And the way is for the especially poor, the especially greedy, or the overly cautious. Not at all condemning either of these positions. You just have to be honest and realise that it is difficult to compensate for the lack of a normal bank. It only has to be done by particularly aggressive financial strategies, which carry corresponding risks. So for the sake of completeness we have to specify and describe this method. Well, everyone will have to balance the risks they are willing to take for the sake of their betting goals.
It is clear that the definition of “no bank” is just a convention
Without betting a cent of substantial money, which is the same $1000, it is impossible to win. When we talked earlier about scenarios with a large enough, or at least notable, gambling pot, we meant sensitive amounts that 99% of the population won’t risk without looking back. When we talk here about a plan to win the equivalent of $1000 a month “without a pot”, we mean starting amounts that are not sensitive. That is, this is money whose potential loss, due to the large risks of the strategy, will not affect a person’s financial situation in any way. Let us assume that a starter amount of one cycle in this way would be the equivalent of $4. Approximately $12 per week would potentially be lost, and x4, or $48 per month, respectively. About $50 per month is money that can be painlessly allocated for betting by the majority of adults, who are mainly engaged in betting. Besides, this is the maximum we are specifying in this scheme. Most likely, with an adequate selection of matches the series will be interrupted less frequently, and therefore even with a final negative outcome, the expenditure on it per month will be 2-3 times less.
The idea of the method
As many may have already guessed, is based on a “staircase”. We take $4 and try to go through the staircase, a sequence of bets that will give a total odds of about 256. Simple maths:
- $4 * 256 = $1024
Respectively, if you manage to complete at least one series until the end, you will get the “grand quid” to your account and $24 bonus as a compensation for six tries.
The odds of 256 is not from the ceiling. It’s 8 steps with quotes of 2.00.
- 8 = 256
Whether or not to bet on such high odds is up to each player to decide. These figures can also be broken down into smaller quotations: 3 at 1.26 or 2 at 1.42. Correspondingly:
- 1.26 24 = 256
- 1.42 16 = 256
In practice, of course, the spread of quotes may be different. Actually, there is no need to be literal. The final figure of about 256 can be assembled from various combinations. Including, if several matches fall in one time window, the “staircase” can be gathered not only from consecutive steps but also from mini-extras. Here are some possible layouts
- $4 * 1.35 = $5.4
- $5.4 * 1.22 * 1.37 = $9
- $9 * 1.45 = $13
- $13 * 1.71 = $22.37
- $22.37 * 1.26 * 1.52 * 1.44 = $61.72
- $61.72 * 1.28 = $79
- $79 * 1.40 * 1.35 = $149.3
- $149.3 * 1.55 = $231.4
- $231.4 * 1.38 * 1.24 = $396
- $396 * 1.34 * 1.38 = $723.3
- $723.3 * 1.40 = $1 025
There are 18 bets to win. It is clear that such a series needs to be carried out progressively, perhaps in 2-3 weeks. To force the choice of bets in any case it is impossible to force. You must choose games and outcomes very carefully to get results. If you lose, only then begin the next series.
Besides, you should try to take the safest types of bets
If you take examples from football, you should try to focus on such re-insured outcomes as: X1, X2, handicap (0), ITB(0.5), ITB(1), TB(1.5), TB(2) and TM(3.5). In general, we should avoid net wins, minus handicaps, the conditions for both goals and big totals. And a similar selection of “good” and “bad” bets can be made for any kind of sport.
As a result we risk very little money, but have the chance to make a considerable profit. That sounds like a plan.