well, your gonna love my thread bj lol

what if i told you i have the ultimate system

i have been waiting and waiting

28/9/12    Moonee Valley    8    1015    FRUEHLING

Apologies.  I have seen the light and am off to the casino to cash in using Martingale.  Won't tell them it was your idea to keep you under the radar a little longer to help you cash in a little more.  Just hope I don't get taken out the back and beaten when I send them broke.

Where is the proof? I see no mention of target,bet size,odds,progress. Total waste of time. Either make some effort to do what you said you would do or just forget it.

here fishy fishy

been around this place too long to know a D-Grade fisherman when I see one

+133.05 since the beginning of the thread, using the staking plan I mentioned previously which is a form of martingale

Angry angry man.  Maybe time for you to take a holiday.  Really is no need for any of that rubbish, especially from somebody that even over the internet knows he would need to fight dirty.  Must be a real tough guy.

I think the most important thing when testing out anything based around progressive stakes is to compare what would have happened with level stakes.

just pure hate and absolute denial that it could possibly work

TBf you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself. I don't have great knowledge of systems but i always thought a system was a system was a system, any variation therein is a different system with a different name. Call it 'The 2nd coming of Martin Gale's system' and you're on to something......

I am sure you are big enough to realise I speak my mind without any hate involved.  My opinion is certainly not dependant on who I am talking to, you should realise this by now.  But if you have been around as long as I have, you would have seen numerous people ruin their lives betting Martingale, and I find it negligent to lead the blind.

I have no issue with progressive staking systems at all.  I started with one I made myself nearly a decade ago and it is because of that that I am here today.

On the whole, people are stupid.  Anybody with an IQ over 110 has a duty to look after the lesser equipt.  If you feel hatred and denial then fair play to you, but I can assure you I have no such emotions.

You may have a betting pattern that allows you to win no matter how you bet.  Fair play.  But it is negligent to suggest that something so dangerous in the wrong hands can be profitable.  Sure it can, but anybody smart enough to be able to profit straight betting already knows the ups and downs.  The only people that will be swayed by this thread are the people not intelligent enough to realise what is even happening around them until the roof that was once keeping them warm is now gone.

for anyone wondering, since the start of my martingale test:

82 bets, 27 winning bets, s/r of 32.93% (down a bit), flat stakes p/l +21.9

stats since the start of the year (not including this month so far)

1591 bets, 555 winning bets, s/r of 34.88% (again down on last year), flat stakes p/l +155

looks promising imo messiah, very impressive strike rate and anything that can turn a 10% POT level stakes into a "run of outs" busting system will convince me to have another look at the martingale with chaff bandits. Still a bit sceptical though and everything bjt writes makes sense... i've seen plenty of its' users in the local CAS and just about all get wiped out never seen again... those that are addicts get seen trying to make their comebacks with $5 dollar chips bought with dole money. But gl ... looks promising. and.. tks. for the comp.

he's attempting to find the way around the impending run of outs. Like everyone else he "knows" its' going to happen and so he (like probably a hundred million other punters worldwide through history) is researching the way around it. gl to him.

The one I made (haven't used it for about 6 years, so reaching), went up by about 1.2 on a losing bet, and down .8 or so on a winning bet.
This worked out the base figure.  There was also something tied in that worked out expected return (based on odds percentage vs winning %), eg 10 bets all at 2.00 with 4 winners, this would show 80%, but I used the last 100 bets (I think I even increased this higher too) to get the average. 
The base figure was then divided by the average to get the bet, which was a bet to return a figure.  eg 100 @ odds 2.00 would be a stake of 50 dollars.

I worked it out so there was always a minimum figure to be bet to, (but the base figure would have no limits), and always a maximum.
So lets say after 100 bets at 80% return starting at 100 dollar base, your bet would be up to say 250.  So your next would be payout 250/.8 or 312.5.

Worked a treat for me.  I had it so it was always coming down more than it would go up.  So the 1.2 and .8 figures weren't an exact match.  I was working on backing every favourite in every race, so strike rate of about 32-33%.

Obviously, the theory, is you are always betting more on a winning bet than a losing bet.  And as with anything, it all works in runs.  I believe this system got me through a 3 month period returning around 76% and then of course when things turned, cashed right in.  So rather than trying to win a certain amount when you finally get a winner, you are trying to get it back over a series of winners.  How many depends on how big your series of losers was.

I don't have the spreadsheet any more, but would be interested to see just how that would go with something with such a high flat stakes return, as I was working on under 1% advantage level stakes.  Would need to be tweaked a little to reflect more the strike rate vs win rate, but certainly had a lot going for it.

In looking, I think when I started bettinG I backed the figures right down under 1.05 and .95, because 1.2/.8 is extreme.  Hence why I don't buy into martingale at all.

test

In my experience on sports that wasn't the case, the early prices were generally the best prices for what I was doing as there was more dissent and confusion. I guess with horse racing it may be different because of the way the market fluctuates as people take bites out of it before it hardens towards the off (coupled with the fear early layers have of being 'had over' which doesn't exist so much in sport).

We'll have to agree to disagree with respect to whether it's worth sitting around all day. Personally I would pick a system that required 30 mins a day putting bets on to return £100 a week over one that required 4 hrs a day monitoring markets to return £200 a week. When I was a heavy bettor my assessment was purely 'how much am I being paid per hour', I understand the alternative, but it's not for me.

When you get to the stage where we're talking big returns (say £5k v £10k per week), then yes, you would  operate differently because the additional hours involved would be paying at such an hourly rate it would be nonsensical to turn it down. However, even in time when you're fully loaded, a point comes where it wouldn't be worth those additional hours and you'd be wiser to take half the money for an eighth of the work and enjoy your life.

The point was that while the gross value of £5k is £5k, the relative value of £5k (or any amount) at an individual level changes with the amount of money you have. I am in a position where I could grind away for hours on end, and make about 5-7% per year of what I have already made. In gross terms, that amount is about 1.5 times what I used to earn in full time employment, so five years ago would be worthwhile, but relative to what I have made is no longer worthwhile relative to the time required. Those assessments can be made at any level of gambling. If the work required in making selections, getting the bets on, outweighs the return at a reasonable pro rata rate then it isn't worth doing (if your interest is non-recreational). There is nothing wrong with discarding something that is non-scaleable but is gross profitable if the return no longer matches your standing. 

"Anybody with a 10% profitable betting pattern certainly wouldn't be limited to making 100 bucks a week."
Surely that would depend on where the pattern/angle resides and what the criteria are for making a bet. If your pattern is in NFL you may get fewer than 20 bets to make a year. I know an angle in the NFL that is based around 5 games a year, so you'd be looking at getting £10k down on each of those five proposition bets to return equivalent of £100pw or £5.2kpa. Your limits are constrained as much by number of opportunities and liquidity as they are edge.

I'm not sure what you are getting so animated about. People will have a different mindset and philosophy to you and people are allowed to bring different perspectives to any debate on here, and yes, mine is that the returns need to justify the effort invested. You clearly disagree with that philosophy and good luck to you.

I, however, am talking from the perspective of my experience on here (aren't we all?), of an approach that while successful ultimately was best off mothballed once a certain stage was reached. And that same philosophy governed my approach at all levels of betting. Like I say, if the additional effort of hanging around for prices or anything else doesn't justify the additional return, it's not worth doing, pro rata and time invested is important to me, and not you. I think the world can survive with that difference of opinion.

The NFL example was one of illustrating the limited opportunities to bet, coupled with the limited opportunities to get the money down (you're not getting £10k down on the proposition bet to earn your £100pw...). Different people are betting on different things with different numbers of opportunities to bet. There is no guarantee that a selectional advantage on paper can be fleshed out into your £100pw.

As for my time on the forum, purely recreational and I have been clear throughout doing something recreationally is a justification. I'm not on the forum to make money from it, I'm on it because I'm still interested in gambling as a whole, what people do, how they approach it. I could ask what you're doing on the forum when you could be incessantly flitting through numerous markets in the hope of nicking a tick or two, but actually I'm more interested in approaches to gambling rather than perpetuating the unnecessary tone.

That's fair enough because 'more than likely' accepts there are individual differences in perspectives and philosophy that means gross maximisation of a strategy isn't the only approach. Some people like me will decide to sacrifice some of that maximal money at the end in favour of more free time, the family, other commitments, hobbies, or even other systems elsewhere.

I accept some people go all out, particularly at the start when something is new and exciting, but it just wasn't for me. To use a physics analogy, to me it's now like sitting in a room with 50 lights on, and trying to notice the difference when I switch the 51st on. Grinding away on here is hard work, and that for another reason was time to call it a day, it had turned into exactly what I had been looking to escape in the first place, the returns Premium Charge version 3 didn't help either.

Soooooooooooo....have we proved that Martingale Systems work....or not?

Inner City Sumo, I like your style.

Do urban toilet facilities present difficulties to a man of your size?