How Realistic is it to Make it Big With a Small Bank?

The task will be formulated approximately as follows. The player has at the start $10 000. The money is small, which almost everyone can get. You can’t buy a lot for them. A full-fledged gaming bank is difficult to consider something less than 50-100K. The goal of the player from the original “ten” to do on the rates already a substantial amount, for example, 100 thousand dollars.

Net profit

For this, you can already buy something, well, or make yourself a digestible gaming bank for the future. In fact, the task is to increase the starting amount by 11 times, obtaining 1000% of net profit. Quite ambitious and, as practice shows, not easy.

Before choosing financial strategies, you need to understand that there are dozens of them, but there are only three fundamental approaches. The easiest way is to split the bank into equal parts and put them into separate bets. At the same time, the size of the bets does not depend on whether the previous moves won or not. Such strategies include “flat”, a percentage of the bank and some others.

We indicated the main idea; the remaining differences lie only in the rules for recalculating the amount of the bet (or the absence of such a recalculation). This is done either after a full turn or when certain threshold amounts are reached. It is clear that it is possible to break a bank in different ways: into large fractions, 10-20% each, or into small 1-5%.

The smaller parts to play, the lower the risks, but the slower the turnover. So with a good positive dynamics, even doubling the deposit is not a quick deal. Obviously, since there is no large starting bank in our scenario, and the task is to unwind 10 times, the “flat” in small parts obviously does not suit us.

Another strategic approach is progressive financial strategies. The most famous of them — Martingale. Here the size of the next bet depends on whether the previous one has entered. Initially, the bank is divided into equal parts, usually small, rarely more than 1-2%. If the bet comes, then the next one is placed without changing the size.

In this regard, in the growth phase, this approach is no different from uniform strategies. But if the bet loses, then the next step should be done with an increase, based on the odds, in order not only to provide profit when you win, but also to cover the losses made in the previous steps.

It is clear that hits on long negative series occur. Strategies, “Martingale” variants are the surest way to “merge” a bank. So the use of such strategies necessarily involves a large bank that is able to withstand 6-7, and preferably 10 steps to increase. As we see, this is also clearly not our case. If you break our 10K by 1%, bet $100, then up to 100K of net profit we will play forever, but rather we will lose what we have before. So the “Martingale” options are good for those who have a large resource and are confident even in the low, but stable terrain of their rates in the distance.

There is a third approach — to play for a raise, not after a loss, but with a win. This is the essence of the strategy “ladder” and its variations. Here lies the idea of ​​using winning series. The player breaks the bank into equal parts, for example, 10% each, thereby forming 10 attempts to pass through the “ladder”. The task is not just to win more bets than to lose, taking into account odds, but to issue a series of 4-6 victories in a row.

For each next move, the player puts down all the money available on this aisle, that is, the starting amount and all the profits from the previous winning steps. Having passed a certain number of such ladders, a player can count on a large increase in a relatively short time.

There is also an extreme where you can get away from the “ladder” strategy. This is to break the bank at 2%, thereby obtaining 50 attempts at $200 each. Collect large expresses with odds of the order of 550. For example, these may be “sheets” on:

• 10 events with an average odds of 1.88;
• 17 events of 1.50 each;
• 20 events on 1.37.

If at least one such express comes in, then the required net profit is immediately obtained. However, as practice shows, such huge expresses win very rarely and there will be no profit at a distance. Even if you are once lucky, the player is unlikely to give up this approach and lose even more with time.

The idea of ​​expressions is similar to the “ladder”, but only mathematically, since the odds are multiplied there and there. However, the “ladder” has great advantages in terms of reducing risks. Steps are done consistently, selected more carefully, there is an insurance option on any step.

So, there is one extreme scenario: “flat” a small percentage. It does not suit us, since it will take too much time to grow to the set bar. And surely somewhere over such a long distance there will be a big drawdown. Since it is inevitable (and it is), then it is necessary to spend about a dozen cycles over a long game period. And let 1-2 from the bottom go to a minus, and another 2-3 will leave us with their own, but 5-7 will give a plus and the final increase.

The opposite extreme is large expresses, which are too risky, although they promise, in theory, quick profits. Also, the third option, “Martingale”, does not suit us because of the need to have a large bank. We do not have it under the terms of the task.

By way of exception, we came to the conclusion that there are only two basic strategies that can give us the growth we need in an adequate period of time. This game is quite an impressive percentage of the bank with a percentage recalculation after each turn, and this game is a “ladder”. We will illustrate these two scenarios and show in the calculations how to ensure the 1000% increase we need.

Bank interest

We have a deposit of 10 000 dollars. We need to decide on how many parts will share. The choice should be in the range of 10 to 20%. If the bank is divided into more than 10 parts, then we will wrap it long and tediously, and the distance to our ambitious goal will be too long. It is clear that reducing the number of bets, we increase the risk of running into that very losing streak and “merging”.

However, when it comes to the goal of making a net profit of 1000% in a short time, it will not work here without risk. If you divide the bank into 5 bets, then this is quite radical, but as to whom. We will calculate on the basis of the average option: 8 parts, 12.5%. For the first round it will be $1 250.

The average odds are taken as 1.80. It is a normal size. We will use the range of ordinaries from 1.60 to 2.20. The intermediate size will be released somewhere around 1.80, since the options 1.70-1.90 will be used more often.

It is clear that you need to show the permeability on each lap is not lower than 5 out of 8. This is 62.5%. If we assume that some circle will turn out only 4 out of 8, 50%, then on such an average “ e factor ” it will mean a drawdown of about 10%. Not critical. It will turn out a step back, but if you go further to 5 out of 8 or more, it will be only a temporary rollback.

If such a goal is worth it, then the player should do whatever he wants, very carefully choose the outcomes, so that within circles of 8 bets, not to allow patency below 4-5 out of 8. If it does not work, there will be circles of only 2-3 plus points, then this will all naturally lead to a drawdown. At the same time, if the whole distance is kept at the bottom of 4-5, and sometimes it’s 6-7 or all 8 per lap, then the goal will be achieved faster.

So let’s estimate how soon the player will reach 1000% of the net profit, betting on such a scheme, and showing exactly 5 out of 8.

1) 1,250 * 1.80 * 5 = 11 250

Further, after each full turn, by 8 rates, recalculation is done. The resulting amount at the moment is again divided by 8 and the cycle repeats. In order not to clutter up with calculations, we simply calculate the rate of growth on a circle:

• 80 * 5/8 = 9/8 = 1.125

Multiplying this number by the bet amount of the previous round, we get its size on the following. It is clear that in practice the “odds” of the rates will be different. But our task is to estimate the big picture, so let us allow ourselves this simplification.

2) 1,406; 3) 1,582; 4) 1,780; 5) 2,002; 6) 2,252; 7) 2,534; 8) 2,851; 9) 3 207; 10) 3,608; 11) 4,059; 12) 4 566; 13) 5,137; 14) 5,779; 15) 6 502; 16) 7,315; 17) 8,229; 18) 9 258; 19) 10,415; 20) 11,717.

With such dynamics, at the 20th round, the bank will turn out to be: 105 453. We will assume that the goal has been achieved, since on real odds the sum can get larger and smaller.

Such a theoretical calculation shows that a goal of 1000% of net profit required a distance of 160 rates. It is clear that by not allowing drawdowns below 5 out of 8, and having finished some circles with the best result, the player can reach the total faster. On the other hand, each circle of 4 out of 8 will roll it back a little, well, and with worse off-road capability, it is possible to sift significantly, especially at the initial stage.

Suppose, having made only 3 pluses out of 8 on the 10th round, the player rolls back, but still remains with the bank 3 times larger than the original. Assuming a similar result (3 out of 8) on the 5th round, the better rolls back to the starting amount of the bank and starts, in fact, anew. Well, such a misfire on circles from first to fourth — this is a problem leading to a minus. But in general, such excesses, if they are not allowed systematically and in a row, can only slow down the player, but not ruin the bank entirely. Yet the security of the uniform strategy here helps.

Imagine, for comparison, what would happen if the same result for the rates fell on a different strategy format. For example, the bank was at the start of $100 000. It was set at 1%, flat. Our 160 rates would be just 1.5 laps.

On the first full circle, we would have dropped, let 63 out of 100 bets.

• 1,000 * 1.80 * 63 = 113,400

Only 13 400 USD. Net profit.

Well, another 60 rates, of which about 38 went.

• 1,000 * 1.80 * 38 = 68 400

Another $8 400 profit. Total, at the same rates, only 21 800 dollars. Conditionally 22K versus 95K, exactly on the same cross. And in the case with the alignment described by us, we risked only a “ten,” and in the alternative we would have had a “hundred” of our own. This is all obvious and you can make a comparison of the game with a small or large percentage, when the bank’s turnover is faster, and the amount of the bet is recalculated.

But you have to understand that if you happen on this distance 8 minuses in a row, according to a risky scheme, we will be left with nothing, and when working with a one percent flat, we will lose only 8% of the starting bank. Here, as they say, who is in priority. Since in our scenario, starting money is small, and the plan is ambitious — you need to take risks to make such a profit.

“Ladder”

Our second scenario is a game “ladder”. Consider a couple of examples, and then compare the game on this scheme with the previous version.

The bank is $10 000. We divide it into 10 attempts at $1 000 each. The goal is the same: 100K of net profit. We will play a “ladder” in 4 steps, using an average outcome rate of 1.80. A winning streak of 4 plus in a row will look like this:

• 80 * 1.80 * 1.80 * 1.80 = 10.5

So after passing of 10 attempts and sliding the at least one such series to the end, the player wins about 10 500 USD, Remaining thus at their returns all sparkle with “bank”. Accordingly, if out of 10 attempts, 2 or more “ladders” enter, then the profit begins to grow. Consider the option when a player brings in plus 3 out of 10.

The first round of 10 attempts will give:

• 3 * (1,000 * 10.5) = 31 500

So 21 500 USD. Net profit. Moreover, the player can set himself the rule to be interrupted by the achievement of 3 winning “ladders”, even if he did not use all 10 attempts. For example, already on the 8th attempt 5 “ladders” lost, and 3 won, then the remaining 2 attempts of this circle do not, but start the cycle again, since the profit is fixed.

It is easy to calculate that in order to achieve a net profit of 100K, you need to hold 5 laps in this mode. If you only get 2 out of 8, you will need 10 laps.

The maximum number of bets that may be required to achieve the result of this strategy: 200 pieces. This is based on the scenario when 3 out of 10 ladders win. Each is 4 plus bets, a total of 12. Also 7 ladders lose. If we assume that they all “fly off” in the last 4th step, then this is another 21 plus and 7 minus. Total: 40 bets per lap. For the required 5 laps — this is just 200. If each of the 7 ladders loses in the very first step, then this is only 19 bets per lap and 95 total. It is clear that in practice there will be something between 95 and 200 rates.

If the scenario is considered: 2 winning “ladders” out of 10, then this is twice 4 plus points — 8. Minus 8 attempts can involve from 8 to 32 bets. Total, we get from 16 to 40 per lap. For ten laps: 160-400 rates.

It is often recommended to use a similar scheme on fixed thematic sites, only using small odds. It is clear that you can get the same ratio around 10.5-11 at the entrance “ladder”, you can in these combinations:

• 6 to 1.45-1.50;
• 8 to 1.35;
• 10 to 1.27.

The fact is that with an increase in the number of bets that need to be won in a row, the chances of that are significantly reduced. So we recommend keeping the range of 4-6 steps and odds within 1.45-1.85.

Now let’s consider what it would be if the same series of bets from the previous example was played by ladders, and not by a percentage of the bank. There we had a distance of 160 rates. Of these, 100 were in plus and 60 in minus, just passability of 62.5%. Alignment 5 out of 8 can be so distributed over this field that there will not be a single series of 4 plus in a row. It is clear that we are theorizing, but, nevertheless.

If such a distribution would have turned out, then, together with the absence of 4 wins in a row, 19-20 episodes of three plus points in a row would be inevitable. You can draw a piece of paper in the cell and estimate it yourself. First, on the field of 160 cells we put down the pluses through time. So we will use 80 pluses. But when we try to place another 20 pluses, the most equidistant option will give exactly these 19 conditional ladders, 3 pluses in a row, but rather they will be 20. This is due to the discontinuity of the sequence at its beginning and end.

Of course, there is a reservation that we remain within the same passability of 62.5%. If you show a lot less, you will be in the red by any strategy.

It turns out that by planning to go “ladders” by 4 steps, in this utopian version of the distribution, we would all have lost on the first round. It is absolutely clear that the choice of the rates themselves for different strategies is based on different criteria. We considered these questions in a review about confidence in rates and their suitability for various financial strategies.

Also, there will never be such an ideal equidistant option. When the patency is not lower than 62.5%, segments may appear in several minuses in a row, but then the formation of positive series will inevitably occur. This can be observed in the study of any statistics practitioners who show similar values ​​of the pass rates. And once the plus series are formed, this is the soil for using them as ladders.

Imagine that we have reduced our appetites. We decided to play “ladders” in 3 steps. The remaining conditions are the same. Average rate: 1.80. Permeability: 62.5% (5 out of 8, 100 out of 160). With this anomalous distribution, we will play at least 19 ladders. We will do the breakdown exactly the same as in the earlier example: into 8 parts, at $1,250 per visit.

• 19 * (1,250 * 1.80 * 1.80 * 1.80) = 138,510

Net profit will turn out even more than planned: $128,510. Almost 30% from the top, exactly on the same distribution of pros and cons. In the real world there can be a series, when the circle will be 3-4 plus out of 8. When playing on a uniform strategy, they could uncritically squander the bank, slow down. In the case of a ladder, these advantages could be so that no series will play and a full drain will occur.

This is especially dangerous in the early stages, until several ladders enter, providing a safety cushion for the future. So we see the benefits of the “ladder”, on a level with its greater riskiness on the negative trend of rates.

Psychological nuances

Any financial strategies are good on paper, in the form of mathematical calculations. However, much changes in practice when the real game is played. Some bets do not go, it causes negative emotions, increasing responsibility for the success of subsequent actions. Plus series, on the contrary, relax. So different strategies dictate a different psychological background, which also affects the results.

The strategy of the game with a small percentage of bank, or a one-percent flat, is very discouraging. Many players on it “merge” exactly because they lose concentration. It seems that when at one rate you risk only 1% of the bank, with a ridiculous amount, then it is okay if it does not go down. And then these “useless” non-calls devour 30% of the bank, then 50%, and then the whole.

On the other hand, the “Martingale” strategy and its variants have the property of dynamic concentration. In the first steps, these subtle matters are approximately in the same state as in the usual “flat”. But it is not worth making a few drawbacks, as with each new bet the fear of being wrong will torment the player more and more.

Someone in such moments is going and making the right move. Someone on the contrary, panics, chooses the worst of decisions and “merges” everything. So the strategy is dangerous not only in purely mathematical, but also psychological terms. It is better when the concentration is maximum and there are no prerequisites for its decrease or active increase.

In this regard, the two approaches considered are very good. In the first version, we play a fairly large percentage. So at a short distance of 8-10 rates, we do not have much maneuver for mistakes. Going beyond 4 minus out of 5 or 5 out of 10 is highly undesirable. In the case of the “ladder”, the slightest puncture means the failure of the whole attempt, and the need to use the next one. So the desire to bet on some adventurous outcomes disappears, unless the goal is important and valuable to you, of course.

Conclusions

We show you two basic approaches to make money on betting big money starting with small amounts, in fact, without the bank. You, to the best of your situation, can throw in zeros for amounts, change currencies. However, the principles remain the same. We pointed out the unsuitability of other financial strategies to achieve results with our initial ones. Those paths that are marked as suitable also compared and pointed out their weak points. It’s up to you: apply. Well, or collect a decent bank and choose less risky strategies.