Winning Prog System that works all the times
  • TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT ALEXS SYSTEM

    This method is similar to a martingale in a somewhat limited way.
    Whereas in a martingale one tries to null a loss by doubling the bet
    over a few hands, this system spreads the rocovery over the playing
    cycle by betting a percentage of the current status that is above or below
    the 100 starting number.
    100 is related to some practical bet amount and could just as well be
    200 depending on your bet/$$ preference. I'll use a primitive form of
    Set theory to give my position/thoughts:

    Game 50/50 coin toss game and betting heads everytime.
    Start at 100...anything greater is a loss...under a win.

    First bet is $20

    Set A.............................Set B

    H 80 ................................T 120 (first bet results)
    T 96 ................................H 96
    H 77 ................................T 115
    T 92 ................................H 92
    H 74 ................................T 110
    T 89 ................................H 88
    H 71 ................................T 106
    T 85 .................................H 85
    H 68 .................................T 102
    T 82 .................................H 82

    Win 18...............................Win 18

    Notice that these are non-random sequences that never occur in a real
    game, but it does demonstrate that in a 50/50 game the system will beat this configuration everytime and by the exact same amount.

    Sets C and D are random occurances that will happen and we are observing them after they occur. The streak configurations are identical
    in numer and position(equal billing), one winning the other losing.

    Set C..................................Set D

    H 80....................................T 120 (first bet results)
    H 64....................................T 144
    H 51....................................T 173
    H 41....................................T 208
    H 33....................................T 250
    T 40....................................H 200
    H 32....................................T 240
    T 38....................................H 192
    H 30....................................T 230
    T 36....................................H 184

    Win 64...................................Lose 84

    Sets E and F reposition the streaks and maintain the same equal/balanced
    conditions:


    Set E..................................Set F

    H 80.....................................T 120 (first bet results)
    T 96.....................................H 96
    H 77.....................................T 115
    T 92.....................................H 92
    H 74.....................................T 110
    H 59.....................................T 132
    H 47.....................................T 158
    T 56.....................................H 126
    H 45.....................................T 151
    T 54.....................................H 121
    H 43.....................................T 145
    T 52.....................................H 116

    Win 48...................................Lose 16

    Sequences C-D and E-F give equal billing to the opportunity to win or lose
    and the position of the streaks show clearly that "luck" plays the major
    role in determining the outcome for this very simple 50/50 game. You
    simply can not configure some money management strategy that will
    capture an advantage against the "UNKNOWN".

    Notice that the streaks are at the same position and all other outcomes
    are balance so as to keep things in line.. apples to apples... no preference.

    Ray
  • Hi Ray,
    Great explanation and description of my system. You got it!
    Ray, this is not a debate, just the facts of how is done.

    ///
  • valium and on demerol :lol:


    (sorry, Im kind of behind in my reading)
  • Alex

    There are two reasons "your" system does not work or systems like the martingale and they are time and money! This system could work if you had unlimited time and money, neither are possible, the casinos set a table limit for a reason! You will run into a bad streak and because of the table limit not be able to recover, period. You can dress the data up however you want, but the bottom line is your system has flaws, it can work in the short term, but in the long term you will get burned - if you don't it is not your system, it is called "luck".

    One quick question: Why don't you play roulette, black or red? You could get a team together have Donald Trump finance you and with a 47% chance of winning and your system - you guys would own Vegas pretty quickly! Think about it, if your system worked, wouldn't somebody have already done this, and the casinos would have stopped it! "Your" system is not a new idea, you did not invent the wheel on this one! When you come up with an good orginal idea, write a book about it, and I will be the first to buy it.

    P.S. - don't mean to put you down, just telling it like I see it! After all this talk, I might switch to poker!!
  • Alex- I thought you might make that suggestion and even started to
    show the relationship/connections between sets. Random streaks do
    not occur to our advantage in all cases. I could just as well connect
    sets A,B,D,and F which may or may not show a loss. How about a simple
    continuation of set D. One never knows what or how the random occurances will play out in any game.

    I will say this about your system: If you happen to be in a very back
    and forth BJ game, you have a very good chance of beating the game
    because of the betting sequence. In this case your swings are held to
    a min and as set A and B suggest your system will do the job and make
    you a small winner or at least close to even as theory would suggest.

    What is strange about all of this is the fact that streaks are your enemy
    and that is very different from the normal claims used by prog players.

    Ray
  • Ray said:

    What is strange about all of this is the fact that streaks are your enemy
    and that is very different from the normal claims used by prog players.

    Ray - That really isn't strange at all IMHO. Most negative progessions (D'Alembert, Labby, etc.) benefit most from choppy hands/shoes. You are thinking of most positive progression that depend on winning streaks for their winnings.

    JMPoehler - Your post above is "right on the money" about "time and money".

    Grifter
  • Grifter- If you say it's not strange , I'm sure you are correct and yes
    what little I know about progressions is related to positive systems that
    I've observed only casually.

    Ray
  • Alex-One bit of knowledge about your system that I failed to mention:
    In sets C & D you will notice that the impact of a loss is greater than
    the impact for a win, but they are equal in length. The reverse is true
    for sets E & F. By study of the various configurations we can gain a
    complete understanding of your system and I'm sure you will agree
    with that statement.

    Having said that, what element and/or bit of knowlege that we possess
    will enable us to continue any of the sets and say for certain that this
    set will end up being a winner everytime? For us to be able to do that,
    the knowledge must be within the method itself and I don't seem to be
    able to locate/discover same................

    Ray
  • Cant the same be said for the Martingale?
  • newatthis said:
    Cant the same be said for the Martingale?


    No, because a Martingale is suppose to double the previous bet as long as you are in red.

    //
  • Hi Alex3D and members. This is my first post here. Got an "invite" do the the subject nature of this message.

    McGarvey's Grind was created from graph sheets that I made up as I played online blackjack. It is a series of progressions and deviations from basic strategy play. I switch to a risk aversive basic strategy once the bets get to a certain % of the deposit and bonus. The progressions points also change in relation to the deposit and bonuses. It is a combination of a caped Martingale, Contra D'Alembert, and Oscar. I have two accounts that I continue to use just to play for cash from a sticky bonus that is still alive in my accounts. This has been going on for two years. One was a 500/500 the other 250/500. I have no sim to test the McGarvey's Grind, so all I can do is test it live, which is fine since it makes me money.

    I'm not sure how your program works. I've printed it of for further study.
  • Alex- I'm not saying your system don't work, at least not yet. It's just
    that I have not been able to make it work logically. I suspect that my
    final results will be like all the other money management analysis: You
    can't prove it does and you can't prove it don't.

    I'll continue to look and anything of value will be posted. There is an
    infinite number of ways the future can playout and you can make an
    argument for each one.

    Ray
  • Rob McGarvey - Welcome to the board.....Hope you enjoy it.

    Rob, there is a space provided in your "Profile" for your website address. Would you please edit yours from "location" to "website" so your ID does not take up half the posting area here......Thank you.

    Moderator (Grifter)
  • Regards,

    Win1 :wink:[/quote]

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!