Re: (new) betting strategy. math help?

> > My point ... was that you needed some luck just to get through a
> > session of reasonable duration with a six-level Martingale.
>
> I never play a staright Martingale...but I almost always play some
> variation of it.
>
> Try this variation, and you will find that you should be able to play
> considerably longer than you would probably care to!
>
> Pick a hypothetical dollar amount...lets say $400. Bet 5% of that
> amount on the pass line.
>
> If you win, subtract the winnings from the hypothetical $40[0], and
> bet 5% of that amount.
>
> If you lose, add the loss to the hypothetical $400, and bet 5% of that
> amount.
>
> Continue the exercise, with a win goal of $50.

Right off the top, I do not consider this anything like a Martingale,
nor even a losing progression.  Rather it is a hybrid of a losing
progression and a regression IMHO.  Hence the point I was making is
not
applicable to your method.

As for your method, I must be missing something -- quite likely since
I
did only a very cursory analysis.  Using your numbers above I figure
you
raise or lower your bet by $1 until you have lost 5 more bets than
you've won.  (If you've won 5 more than you've lost then you have
reached your win goal.)  You then raise or lower your bet by $2 until
you are back to less than a 5-decision deficit, at which point you
drop
the increment back to $1, or the deficit increases to 10, at which
point
the increment goes to $4.  If this is correct (or close enough) then
it
seems you are basically flat betting.  I'm not saying this is bad,
only
that it doesn't appear to offer any advantage over flat betting.
Perhaps there is some "ratchet" mechanism, as in the increment never
decreases?  That would make the method more like a losing progression.

> Success rate is 99 +%!

With a bankroll of $5000?  That is what would be required for a 99%
chance of success using the rule of thumb for a fair game.
     5000 / (5000+50) = .99


    1 2
     |                                         The Midnight Skulker
9    *    3                                    aka Van Lewis
                                               aka cvlewis43@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
     6