The only thing I have ever disagreed with here is that a progressive staking plan WILL [which means always] turn a loss into a profit. All other claims for them is of course always possible, depending on which way the cards fall. Probability [chance if you like] can end up being very generous, or a real cow of a thing! It's not strictly linear according to odds. That's why we can get long runs of ins and outs. Either might start on your next bet or your 1000th next bet, as we can't see the future.

Any type of bank arrangement combined with any type of progressive staking plan CAN produce a profit [or loss] over a various numbers of bets [time frames are meaningless as has been pointed out] and bet types. But nobody can claim they WILL work over X number of bets, nor use past/present examples as 'proof' of future success.

The shorter the odds, the longer the potential number of bets the arrangement might work over due to the laws of probability. It could be profitable [or disastrous] over 5 bets or a 1000 bets. The lower the risk [shorter the odds], the greater the chances of an extended run of success and vis-a-vis. However, there is no guarantee of success, regardless of low risk and regardless of it being a low or high number of bets.

Some [unlucky] people get killed the first time they travel by car and others travel by car a million times without a scratch. Probability is no guarantee of success for safely riding in a car or a progressive staking plan in a negative expectation game either.

There are very good reasons I never swim in Shark infested waters, or use progressive staking plans anymore either :-))

IMHO any punters time could be far more productively spent, discerning the difference between perceived and real value bets and improving their race handicapping ability [picking winners] than twiddling with the nob's of staking progressions trying to turn loss into profit.