A strategic approach to the bankroll
This model of bankroll management will suit those bettors who previously had problems not only with planning and discipline, but also with average draws. Of course, in order to compensate for the two gaps already, you have to do something about it. We will do that here by means of financial strategies and a bigger bankroll. Actually, the second condition follows directly from the algorithm of these strategies.
We allocate a bank of $3000. We divide it into two blocks, each block is $1500 respectively. If possible, you can take 4 blocks, making the bank size $6000. This is already on the possibilities. Well, we divide the block into 4 steps of catch-up.
- 100, 200, 400, 800
It is clear that the average ratio according to the classical Martingale method is 2.00. However, we see that here there is no provision for catch-up until the whole pot is in danger of being drained. Blocks are used so that if you lose one, there is 1, 2, 3 more left, which would give an option to compensate for possible drawdown, the loss of one sector.
So, in order to win $1000 net with such scheme, you need to make only 10 plus bets. It does not matter whether it happens with the first try in a cycle or with 3-4 iterations. Of course it is desirable to make it in the first three steps, so as not to bring it to the fourth. But then again, losing a block of $1500 is compensated for by only 15 wins on other sectors. So it’s only a question of the forecaster’s competence.
For example, if you average 10 pluses in the thirds, that’s only 30 bets. In a normal scenario, with more first and second steps coming in, even less would be needed.
This pace was chosen purposely, so that even if you hit a losing streak of 4 consecutive draws and lose one sector, you would have time and a number of good bets left in a month to make up the $1500, and $1000 in net winnings. The main thing is to stay calm and act according to the scheme, without going off on adventures, which is often seen in those who resort to take-away betting. This direction, more than any other, accustoms the bettor to raising bets, which means that strict discipline is most needed here.
You can make the scheme even softer. For example, by breaking up the blocks into 6 steps:
- 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
Then you would need 40 plus bets to get a net income of $1000. With an average of 2.5 steps this would be exactly 100 bets which can be taken in a month. But it is true there will be no window left in case of losing one of blocks. Here you are deciding which way to choose, more easy or forced.
As you can see even according to the second scenario the profit is obtained with 40 profitable bets out of 100 attempts. That is, only 40% of passability, and the result is achieved. That is what those, who cannot get more or less stable profits in passing bets at distance, need.
It is a normal aim to earn $1000 net, or its amount with multiplier x2, x5, or even x10, depending on starting conditions, the same bank and risks. The main thing is to formulate it, make a plan and follow it. Yes, not everyone will succeed, and not right away. But there is an iron counterargument to this: you are already losing money at a distance, without any plan. So putting in order can’t be a disadvantage either way. With such a plan, you can lose less, not lose at all, and with steady progress and come out in the plus, periodically achieve your betting goals. So in any case, following our recommendations is a step forward for 99% of market participants.
As far as the choice of direct banking model is concerned, the schemes given are not dogma. They are just model paths, quite different in their principles and starting points. You can and should modernise them to suit you, possibly using hybrid solutions. Only in this search, self-development, honing your game according to the chosen scheme, is the key to success.