towards a regression play for the donts

[Moe Bettor]

Using your own method for determining darkside play opportunities..a shooter has made two passes or more, the sevens are showing up after a couple rolls..whatever. A regression play on the donts is basically a preservation of capital. So the shooter comes out with a 5 say. $92 lay the five. A seven gets you $58 net. Next opportunity lay $43 or make a DC for $15 and lay odds on whatever number shows up.
It may be that yr just chipping away until you get nailed slowly. But it again is based on retention of bankroll until
a hand shows up. And since you are decreasing each time you don’t chase with an ever increasing amount of money.
Like any “system” it can get killed with one shot and does cost more than right side standard $18 6 and 8. But it is a regression play
which gives you early profit. As with any darkside play, for me, if the seven doesn't show quickly..3 rolls..I will pull the bets.

[heavy]

I like this so much I think I'm going to steal the concept and put together a high roller version. Add some zeros to the numbers. First bet of...say $1800. Second bet assuming you win that one...say $1200. If you win both then your third bet can be $1800 again...up to $3000. Basically a ladder up after the second win comcined with an initial steep regression. You'd probably want to build a chart with the lay amounts for the individual numbers. A good afternoon project sorry someone who enjoys playing with Excel.

[eastcoast]

i agree heavy, it is a good concept. I saw a gentleman at the Borgata some months back doing a play similar to this. He was camped out on the hook near the DC box, after a player rolled twice, maybe 3 times, he would do a 100.00 DC with max odds. No other bets, never backed off the 6 or 8, if he got knocked off he would wait till the next player. What caught my attention is that he always passed the dice....makes you wonder if he would have done even a small progression play.

[London Shooter]

H, in your example of laying a number $1800 first then $1200 as the second bet, the regression doesn't seem big enough, or at least not relative to what we talk about when looking at the other side of the game. On these numbers there is too much risk that if you lose bet 2 you still end up negative overall. £1800 lay may win you $900, $1200 or $1500 (without the vig) so I'm thinking for bet two come right down to say $600 then you profit no matter what after bet two.

If second bet loses, start the progression again from the beginning. If second bet wins, then you can start to ladder up, but again I'd want to be careful on not laddering too quickly and blowing all profit made from the first two bets.

Maybe the progression needs to change depending on what numbers are successfully laid as the payouts vary so much?

[Moe Bettor]

That was the original idea. To use only part of the win to make the next bet. Say $1800 (forgetting vig stuff) to $900..only use $600 on the next move and keep $300 profit to either go right side, continue on the don'ts..or go home. We are, perhaps, more conservative.

[SHOOTITALL]

Just a thought here: Would a win help you more than a loss would hurt you? If you won 10 bets in a row, what would be different than before you started? If you lost 10 in a row, what would be different? Maybe I do not understand this concept of large numbers. sia

[wild child]

Just a thought here: Would a win help you more than a loss would hurt you? If you won 10 bets in a row, what would be different than before you started? If you lost 10 in a row, what would be different? Maybe I do not understand this concept of large numbers. sia

S I A
Your post is STRONG FOOD FOR THOUGHT

The same criteria used to calculate the entrance juncture for
The GREATEST PROPENSITY to Win
and/or
HOLD ONTO $ U S D gained

is THE most favorable to make

the initial wager Do Side as well as on the Dark Side aka: Do Not Side

PLUS

may demonstrate

the STRONGEST criteria

for making subsequent wagers.....
or
the educated decision to pull the plug ,
thus choosing to enjoy The Wining$ to date
and
READY ONESELF
to observe prior to again jumping in

just me saying

w c

[Moe Bettor]

Yeah. So let's say you place $1800. That's $300 on each number. Buying the 4 and 10 you get $600. A seven out takes yr. $1800. Lay the $1800 on 4 or 10. A minimum pay off is $900! It is true that continuing with the lay bets taking only a portion of yr. win will produce a smaller outcome for a time while going for two hits with $1800 placed gets more bucks.

[heavy]

Now my brain hurts. I think the idea is to Lay bet against the point when the situation dictates. To me that means stick change, dice off the table, an abundance of trash numbers, a disturbance in the Force. Whatever. If you win the first large Lay bet then you can stair-step it from there. One smaller bet. Win that? A larger bet somewhere in between the size of bets one and two. Basically one step forward and two steps back at the end of the day, eventually ending up with table minimum bets if you wanted to take it to that extreme. At least that's how I envision it. Any other thoughts?