or "bad luck".  It is the normal random fluctuations that occur within the game.  By betting a small percentage of your bankroll at each spin, your bet amounts can theoretically subdivide towards infinity, enabling you to withstand long periods of negative variance.   And the upside is that your bets can grow quite large when you're winning.  Betting a percentage of your bankroll at each spin enables you to win far more than flat betting alone can, and it crushes the foolish "up as you lose" progression, as is shown in the example above.

Quote
Further, a definitive little edge doesn't ensure wins for you while playing as you can not play 24x7.-Alabahala
Quote
Even with definitive edge, bets will be suffering from momentary negative variance and you can not play 10,000 spins in a row. Therefore, you still need to be lucky, to win.-Alabahala
Perhaps you missed the part where I said, that the player was playing off and on over several weeks.  I did not say that the player was playing all 10,000 spins in one setting.
During the 10k spins, there will of course be days where the player loses.  However, in the end, the 6% edge that we've given the player in the example will overcome even three standard deviations of variance.  (Edge .06 x 10k = 600 units)  verses (Variance 3 x square root of 10k = 300 units)
Also variance is a double edge sword.  There will be days where the player also wins more than he should.

Quote
Computations like the one Real did above you are impossible. He standardizes all the variables so he can make his point.-Palestis

No, actually they are not impossible.  It is merely your comprehension of the example that is limited.  If you were to take a large group of players, and give them all the same 6% edge, and then have each of them play for 10k spins, then the win averaged over all of the players, would be very close to what's written above.  It's true some would win less, but some would also win more.  However, the average of all of the wins would still be very close to what I've written above.

Quote
However, every player has his own playing style. Included in that style there can be bets of larger then usual amounts. When he wins with a very large bet amount, then the casino's 5.26% edge is peanuts compared to what the player will pocket.-Palestis

I'm not really sure as to what it is your trying to say right here , and I'm not sure that you know either.  Let me say this, unless the player has the edge, then raising and lowering bet sizes is meaningless.  The expectation will simply be the average bet size multiplied times the house edge.  If the player has the edge over the house, then the expectation is the average size of all bets made multiplied times the edge.

Quote
When you have the variable of luck in every spin you play (good or bad), and also the changing bet amount, then you cannot use these kind of computations, especially if you assume that the player will play 10,000 spins.-Palestis

Yes, actually you can use these types of simulations.  At 10,000 spins, the edge is larger than the expected variance.

Quote
A typical Las Vegas player goes there for 10 days. The casino edge adds very little to the amount he already lost. In fact  he will be wishing he only lost the amount of the edge. And if he knows what he's doing, or if he is lucky, the edge withheld is a very tiny amount compared to what he put in his pocket. In either case, the edge has no affect on the amount a player wins or loses.Unless we specify how many times a player will play in his lifetime and the exact amounts in every spin, and the probability of good luck, then and only then we can attempt to compute the end results-Palestis

At 10,000 spins, the edge is why the player is usually a net loser, not variance.  I know you can't imagine playing for so many spins, but some players will play 10,000 spins within two months.  However, other people, that do not play very often, such as yourself, will probably need 20 years to see that many spins.

Betting a percentage of your bankroll at each spin has the lowest probability of ruin, and it provides the player with the best chance for a large win.

Best of luck!

-Real
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 02:34:09 PM by Real »

#### palestis

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2014, 02:33:51 PM »

Quote
From REAL
At 10,000 spins, the edge is why the player is usually a net loser, not variance.  I know you can't imagine playing for so many spins, but some players will play 10,000 spins within two months.  However, other people, that do not play very often, such as yourself, will probably need 20 years to see that many spins
Again you assume that a player's style in one based solely on math. And you base all computations based on that assumption. Did it occur to you  that there are players that mix their systems with Advantage Play systems when it seems appropriate? I have seen players switching from a math based system to a system that capitalizes on an obvious "dealer's signature", or an obvious ballistic consistency, or a trend, during their sessions. There in no law that requires you to either stick to the math system or the AP system. An astute player can mix both systems if necessary. The question is under those conditions is the effect of the casino edge the same? I don't think so. Maybe 10,000 spins is normal  for a full time player, but how many of those players are out there that will play 10,000 spins in a short time. The vast majority of roulette players are weekend warriors, and not every week. Or millions of tourists that go to Vegas for a few days to try their luck among most important things like shows, food, relaxation. Therefore for the majority of players the edge does not have the time to catch up to them. Their loss is mostly attributed to the fact that they lose all their chips that didn't belong to the winning number. That's if they win. If they lose they lose all of their chips. With a 20 chips bet they get 36 if they win a number. But still, 19 chips go wasted. That's a lot more than the edge. All it takes is a few serial losses to turn all the winnings up to that point into a total loss. The same goes in a case where a player wins and walks away. The casino edge is a very small price to pay for the privilege of walking away with a few thousands in his pocket.
The edge is an insurance for the casino that in a long period of time, and after the millions of spins (winning or losing), it will be ahead at least by 5.26%. The casino sees the TOTAL PICTURE. Not every player's individual results.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1684
• Thanked: 283 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2014, 05:55:35 PM »
Quote
Again you assume that a player's style in one based solely on math. And you base all computations based on that assumption. Did it occur to you  that there are players that mix their systems with Advantage Play systems when it seems appropriate? I have seen players switching from a math based system to a system that capitalizes on an obvious "dealer's signature", or an obvious ballistic consistency, or a trend, during their sessions. There in no law that requires you to either stick to the math system or the AP system. An astute player can mix both systems if necessary. The question is under those conditions is the effect of the casino edge the same? I don't think so.-Palestis

Palestis,

Again, I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to convey.  And what does mixing systems have to do with anything???  In the example I provided,  the math will be the same, since I've already defined the edge that the player has acheived.   And FYI, This means that the player is an AP.  In the example, the betting system is irrelevant.  I'm sorry if you're having trouble comprehending what I've written.
Quote
Maybe 10,000 spins is normal  for a full time player, but how many of those players are out there that will play 10,000 spins in a short time. The vast majority of roulette players are weekend warriors, and not every week. Palestis

So what?  An up as you win progression that relies on betting a percentage of your bankroll is still the most effecient, based on the stats that I've provided above.
Quote
The edge is an insurance for the casino that in a long period of time, and after the millions of spins (winning or losing), it will be ahead at least by 5.26%. The casino sees the TOTAL PICTURE. Not every player's individual results.-Palestis

The edge is present at every spin.  Depending on the number of numbers bet, the house edge becomes the largest consumer of your bankroll after just 5k spins on the double zero wheel.
While this is likely more spins than you, Palestis, will ever play in your lifetime as an occasional player, it's not more than most avid roulette players will play within a few months.  As a professional AP, I may play more than 10k within three or four months.  Most system players play more frequently than you do as well.

There are some great articles where you can learn more about the game and the house edge at wizardofodds.com

Best of luck,

-Real
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 06:13:25 PM by Real »

#### palestis

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2014, 10:53:39 PM »

Quote
3. Player three, after 10,000 spins, will likely win the following:  (1.0006)^(10,000 spins played) = \$402,703.  Such is the power of compounding interest!  As you can see, betting an "up as you WIN progression" is vastly superior, and the player was far less likely to go bust, since his bets would decrease during losing periods, and increase during winning periods.  Mathematically it's vastly superior to an "up as you lose progression" and flat betting!  Real
How did you arrive at the 1.0006 figure if the player bets 1% of his bank roll? or did you mean 1.006?

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1684
• Thanked: 283 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2014, 01:08:10 AM »
1 + (1% x 6%) = 1 + (.01 x .06) =  1 + .0006 = 1.0006
Now raise 1.006 ^10000th = 402.7 times our starting bankroll.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 02:08:15 AM by Real »

#### dobbelsteen

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2014, 02:50:52 PM »
In the Dutch language there is no synonym for the word edge. From my point of view edge and advantage are synonyms.
The roulette has a mathematical advantage, the so called house edge. The advantage of the player is his knowledge, experience and skill. This advantage has no ranking or figure.
For every system the HE is the same. For the ER -2.7%.
Do you play a long run session with a system for the game and the betting, the result is about a loss of 2.7%. Positive nor negative progression have influence on this percentage.
The results for the bankroll is something else. That result depends on the total betting. The player who plays  on one dozen will lose less money than the player who plays on two dozen.

At the start of a session, a player hasnâ€™t an  mathematical edge.
The length of a long run session depends on the kind chance. See my threat elsewhere.

#### Third

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2019, 09:42:11 AM »
Betting a percentage of your bankroll at each spin has the lowest probability of ruin

I am not a mathematician.  Can someone please verify this statement for me?  He is obviously referring to the "Risk of Ruin" formula.

Btw, I can play 10,000 spins in a week and sometimes even more, depending.

I just want to point out that the statistical reason I am net profitable after well over 100,000 spins (probably over 200,000 -- I have records of all my games and could get specific) is because of positive variance, which is always present in all our games; it shifts around consistently as we play.  If our strategy is crafted to take advantage of this fact, there is nothing wrong or overly worrisome about the house having a 2.7% edge, as it doesn't take much variance to exceed such a small amount.

As always, I want to thank God for my success and I don't blame Him when I lose!
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 09:56:07 AM by Third »

#### Jesper

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2019, 12:19:57 PM »
Real is right, IF you have an edge, betting a percent of the bank is the way to go, If you have an advantage, and there is a large variance, bet small part of the bankroll, as in such situation you "Win in the long run". The question is if it is possible to maintain said edge.  If you can find 1% advantage, it may be 10000 spins before you are sure to beat the variance.  Therefore bet small and many times, opposite from negative expection, bet BOLD short time and up as you win here also.  On NOZ up as you win is still better, the long run is break even, but only sure for a very large sample.

The following users thanked this post: Third

#### Third

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2019, 01:18:45 PM »
Yes, I think many spins allows for variance to flow more.

#### scepticus

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2019, 01:32:59 PM »
"Betting a percentage of your bankroll at each spin has the lowest probability of ruin"I think this refers to the Kelly Criterion ." The Kelly " needs an Edge to be useful. In roulette it is not practicable when betting inside - and needs a large bankroll.

#### Jesper

##### Re: Comparing Progressions: Up As You Lose, Flat Bet, and Up As You Win
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2019, 02:22:20 PM »
Scep!

We suppose there is an edge, as AP and most here system player claim, then it is right to do many small plays. If the odds are against better few, use the positive variance, and be bold.   "Hit and run" is an example. It will not help in "the long run". The long run for a player using trends and virtual bets, is the same in spins, but last in time.

The following users thanked this post: MickyP, Third, UnlikelySam