That is the problem - spot on - everyone thinks they have a life time session flat betting over 52% and no one reach that strike ratio.
Regular punters make maybe 48 or less and upon that variance.
Same with the parachute betting - one staking plan and all in and it will fail as everything else.
Everyone give the money back to the bookie.
This is classical thinking process.
We all know all system fails, but that does not mean you can not win using them. The issue is to how to avoid giving all the money back.
For example assume you would win 50% of your staking and you have a pretty good chance doing so. Around 99% probability.
Now only a stupid person would continue betting the same staking plan with the same bet size. As we know the future and the future will fail when going all in with never ending betting and give all the money back to the bookie.
I would suggest regression where you lower your unit size and operate with winnings, from that moment each winning bet is a % that you will keep and don't give back to the bookie when the system fail. And if you clever you start with a bigger unit size and lower your bet size using several layers.
Then you can start betting positiv progression, up and pull for more winnings using winnings.
The name of the game is Regression Up & Pull ...
Cheers
0
That is the problem - spot on - everyone thinks they have a life time session flat betting over 52% and no one reach that strike ratio.
Regular punters make maybe 48 or less and upon that variance.
Same with the parachute betting - one staking plan and all in and it will fail as everything else.
Everyone give the money back to the bookie.
This is classical thinking process.
We all know all system fails, but that does not mean you can not win using them. The issue is to how to avoid giving all the money back.
For example assume you would win 50% of your staking and you have a pretty good chance doing so. Around 99% probability.
Now only a stupid person would continue betting the same staking plan with the same bet size. As we know the future and the future will fail when going all in with never ending betting and give all the money back to the bookie.
I would suggest regression where you lower your unit size and operate with winnings, from that moment each winning bet is a % that you will keep and don't give back to the bookie when the system fail. And if you clever you start with a bigger unit size and lower your bet size using several layers.
Then you can start betting positiv progression, up and pull for more winnings using winnings.
That is the problem - spot on - everyone thinks they have a life time session flat betting over 52% and no one reach that strike ratio.
Regular punters make maybe 48 or less and upon that variance.
Same with the parachute betting - one staking plan and all in and it will fail as everything else.
Everyone give the money back to the bookie.
This is classical thinking process.
We all know all system fails, but that does not mean you can not win using them. The issue is to how to avoid giving all the money back.
For example assume you would win 50% of your staking and you have a pretty good chance doing so. Around 99% probability.
Now only a stupid person would continue betting the same staking plan with the same bet size. As we know the future and the future will fail when going all in with never ending betting and give all the money back to the bookie.
I would suggest regression where you lower your unit size and operate with winnings, from that moment each winning bet is a % that you will keep and don't give back to the bookie when the system fail. And if you clever you start with a bigger unit size and lower your bet size using several layers.
Then you can start betting positiv progression, up and pull for more winnings using winnings.
The name of the game is Regression Up & Pull ...
Cheers
thanks man
0
Quote Originally Posted by Patrik2018:
That is the problem - spot on - everyone thinks they have a life time session flat betting over 52% and no one reach that strike ratio.
Regular punters make maybe 48 or less and upon that variance.
Same with the parachute betting - one staking plan and all in and it will fail as everything else.
Everyone give the money back to the bookie.
This is classical thinking process.
We all know all system fails, but that does not mean you can not win using them. The issue is to how to avoid giving all the money back.
For example assume you would win 50% of your staking and you have a pretty good chance doing so. Around 99% probability.
Now only a stupid person would continue betting the same staking plan with the same bet size. As we know the future and the future will fail when going all in with never ending betting and give all the money back to the bookie.
I would suggest regression where you lower your unit size and operate with winnings, from that moment each winning bet is a % that you will keep and don't give back to the bookie when the system fail. And if you clever you start with a bigger unit size and lower your bet size using several layers.
Then you can start betting positiv progression, up and pull for more winnings using winnings.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.