Duritz,

Yes I can marry anything. I'm a JP [just past it] :-)

Your idea though [no, the quarantine pit is a good one if you don't have a shoty and plenty of shells], is a bit more answer than asked but a viable alternative never the less. Mad wants 2 banks [2 quarantine pits are better than 1].

'Reducing' for a system you say will probably lose is just prolonging the death. Long before the 'married' bank gets down to 50c bets from reducing, Mad will top-up his bank so why bother with the slow death? I'm talking punting. The flu death will be so quick he'll be able to have some final big $100 bets :-)

LOL - yeah but I'm saying set a minimum of whatever your initial bet is. In theory, you have your starting bank and you want it to escalate, so you don't want to be betting lower than you were at the start. He has a bank of a gorilla, he bets 1.5% increasing/reducing but with a CELLAR of $15, and perhaps he doesn't increase his bet size until his bank gets above $1500, and only then at the 1% rate, as an inbuilt safety method. (Much like the inbuilt safety method I have outside my Quarantine Pit, I call it my pack of starving, angry Pitbull terriers).

Doesn't a 2% of bank bet get bigger if he is winning [and his figures suggest he is]?
Anyone who has chained starving pit bulls around his 'pit' isn't thinking straight. How do YOU get out without a shotty to blast them first?. Being a country boy, I love my shottty [obviously].

Yeah the 2% gets bigger but it's too big for when the inevitable losing streak comes. You have big peaks when you're winning and big drops when you're losing. It's Bipolar betting.

As to the pitbulls, I don't need to come out, I just get out the shotty that I stole from a house in Bairnsdale recently and shoot one, drag it in, make dim sims, then when there's none of them left to eat, I'm safe to come out.

Spot on Duritz!
But was it not exactly what Crash was saying about progression betting, when losing with level stakes?
I firmly beleive that if level betting is profitable, it can benefit, to some extent from progression betting, but in my opinion a simple increase in bet size is far more profitable, and less risky!
The problem I see with a reducing bet size, that we never really know when the next winner is coming along, and maybe missing out on a big winner.
A ten percent strike rate can be made up of a 100 winners in a row and a 1000 losers in a row, highly unlikely I admit but something like that can happen in real life too.
PS. Sorry I left out an important proviso: the size of bet is stricktly a percentage of the bank, whatever % you chose!!!
Therefore it can go up or down.
Good luck

[QUOTE=Duritz]Yeah the 2% gets bigger but it's too big for when the inevitable losing streak comes. You have big peaks when you're winning and big drops when you're losing. It's Bipolar betting.
QUOTE]

That's a furpy and you should know better [marcus too]. Sure when you have a loss it's for a greater amount when your 2% of bank has been dragged up by profit.

With a loss bet you are just losing a small % of your winnings that was once the bookies. That 2% bet size reduces every time you give the bookie some of his money back. Your always better off. What you are actually doing is having small progressive bets after a win only [with a % of the bookies money you received as winnings], never after a loss as it's reducing automatically in that situation after every bet.

That's it!!! I'm finished with Mad Gambler. We've poured our hearts and souls into this thread. 9 pages of pure gold giving him at least 3 answers to choose from plus medical advice, share investment advice and bomb shelter tips. Do we get a thank you? Do we heck. I don't think he's a real person at all. He's just a stooge - a thread starter put here by management to get us posting. Look at the first post "Any thoughts on this". And now there's a new thread which finished "Do you agree". A thread starter. Hah, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not some of the people most of the time or some of the rest of them at other times.

Beautifully paraphrased Kenny. Good old Abe is green with envy!
Cheers

LOL. Classic.

Crash what you wrote there is true given that you don't hit a losing period that drops you below your bank, because if it does, then you're 2% starts to send you down more quickly. I know it begins to become 2% of lesser amounts but it still drops more quickly.

It's bipolar betting because when you're winning your bank goes up more quickly, but as soon as losers are struck you give back the winnings more quickly. That's what I mean by it being bipolar betting. You ride huge highs during times of profit, and give it all back astoundingly quickly when you're losing.

To prove the point, I've done up a little file, herein attached. It simulates a 10,000 bet series on a system with a win s/r of 25% and a win dividend of $4.20. It then has three pretty coloured sections showing how a 1% increasing/reducing would go, a 2% increasing reducing and a 3%. In sheet2 of the workbook, the progress of your betting bank (started at $1000) is shown. You'll see in the graphs exactly what I mean by bipolar punting in these graphs.

Enjoy, I'm off to my bird flu quarantine shelter now, down there in quarantine with Jardine's Lookout who is here in preparation for the Melbourne Cup (won't he ever quit!).

--- OK, unfortunately the file was too big, so I've brought it down to 6500 sample and here it is.

Oh mate, your killing me here with all this science. Bipolar betting? I'm only autistic, but Zoe is bipolar [yep]. She's a bipolar punter:-) I'll get her to look at this file and let her try and 'figure it'. She has the Science Degree, I'm just a humble punter !! Until then, we'll agree to disagree. Besides I agree with Kenny, we have been stooged in this thread !!