(For updated information about Target's ongoing sports betting experiment, please go to the Sethbets website, or click here for an introduction to progressive betting, and here [20] and here [5] for current picks)
I could go on posting examples like the one at the top of this entry until I'm blue in the face, and readers who subscribe to the conventional wisdom about casino games of chance would keep on saying the big wins are either a fiddle or a fluke.
I can deal with the fraud charge by linking each new funny-munny success to a web page that expands the example into screen shots saved every 30 bets or so from the beginning to the end of the session. Plus a scan of the log from the same session, highlighting all the paired wins that made it possible - unavoidable! - to beat the odds.
But changing negative attitudes is a much bigger challenge.
Let's start with the law of large numbers above.
It's not wrong, obviously - it's just irrelevant when progressive betting is applied to smooth out the ups and downs of standard deviation, and exploit patterns or trends that can be relied upon no matter how ginormous a data set may be.
Progressive betting is widely derided by everyone from casino personnel, who have an obvious interest in promoting the notion that their games are ultimately unbeatable, to mathematicians, whose agenda is less clear.
The logical alternatives to progressive betting are fixed (flat) or random betting, which arithmetic confirms cannot prevail against a negative game, and regressive betting, which reduces wagers in a downturn and so is obviously even worse than the other two methods.
Most people reject progressive betting because they are brain-washed into believing that it cannot win in the long run.
A small minority accepts that progressive betting can be effective, but thinks of it as too risky or too scary to use in a situation where the objective is to have fun and hopefully make a little money before going home.
I applaud everyone who gambles for fun, and thank them for contributions without which there would be no casinos.
But Target is about winning.
And however small the minority I'm in may be, I insist on believing that winning is much more fun than losing.
It can be risky, certainly, and hard work at times.
But it is far from mathematically impossible.
Progressive betting makes us think of a bazillion bets as just a long string of "series" or sequences of bets, each of which begins with one or more losses and ends with the recovery of money lost in that series, plus a small profit.
A series can begin with one or more winning bets, but does not technically qualify for Target's definition of a series until one or more losses lead to a recovery, or turnaround.
Breaking up what would otherwise be an infinite string of ups and downs makes long-term winning not only easier, but inevitable.
But the You Can't Win!!! mentality is an accurate prophecy for the vast majority of casino gamblers, all of whom go into games with too little money and without a long-term plan.
All I wanted to know when I started my insane quest for the impossible, as it has been characterized by the YCW brigade, was whether or not the house edge could be beaten in the long run.
If the Martingale or double-up method is given unlimited funds and free access to casino games - neither of which is true in the real world - then it can be claimed to be the easiest antidote to the house advantage.
But in reality, it has to deal with table limits that for practical purposes top out at around $25,000 in my neighborhood, as well as vigilant casino personnel who treat "Martingalers" as if they have come to rob the joint at gunpoint.
Table limits are far tighter outside of Nevada and New Jersey because a casino's interests are best served by squeezing progressive bettors into as small a box as the local market will allow.
The only large number that a Target player is concerned with is the spread between the minimum and maximum bets permitted at a given location.
The smaller the spread, the tougher the challenge.
The two truths that I refer to in today's heading are progressive betting's proven status as the only way to win in the long run, and the existence of patterns of wins and losses that can be consistently exploited for profit.
The patterns I'm talking about only relate to bet values when progressive betting is applied to them.
So -1,-1,-1,+1,+1 is a losing sequence until Target bets are applied (-1,-1,-1,+1,+3) or double-up determines bet amounts (-1,-2,-4,+8,+1).
In the Target example above, the series took five bets to resolve, falling back to a minimum wager ready for the next series, and double-up needed four bets.
Random betting may or may not have recovered lost chips from three bets in the two winners that came after them.
The fixed or flat bettor was, of course, out of luck.
In both blackjack and baccarat, which have a house advantage of less than 1.5% in the long run, you can count on 60% of all recovery series to turn around in FOUR bets or fewer.
Assuming that you are using progressive betting to delineate series in the first place, that is.
It then stands to sense that if the money won in all those short series does not exceed the combined value of chips lost when series run five bets or more, you might as well write the casino a check and stay at home.
But longer series don't lose. They just don't win as quickly.
My aim in all my recent posts has been to challenge readers to pull up Ken Smith's BST game or any alternative that they are comfortable with, and play first the way they always have, then with Target.
The existence of the rhythm or pattern of wins and losses that I keep going on about then becomes blindingly obvious.
Baccarat is a much harder slog than blackjack, because it lacks splits and double-downs and bonus-paid naturals, so while the overall rhythm is much the same as for the more popular (better) game, it takes longer to pay off.
Given the four-bets-or-less statistic I quoted earlier, it's worth the time to tackle a fair (but free) table game simulation that limits double-up to, say, four losses before a series is abandoned.
So -5,-10,-20,+40 pays a profit of 5 (+6.7%), and -5,-10,-20,-40 ends with a LOSS of 75 (-100%!).
Is it possible to win enough "plus fives" to cover the cost of a lesser number of "minus seventy-fives"?
In blackjack, your long-term prospects are pretty good and certainly better than betting without smart and consistent money management.
Give it a go: You'll have fun, even against a funny-munny game.
In baccarat, you'll likely lose a little - especially if you ignore the numbers and put (fake) money on Banker!
I mention the experiment simply to illustrate the difference between the two casino card games with the lowest house advantage.
Now, what if you were to apply the same four losers limit but make NB=PBx3 or x4 or x5 instead of x2?
Now you're talking!
Try it for a while, if only to convince yourself of the power of progressive betting.
Then you can learn all the Target rules and variations, and start making real money.
I began this blog early in 2009 hoping to convince as many people as possible that losing money in a casino is not as inevitable as death and taxes.
I get enough positive feedback from around the world (including Russia and China!) to keep me going.
And the more Target costs casinos and bookies everywhere, the happier I will be.
It's an uphill battle, of course. But they make for the most satisfying wins...just like Target.
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
No comments:
Post a Comment