In your post last night in "The Experts Speak", you opened your post with this:
In "Regression Avoids Depression Part 16", you wrote:I've designed a betting-method for a $500 buy-in SRR-7 shooter whose validated-advantage is spread evenly across all six box-numbers.
~It starts with $118-Across...taking three paying-hits at the pre-regression level...and then regressing everything down to $54-Across...and then applying a Passive-Aggressive press-schedule from there.
Let me elaborate:
~I assume that your $500 buy-in is there to be invested in a positive-expectation manner, and does not come pre-burdened with any kind of psychological-trickery where you apply an artificial 50% loss-limit (wherein your effective buy-in is really only $250, and not its actual $500 face-value).
~$118-Across is set up as $15 each on the 4 and 10...$20 each on the 5 and 9...and $24 each on the 6 and 8.
~The $118-Across pays either $27 or $28 per Across-number hit.
~Generally speaking, an SRR-7 shooter will throw an average of 4.6 Across-hits per hand.
~My approach for this shooter would be to have him collect three (3) paying-hits at the $118-Across; which in turn would generate around $84 in pre-regression gross-revenue.
~After collecting three pre-regression Across-hits; I would have him regress everything down to $54-Across ($5 each on the 4, and 10...$10 each on the 5 and 9...and $12 each on the 6 and 8). ...
(for the reader: I've had to reformat the table [with my own italicized comments] that MP created because the APC format wouldn't preserve it coherently [and I don't know how to insert an .xls file])... Optimal Regression Trigger-Point SRR-7 (Regress the following schemes after:)
1 HIT: Inside.....Across.....Outside.....Even.....Iron Cross.....6 and 8....5 and 9.....4 and 10
2 HITS: Across....Iron Cross....6 and 8 (All other schemes should have been regressed after one hit)
The SRR-7 shooter does not stay in positive-expectation territory for very long during his point-cycle roll and should therefore optimally regress his bets after just one or two hits (depending on which global bet-type he has wagered on). ...
I use a variation of the $204 Across... mine is actually $5PL w/5x 0dds 4/10, 6x Odds 5/9, or 8x Odds 6/8 and $179/169/162 Across for two hits, then regress to $5PL w/$20 Odds and $26/27 Across (rarely, I'll go $54 Across if the throw feels really grooved, or if I'm ahead more than ~$120). My regression point is almost exclusively the 2nd paid roll. (Twice I failed to regress. Once I forgot, and the other time the roll felt to good.) My SSR hovers in the mid-7's to 8.0-something on my good days. It seems that a 2-roll payoff is pretty accurate for me--about 50% of the times that I survive to the trigger point, my rolls would have paid for a 3rd time.
However, when I read your post about the $118-Across system, it seems that the trigger point, at the 3rd payoff, contradicts my practice and the $204 ISR scheme, which, if properly regressed, drops to $44 at the 2nd payoff, and not ~$54 (as my adaption does). I'm not sure what the prescribed SSR should be for a $204 Across scheme, but does that matter, or is the discrepancy from one advised trigger point (3 rolls) to the other (2 rolls) based on other additional considerations?
Thank you.
Somewhere in reading the 'Experts' post I knew you were replying to BobbyLee, I just didn't realize the play was tailored. I misunderstood it to be a generic design. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.