Consider all possibilities after a pair of trials of BJ's roulette example:

-$22 = loss, loss = -10 -8
+$18 = win, win = +10 +8
+$02 = loss, win = -10 +12
+$02 = win, loss = +10 -8

Call a win, loss or loss, win pair odd. And the other same results even.

Imagine you fluked 18 consecutive odd pairs in 36 spins. You'd win $2 first, then 96% of your previous win for the next 17 pairs.

That comes to ~$130.

By that time your stake is only $5. Lose that on the final spin for a profit of $125 on 18 wins and 19 losses.

So even with more losses than wins, it is possible to win on this negative game providing you get enough odd pairs.

BJs sample conveniently has 11 odd pairs and only 7 even pairs. And that is why it ends up profitable.

An equal number of odd and even pairs is the most likely outcome, resulting in a loss, and eventual ruin for any mug persisting with such a daft staking plan.

Don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Can you post an example of a series of 37 spins with 18 winners that loses?

For the moment I'll concede that I CANNOT find any circumstances where 18 wins from 37 will produce a net loss - and that I was wrong to blame the effect on an excess of odd pairs.

The discredited Martingale system which doubles after each loss only needs 1 win to get back in front.

And I suspect that BJ's system has a similar flaw. Essentially if you have too few wins in 37 spins you will lose. DUH! But the point is those losses will be far bigger than the corresponding wins resulting in an overall loss.

I'll try to think about this more then respond fully.

"Can you post an example of a series of 37 spins with 18 winners that loses?"

Sure. Start at $10, when we lose we add $10 to the bet, when we win we lower the bet by $10.

Win the first 18 spins = +$180

Lose the next 19 spins = -1900

You are contradicting yourself.
In the roulette example I provided, I had 18 wins and 19 losses and made a profit.

Your sample wasn't random. Either is the one I described above, ie both of our 'tests' are biased.

You said yourself that the wins will be worth more than the losses. To me this is saying that you agree that it will give you an advantage over straight bets.

No. If the the 2 bets pay even money, you still need to win >50% to profit.

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but please if you are going to voice it, provide something to back it up.

Sure, it's called mathematics.

You can't just rock up and say it won't work. What is the reason that a progressive staking system does not give you an advantage.? On the figures I have provided, it does.

Yes I can.
All a staking system does is change the distribution of winnings/losses.
Again, your test was biased.

Where is your proof.?

All over the net. Check out bjmath.com, bj21.com, and maybe wizardofodds.com.

I'm sorry but you are wrong and it's a fact. If progessions gave an edge, the casino's wouldn't be in business. If it was so easy to profit at blackjack or roulette, why would the casino's offer the game?

I don't need to prove to you why progessions don't work, you need to prove to mathematicians all across the world why they DO work.

Firstly Mr. J.
Your series of 37 spins did not produce a loss of anywhere near that much. It is quite confusing to me why you would argue against my thoughts on staking systems with a crazy staking system that has nothing to do with anything written previously.

What I asked for, was a series of 37 spins that produces a loss using the figures 1.2 and .8.
If you took the time to respond, surely you have time to read what you are responding to.

Secondly.
Explain to me about the 2 bets on an even money event. You say you wouldn't profit. If you bet $10 on the loss and $12 on the win, how do you argue that there is not a $2 profit.?


What about mathematics proves what you are saying? Mathematics is a very broad area.

Work it out again Mr. J.

This time reread what you yourself wrote.

First 18 spins all win = +$10
Last 19 spins all lose = -$10

I hope you are not an accountant...

BJ,

Apropos your system where you decrease your stake by 20% after every win, and increase by 20% after every loss:

Suppose you lose the 1st 2 spins, then win.

$10 = Loss
$12 = Loss
$14 = Win

You end up losing $8 (=10+12-14).

$14 = bets on Winners
$11 = bets on Losers (average)

So despite betting significantly more on your winners you lost!

This disproves your justification for your system.

JFC: Above is my comment in full.
If you were betting level stakes, you would have bet,
$10 loss
$10 loss
$10 win.
A total loss of $10.

Now I only produced a loss of $8. In 3 bets I have added $2 to your pocket that you would have lost betting level stakes.

I am not some miracle worker who suggests that turning a profit from a 33% strike rate on roulette is possible.

I think you are a little desperate to prove me wrong.
You are right though, your imaginary roulette game with a strike rate of 33% cannot be beaten.

Now, try again, but this time use appropriate strike rates. Try 18/37.

Please reread the second sentence from the above quote. "Provided you can come up with a system to stay within all limits, then you must return more than level stakes."

BJ,

Play the game for 3 spins.

At $10 level stakes the expectation is a LOSS of $0.810810810

With your staking the expectation is a WORSE LOSS of $0.813772

I have used 6,8,10,12,14 as the possible stakes - and the precise win probability of 18/37.

I will wait to see if your calculations agree.

BJ,

here are the key calculations for a (simpler) 2 spin game and your stakes:

P/L Prob _ _ _ _ Product
-22 0.263696 -5.80131
+02 0.249817 +0.499635
+02 0.249817 +0.499635
+18 0.236669 +4.260044

The expectation totals -0.542001

That is worse than level stakes of -0.540540540