Winning with Target Betting
This would be a big help. Just open up the account you made during your BB exploits and plough on! This website is a copyright of Spinpro Spending in 12 categories are changed in proportion to the overall spending change, leaving the distribution of spending across spending categories constant for each segment. Yes — feel free to email me from the contact form on the site though rather than leave messages here as it may get a little messy.
It may include a budget surplus, providing money for use at a future time, or a deficit in which expenses exceed income. A budget derived from old French word meaning purse is a quantified financial plan for a forthcoming accounting period. A budget is an important concept in microeconomics , which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.
The budget of a company is often compiled annually, but may not be a finished budget, usually requiring considerable effort, is a plan for the short-term future, typically allows hundreds or even thousands of people in various departments operations, human resources, IT, etc.
If the actual figures delivered through the budget period come close to the budget, this suggests that the managers understand their business and have been successfully driving it in the intended direction.
On the other hand, if the figures diverge wildly from the budget, this sends an 'out of control' signal, and the share price could suffer. Campaign planners incur two types of cost in any campaign: The second type of expense that campaign planners incur is the hard cost of the campaign itself.
A budget is a fundamental tool for an event director to predict with a reasonable accuracy whether the event will result in a profit, a loss or will break-even. A budget can also be used as a pricing tool. There are two basic approaches or philosophies, when it comes to budgeting. One approach is telling you on mathematical models, and the other on people. The first school of thought believes that financial models, if properly constructed, can be used to predict the future.
The focus is on variables, inputs and outputs, drivers and the like. Investments of time and money are devoted to perfecting these models, which are typically held in some type of financial spreadsheet application. No matter how sophisticated models can get, the best information comes from the people in the business. The focus is therefore in engaging the managers in the business more fully in the budget process , and building accountability for the results.
The companies that adhere to this approach have their managers develop their own budgets. While many companies would say that they do both, in reality the investment of time and money falls squarely in one approach or the other. The budget of a government is a summary or plan of the intended revenues and expenditures of that government. There are three types of government budget: The budget is prepared by the Treasury team led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget Day.
It is customary for the Chancellor to stand on the steps of Number 11 Downing Street with his or her team for the media to get photographic shots of the Despatch Box , immediately prior to them going to the House of Commons. Once presented in the House of Commons it is debated and then voted on. Minor changes may be made however with the budget being written and presented by the party with the majority in the House of Commons the Government , the Whips will ensure that it is passed as written by the Chancellor.
The federal budget is prepared by the Office of Management and Budget , and submitted to Congress for consideration. Invariably, Congress makes many and substantial changes. Nearly all American states are required to have balanced budgets , but the federal government is allowed to run deficits. The Finance Minister is the head of the budget making committee. The present Indian Finance minister is Arun Jaitley. The Budget includes supplementary excess grants and when a proclamation by the President as to failure of Constitutional machinery is in operation in relation to a State or a Union Territory, preparation of the Budget of such State.
The first budget of India was submitted on 18 February by James Wilson. James Wilson is known as the father of Indian budget. The Philippine budget is considered the most complicated in the world, incorporating multiple approaches in one single budget system: There are two types of budget bill veto: A personal budget or home budget is a finance plan that allocates future personal income towards expenses , savings and debt repayment.
Past spending and personal debt are considered when creating a personal budget. Gambling "experts" see everything in black and white, and find any challenge to the house edge simply hilarious. They'll learn better one day. Target players, meanwhile, know that winning comes in shades of green, not grey!
Something for nothing but it's worth a lot more They say that if you get something for nothing, that's usually all it's worth. Not in this case. Ignorance is among the casino gambler's worst enemies, right up there with greed, stupidity, a pitiful bankroll, and a thirst for "free" cocktails. If you choose to learn the target betting strategy described in these posts, all it will cost you is your time.
And it will be a valuable investment. There's a narrative thread here, so if you can spare enough time to start at the beginning the "ghost story" below you will hopefully get even more out of the blog. The blackjack simulation illustrated in logs here is Ken Smith's Blackjack Strategy Trainer and if you choose to apply my rules and log your results accurately in the format I use, I would welcome access to your data.
Please e-mail scanned logs to me. BST has some quaint little quirks you need to be aware of Ken Smith's Blackjack Strategy Trainer is invaluable to anyone wanting to learn the game and how to beat it!
When you are asked if you want to add another Grand to your bankroll, be very careful of your cursor's position before clicking the "money button" to draw more dough. If it's a little too far to the right, you will accidentally choose to quit, and then it's game over.
I play BST using my laptop's touch panel and tap to draw or stand. Once in a great while, finger bounce occurs, and an extra card is "dealt" unasked. Boy is it maddening to accidentally draw a 10 to a perfect Smith's app is about as perfect as these things get. The same card is never dealt twice between shuffles, and that's saying a lot. An easy way to test the lie that progressive betting can't win. Too many people accept without question the house-biased conventional wisdom that progressive betting cannot win over the long haul.
But there is a quick and easy and also profitable way to disprove this nonsense. Next time you are in a casino, stroll up to a low-rent blackjack table, and start betting a Martingale progression -5, , for example.
If you ignore the friendly tip, a pit boss will soon appear at your elbow, make polite introductions, and repeat the advice the dealer gave you. If you persist, you will be discouraged from further play. What is especially revealing about this scenario one that you will find never varies is that the same consideration and friendly advice is never offered to drunks and other fools who are throwing their money away all around you.
Why is that, do you think? I absolutely do not recommend double-up betting other than for the test I just described.
I avoid it not because it doesn't work, but because casinos will not permit it to be played. Mathematicians can "prove" the hazards of progressive betting with simulations built on a random numbers generator. Such simulations require that the "player" be barred from taking any defensive action under any circumstances. In other words, he has to bet like a mythematician.
Real players have more sense. Some of them, at least. A couple more things you should know My extensive use of Ken Smith's Basic Strategy Trainer BST blackjack application in this blog does not and is not meant to imply his endorsement of target betting. Smith is an advocate of card counting and advantage play, and as such does not recognize any alternative betting method as viable. Target betting is a generic phrase meant to convey the core premise of my betting method, which is to maximize the positive effect of winning trends and minimize the damage done by negative trends.
Some years ago, a systems promoter named Jerry Patterson devised a method that he described as Target Betting with a capital 'T' and a capital 'B' which drew its name from My version of target betting has nothing whatever to do with Mr. Patterson's ideas, and could as easily be described as "pattern betting" because it relies on predictable, reliable actual patterns that can be seen in any sample of random outcomes from games of chance.
So let's be clear: Ken Smith has no connection with anything you see in this blog, and target betting small 't' and small 'b' owes nothing whatever to Jerry Patterson. Tuesday, October 11, I'm a little late to this party, but discussing the difference between a shill and a charlatan is timelessly topical.
A friend sent me a link to this thread the other day, and the biggest kick I got out of it was the news that Mike Shackleford, aka the Wizard of Odds, had finally sold out to the casino industry after years of pretending that he was a players' champion. I have never denied that Mr. You have to set your bet values randomly, without any reference to how much you're in the hole or what it takes to get back in the black.
And if that doesn't finish you off, be sure to get scared before you can get even, taking a big hit and hoping you can start over and recover your losses another day. Posted by Seth Theobeau at 8: Tuesday, April 26, Bottom line: If you bet randomly, you will probably lose; If you bet progressively, using a consistent strategy that includes rational self defense, you probably won't. The casinos know this, and you should too.
The bad news, of course, is that if you take on any house game with inadequate funds, the best strategy in the world won't save your bankroll. I don't spend as much time as I used to bouncing around the web looking for useful insights into gambling because I know that most of the information out there is dis information.
The first holds that anyone promoting any form of betting strategy is foolishly challenging the great wisdom of a long line of mathematical geniuses who, for centuries, have demonstrated that if you lose more often than you win then in the long run you must also lose more money than you win.
The other is a more modern interpretation of the conventional wisdom which says that since every bet in a game of negative expectation is subject to the same negative probability It all sounds so sensible and logical. And if you bet randomly, it's also TRUE. Progressive betting throws a spanner in the works, as they say in England, because it's not random.
Expectation meaning the probable outcome for the sequence was What happens with progressive betting and I don't recommend a simple double-up or Martingale like the one above is that the next bet value is adjusted after each successive loss in the demonstrably reasonable belief that a run in the house's favour cannot last forever.
Simply put, the objective is to recover prior losses in fewer bets than it took to fall into a deep red hole. In the simplistic example above, we lost four bets and won just one, but the win recovered the losses from the four wrong bets that preceded it. This is all old territory for regular readers of this blog, so I'm simply going to put up some screen shots that demonstrate that the conventional wisdom and the wisdom of the ages is right on the money if bet values are random In the model that supplied the snaps below, Target 3-Play was deployed against 10, random outcomes from a RNG set at The fact is that casino games of chance are designed so that extended swings in the house's favour will be relatively rare, but in the long run, the house will win more bets than the player.
There's nothing altruistic or generous about this design. It simply responds to the plain truth that if casino games were impossible to beat, no one would play them. And obviously, no punters means no profits. The house percentage is almost always boosted by such factors as player greed, stupidity, insobriety hence those "free" cocktails and inadequate funding. Posted by Seth Theobeau at 4: Monday, March 14, It's an international obsession, so let's get this straight: Oscar's Grind can help you beat negative expectation, but Target 3-Play can make you richer faster, with less risk.
Just forget about betting strategies that are not progressive! Now I've restated that important truth about gambling, I'd like to put on record that I am happy to see daily blog traffic hitting about 3x the numbers from this time last year, but I am still surprised that first-time visitors don't search for the latest post, then work back in time!
I don't pay as much attention to this blog as I used to, but this week, I took my own little journey back in time and was reminded that my post about Oscar's Grind long, long ago remains the most read of all the plus articles I have published here. I learned about OG from a book by Tom Ainslie, and for a while accepted his claim that he had used the strategy many times himself and had won enough to pay for several gambling trips to exotic casinos in the Caribbean.
I even gave the Grind a go myself, doing well enough over several sessions for one sarcastic pit boss to offer to send me a weekly cheque for an agreed amount to save me the bother of visiting his casino day after day. Even then, I was convinced that only progressive betting could beat the odds in the long term, and Oscar's Grind is basically a restrained, almost constipated, version of a simple double-up or Martingale. It can do pretty well for quite a while, and is demonstrably a better way to go than setting bet values randomly, the way out of every thousand gamblers tend to do.
After a while, winning is not enough. There has to be at least a little excitement, which translates as jeopardy, however brief. To put this in perspective, let's first clarify the conventional wisdom about casino games of chance. The CW says that since even the smartest player is sure to lose more bets than he wins in the long run, it is a mathematical certainty that ergo, he must in time lose more money than he wins.
This is a line that is relentlessly promoted by casinos, their employees and their online shills, and it is simply not true. You will have heard, no doubt, that it is possible to fiddle and fart around and fudge the facts for a while to come up with a betting strategy that wins against a relatively small sample of recorded outcomes say 5, but the same strategy will crash and burn against the next data set of similar size. That's a flat-out fib, folks, but we can all see that it is in the interests of the gambling industry to have us believe it.
For example, if we take 50,plus outcomes painstakingly logged from real-time casino games and simulations, even Oscar's Grind in its original version can show a modest profit: Posted by Seth Theobeau at 7: Tuesday, January 5, As this blog approaches its 7th birthday, let's go back to the very beginning and make one thing abundantly clear: Progressive betting is the only way to beat casino games of chance, and anyone who says otherwise is probably working for the house! Since I started this in March of , I have taken a fair amount of flak for relying on spreadsheets to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom about table games is bollocks, and that disciplined progressive betting with realistic filters applied can consistently win in a casino.
The spreadsheet platform is ideal for this job because it allows me to generate thousands of random outcomes in an instant, and then test my winning algorithm against them one by one without anyone being able to claim that I somehow "cooked" the positive result achieved against a negative data set.
Defenders of the CW may not all be house shills, but many of them become so shrill and shrewish when challenged that I'm reminded of Shakespeare's line, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much. But the moment rational, restrained progressive betting is applied with confidence and consistency, the house edge becomes irrelevant and fewer wins than losses will deliver a profit instead of the predicted loss over and over again.
The patterns that matter the most apply to the predictable frequency of paired wins and "three-peat" losses, which comply with the law of large numbers and don't differ much from one representative random data set to the next. I'm banging the same old drum again because I can't shake the memory of a sceptic who set out to debunk my algorithm, and when he failed to do so against multiple sets of verifiable outcomes, he dispensed with integrity, dignity and honesty and tossed out my rules one by one until he got the negative result he wanted.
The same weasel came up with the half-baked axiom that all bets of the same value are subject to the negative expectation that applies to the sample as a whole, and it's that bit of nonsense that I am keen to address here, along with some other deliberate disinformation promoted by casinos.
First, some pertinent outtakes from a spreadsheet that in some ways supersedes all the thousands of models that preceded it: Wednesday, May 6, Stop me if you've heard this before: If you can't afford to win, you shouldn't play probably the best gambling advice you'll ever get! I'm not posting here very often these days, simply because I have said all I have to say about progressive betting over and over again, and even someone afflicted with acute blogghorhea has to get tired eventually! Still and all, just lately I have had several e-mails from readers initially praising Target betting principles to the skies, then suddenly going quiet.
I can't help but assume that in spite of my repeated warnings that winning consistently takes a great deal of money on top of discipline, confidence and courage, they tried to beat the house with an inadequate bankroll. The truth is that sometimes, with a positive expectation ranging from less than 1.
Yes, it's a lot of money, and quite possibly people with that much in their pockets are too smart to risk losing it. But there is not a business proposition anywhere, opening a casino included, that does not require an initial investment far greater than the anticipated return.
In time, a wise investment will pay back the initial outlay and the gravy train will keep chugging down the tracks. But time and money are two essential ingredients that most gamblers either can't or won't stir into the mix.
It took maybe half a minute to run through it again: After an opening loss in a new series, bet at least 3x your first bet, then double it if there's a second loss; after three losses, drop back to your minimum, and stay there until there's a win; after the win, bet your loss to date plus one unit per round, and be prepared to double the bet just twice before retreating to the minimum.
So, three losses, drop back I'm blogging again today because I suspect a lot of people are just like my friend in Las Vegas, and suffer a sudden brain seizure the moment the going gets tough.
And that, of course, is exactly when discipline and confidence and sometimes lots of CASH are most important. What progressive betting is all about is managing our money so that over time, we consistently win more when we win than we lose when we lose.
That's essential, because we can be certain that in the long run, we will lose more bets than we win. The house advantage will see to that.