This section will describe various Progressive Betting systems. For clarity
the systems will be divided into various categories but such a division does
not imply real differences.
They all do about the same thing: More often than not they give the player
more paths to a win and fewer paths to a loss when they stop so the player can
say, "I won this time." The player will likely accumulate some
winnings. In fact, the player is more likely than the flat better of equal
skill of accumulating some winnings because the flat better in a negative
expectation game may never be ahead or, if they are ahead, will not be
substantially ahead. Of course, the fewer paths to a loss have to mean bigger
losses when losses occur, but the fact this will happen does not, to some
people, counterbalance the ego fulfilling thrill of saying, "I was two
G's up."
Sometimes the systems trade off another, different way, which can also feed
a gambler's ego. Systems can devise ways to trade off a number of paths to
small loses for a few paths to large gains. When the gains are realized, the
gambler can say, "I won two G's."
But, despite these similarities, I will divide the systems into what I will
call historical systems, the ones around for a long time; modern systems which
are mainly gleaned from recent books; and system sellers' systems which are
associated with perceived patterns in blackjack card and shoe distributions.
Progressive betting systems have, most likely, been thought of and used for
hundreds of thousands of years because people started gambling hundreds of
thousands of years ago, but it seems they really started when there became a
real house to play against in France. Before the casino, gambling was less
organized and bets could be more easily refused and a progression was
precarious because it could be stopped on the whim of the individual taking a
bet.
So we have the Martingale, the D'Alembert, and the LaBouchere. While not
nearly so old, we can also add the historically interesting Oscar's Grind
associated with early American legal gambling.
And, here the plot thickens. If you stand the Martingale, the D'Alembert,
and the LaBouchere, all systems which are supposed to make the gambler money,
on their heads the systems are also supposed to make money.
The Martingale.
If the gambler wins, the gambler reverts to the original bet. If the gambler
loses, the lost bet is doubled.
The advantages and drawbacks are clear. One unit is won after almost every
progression. At the end of sequences the gambler wins one unit over and over.
And then.....he loses a bundle.
Standing the Martingale on its head: The Anti-Martingale. If the gambler
loses the first bet, the bet is the same. If the gambler wins the first bet,
the bet and win is bet. If this bet is lost, the bet reverts. If won, the bet
and win is bet.
Generically, this type of betting system can be called "betting the
casino's money." Of course you are not. You are betting your own money.
But it is "found" money. You did not have it when you came and it
took no real effort to get it. Its free! Being found money, its time to
gamble! The worst that can happen is to end up with your start and you may
make some real money.
You may. Or you may fritter away the free money by losing a hand and
winning a hand and losing a hand and ending up with two less units than you
started with. That is the more likely scenario.
Fairness require the discussion of another facit of this type of
progression. It can be broken off. Suppose the progressive better's system
stopped the doubling after winning one more hand. One unit of the player's
money and one unit of the casinos money has turned into four.
This two level example defines all examples of playing with the casino's
money. The probabilities are you can sometimes play with the casino's money as
part of a progression but you have to pay the price of giving the casino less
money more often.
Despite this, this progression is more fun.
The D'Alembert:
As I was writing this article, a poster on bj21 was extolling the over 200
year old D'Ambert as the way to win at gambling. Increase the bet one unit
after each loss and decrease the bet one unit after each win.
| Units Bet |
Result |
Bankroll |
| 1 |
-1 |
-1 |
| 2 |
-2 |
-3 |
| 3 |
+3 |
0 |
| 2 |
-2 |
-2 |
| 3 |
+3 |
+1 |
In five plays, three of which are losses, the gambler has won a unit.
But turn the LLWLW sequence around, WLWLL
| Units Bet |
Result |
Bankroll |
| 1 |
+1 |
+1 |
| 1 |
-1 |
0 |
| 2 |
+2 |
+2 |
| 1 |
-1 |
+1 |
| 2 |
-2 |
-1 |
And if you map out the paths you will see the combinations containing
losses will lose very badly or the combinations containing strings of wins and
then strings of losses will lose very badly. Again, a lot of paths to smaller
wins and fewer paths to larger losses.
The Contra D'Alembert
The Contra D'Alembert increases the bet after a win and drops it after a loss.
This means there are fewer large wins and more smaller losses but also that
the wins are likely to get fairly well wiped out with one loss after a group
of wins.
For the sequence, WWWL
| Units Bet |
Result |
Bankroll |
| 1 |
+1 |
+1 |
| 2 |
+2 |
+3 |
| 3 |
+3 |
+6 |
| 4 |
-4 |
+2 |
The Labouchere (Labby or Cancellation)
Take a series of any numbers, 1, 2, 2, 1 for example. Take your paper and
pencil to the table and first bet the sum of the outside numbers, 2 in this
instance. If you win, you mark out the two ones: leaving 2, 2. Your bet is 4
and if you win, you've resolved. If you lose you are 2, 2, 4 with a bet of
6,etc. If you lose your first bet, you add your loss to the series, making it
1, 2, 2, 1, 2 betting 3, etc. If you can resolve, you have made some money.
The gimmick is that only one term is added when the player loses but two are
taken away if the player wins. Equal wins and even slightly fewer wins than
losses will resolve the series with a decent profit.
We again have a progression with more paths to smaller wins and fewer paths
to large loses.
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in
relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps
player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip.
This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this
discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino")
Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the
limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250
sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00
house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house
limit) would be over $13,000.00.
So here is Oscar:
Rule 1: The goal is to win one unit at the end of each progression and,
whatever larger bet might be dictated by the other betting rules, will be
dropped to a bet just large enough to gain one unit. This rule overrides.
Rule 2: Bet 1 is one unit.
Rule 3: If Bet 1 is lost, Bet 2 is one unit.
Rule 4. After a loss, the bet is the same as the bet just lost.
Rule 5 After a win, the bet is one more than the bet just won.
Example: First four bets are lost, player is down 4.
Next Bet (1 because it is the same as the bet just lost, Rule 4) won.
Next bet 2, Rule 5. Player down 3. Lose. Player down 5.
Next bet 2, Rule 4. Win. Player down 3.
Next bet 3, Rule 5. Win. Player even.
Next bet 1, Rule 1 overiding Rule 5 which would say bet 4.
Modern Progressions:
A lot of modern progressions have been published. These progressions are only
variations or mixtures of the classical ones and if a person is familar with
the classical ones he can recognize the similarities.
Progressions can be either positive (meaning the bet is raised on a win),
negative (meaning the bet is dropped on a win), or a mixture which raises on a
win at certain win (or loss) levels and drops on a win at certain win (or
loss) levels.
Progressions can be broken off after certain win or loss limits.
Even the craziest have realized progressions carried to extremes are
impossible to deal with so the persons selling them by books and systems limit
them in a number of ways. The progressions are either limited in number of
plays, limited by breaking them off when win or loss limits are met, limited
by being a negative progression which tends to lose less, limited by being a
mixed progression, and, more often than not, limited by a combinations of
these limits.
The modern progressions described have these hedges.
