My 3 favourite MM plans

[Bally6354]

My 3 favourites in no particular order are as follows:

1) Divisor (courtesy of Lanky)

2) G3M1 (courtesy of Koetsch)

3) Labouchere using 0,0,0,0,0,1 as the string meaning just three wins usually seals a win. (I am not sure who to thank for this one! Maybe an old forum member called Fripper because he wrote some interesting threads on this type of thing)

Divisor

A lot of well respected members back in the day vouched for the divisor saying it was a lot better than most of your conventional stuff like the Marty, D'lambert etc... I like it's cautious approach and that it's highly configurable to whatever your situation is.

I think it's also worth remembering that you don't have to bet every spin, not even with a progression and I think some players get fooled when using progressions thinking it's a cure all for when their bet selection goes wrong. Trust me, when your bet selection goes really wrong, nothing is going to save it and then I suppose it's about damage limitation. In that respect, the divisor at least doesn't have you charging full steam ahead increasing the stakes every spin.

G3M1

Always liked this one as soon as I read about it. As someone who likes to play through dominant streaks, it fits like a glove and then there is the added protection of the backend 2 unit marty to at least try and still grab a unit profit. Admittedly, when it's not going so well, those 3 unit losses back to back can hurt.

Labouchere 0,0,0,0,1

Out of all the conventional old style MM stuff out there, I like this one the best. I always figure that surely it can't be that difficult to grab 3 wins (famous last words) and to be honest, most of the time, it's not too bad. You just have to be careful not to get into a situation where you get down to the last two figures if they start creeping up because then you are getting into martingale territory and you don't really want that if you can help it.

One other that I have seen floating around different forums over the last few years and players say they are doing well with is a constant 1-2 loop but you only play the 2 if you have won the previous 1.

So for an example:

bet 1 win +1
bet 2 win +3
bet 1 lose +2
bet 1 lose +1
bet 1 win +2
bet 2 win +4
bet 1 win +5
bet 2 win +7
bet 1 lose +6
bet 1 lose +5
bet 1 lose +4
bet 1 win +5
bet 2 lose +3

Maybe worth testing a bit.

cheers

[Albalaha]

Labouchere caught my attention way back and I got goosebumps to read the story of Norman Leigh 13 against the bank using reverse labouchere. Labouchere is one of the mathematical ways which beats any form of gambling mathematically. Although it has a downside, the bets could go as high as not possible to bet practically.'
It also read the 0,0,0,1,1 type labouchere somewhere called as HP Johnson System. I got it coded through a programmar with too many variations. Sadly, this system just appears good and it is as bad as basic labouchere and even more. It could turn into a horrible martingale at last. It is rather a mix of flat bet, labouchere and martingale. It is an innovation but doesn't help in real.
       I worked on divisors too, a bit. It was impressive too but did not work as intended. All oldschool progressions had their handicaps and they were meant to handle one type of variance.
 Lastly, I started thinking of something different. I analysed as to how the progressions were made and what made them fail to win practically. Then I realized that those progressions (oldschool) were not meant for casino gambling at all. Rather, they ensure that a gambler wins least in his best times while lose all in a little bad one. None takes care of all types of variances viz. no hit for long, bad hit rate, tricky hit rates etc. together.
  Now, I have a perfect progression that I created myself that beats most sessions of EC and can handle all types of variance. So, I never refer back to those failed ideas that are proven failures.

[HardMan]

Mind to expand on perfect ..  conceptually at least.

[Albalaha]

I narrated my concepts many times in different forums. First of all, focus on extreme bad variance management. When it is too bad time, nothing wins that. Your strategy ( I consider MM as the core strategy, betselection doesn't help much in the long run) should inculcate the basics of my extreme variance management principals. Remember, increasing bet alone doesn't help. Secondly, the progression along with regression should be wisely crafted to stand in the long run. I do not see any sensible progression plan ever made to cater the needs of long run. Thirdly, have you ever thought that when we increase bet from 1 to 2 chips, we increase 100% but when we go 3 from 2 chips, the increase is barely 50% and subsequently it starts diminishing on each step. How about a constant increase plan? How about playing like a casino who expects players to lose for sure due to the house edge and variance working against them?
       Work on these and you have a grail of your own. Those oldschool ideas that you mentioned will help casinos and not you.

[HardMan]

I Thirdly, have you ever thought that when we increase bet from 1 to 2 chips, we increase 100% but when we go 3 from 2 chips, the increase is barely 50% and subsequently it starts diminishing on each step. How about a constant increase plan?

Constant 100% increase is Marti, what's the constant or its fluctuating range you suggest?
Progression→regression, no brainer ..

But what you said are basics, I meant at lest conceptualy present your plan without revealing the
values.

[Albalaha]

Lol. Marty! I just warned against the oldschool ideas and your mind is driving you to marty still. Constant increase doesn't mean is something your mind is not comprehending. How much is casino ahead of us in European Roulette? It has an edge of 2.54%. How about increasing only half of that? How about starting to play from 30 chips instead of 1?
       Problem is, nobody wants to understand the root cause of casino being winner always and have no clue as to how to fight with that effectively. Everybody is looking for ready to use methods.

[6th-sense]

out of any progression bet if needed I would bet series bet and bankroll to suit...non of the above

[Smith]

G3M1

Always liked this one as soon as I read about it. As someone who likes to play through dominant streaks, it fits like a glove and then there is the added protection of the backend 2 unit marty to at least try and still grab a unit profit. Admittedly, when it's not going so well, those 3 unit losses back to back can hurt.

Hi Bally,

Could you kindly post the details of this progression? Thanks in advance.

[HardMan]

@6th-sense series bet is ..to bad I didn't catch your RS example, too ..

[6th-sense]

yes series bet...I must admit I made this name up but its to be used in conjunction with a stable ratio bet that doesn't get wildly out of control....ie the ratio to a certain limit...a ratio that has to guarantee a series of two hits within that specified ratio boundary of your chosen stable bet...it doesn't have to be 50/50 ratio w/l but stable enough to get this series of 2 within your specified boundary .,,ie repeat,,,,

martingale is doubling up every bet for that 1 hit....this is not doubling up anywhere as quick as that...and needing 1 hit ie a repeat of target when hit,,,just for an example....

this series bet will not bet at all until it hits.....it will take into account  the all the bets /spins that you would have lost on...before your target is hit and use that as its mm......if you lose 15 in a row before your target hits this would be your unit size this spin...for a repeat of your chosen bet after it has hit once....if you lose you simply count the spins again before you target is hit,,,add that to previous loss and bet that unit size lets say 8 spins before your target is hit so 8+15 =23 bet unit size.....if that loses you simply carry on adding the spin count to whatever the next point is at and  add it 23,,,so on and so on...different series say a series of 3 can be broken down into two bets..this all depends on locations etc ..ie split the the drawdown over 2 bets....

its a more stable option than betting marty and I dare say talos could possibly think like this.using different payouts...only becouse I think I read somewhere he used a count clicker...

but each to there own....and this relies on a good ratio stable bet where you know for sure your max distances....hope this explains it somewhat.....though you are not betting everyspin you still add those up to put on the total for your next bet on a repeat when your target hits once,,and only bet once...and carry on....

but as I say you need to have that stable selection...hope this basic explanation helps and I,m pretty sure you can adapt this to suit your style of play

[HardMan]

OK .. at first glance, weird.

It involves a virtual hit = trigger. It sure gets of unnecessary no-hit run exposition, but why, what's the point of that trigger besides qualifying a position (a repeat) & betting to repeat again, whats its advantage essentially?

Also, presuming the example above is on EC, otherwise what's the point of betting eg. on DS or Q an unnecessary to get to positive amount of units?

Finally, what is a stable bs?