Project 202 Concept
The concept of PROJECT 202 came into being when I discovered the basic rule of all forms of wagering. This rule is "trends". All random happenings occur from trends, not the other way around.
Let me explain. When you flip a coin, each side has the exact same chance of coming up over any given series of flips. But they do not come up that way. One side will always favor over the other. This means that in random happenings, although each separate result is random, the series will not be completely random. Because...trends will determine how many more times one side will show over the other.
It is this simple rule which has confounded all mathematicians into believing that random chance or "gambling" cannot be predicted into patterns or trends, because each result is an unpredictable happening.
But the data they use is based on the overall picture. Such as, if the chance of each side coming up when you flip coins is both 50%, then according to their data you will always have each side show the exact same number of times. This is blind math. This is what the experts have used for centuries to tell man he cannot win at games of chance, and most men have believed them.
Blind math does not take into account the "trends" which happen from all games of chance. These trends are more dominant than the mathematical basis of their theories.
Nothing which is random, happens in a completely random way!
There are many old time gamblers who did not listen to any of the laws of math, and just followed their own set of rules which they put together after years of experience. They have been winning for years. Not even aware that according to blind math, their winning was mathematically impossible! I have known some of these men. It has been my pleasure to even watch some of them apply their experience to different casino games and/or horse racing. They all used slightly different methods, but the one basic rule they followed was to take advantage of trends.
Although their methods worked fine for them, it did have a basic flaw. It took years of experience to locate these trends, and even longer to know how to bet them when they did occur.
Let me explain here, about what I mean by trends. . . just in case you are not clear on this.
If you flip a coin one thousand times, you will get a series of six successive happenings (either heads or tails coming up six times in a row) 9.4 times, four consecutive results will occur about 58 times...and even two consecutive happenings will happen over 350 times. These rules are in fact based on the law of probability. They are part of the very law which states that there is a 50% chance on each flip that either heads or tails will happen. But this law which states the above consecutive occurrences will happen also says that each toss is different, and that what has just happened has nothing to do with what will happen. There seems to be a contradiction within the laws of probability.
But not really. The law is telling us that although each toss or chance of something happening is 50-50, over a period of successive tosses, one side may show up more often than another.
This one sided favoritism is simply what I call "trends". Many identify it as good luck. But luck does not really exist in this sense. What happens will happen no matter what or where we are.
What is good luck is knowing what to do when you have the opportunity to take advantage of these happenings.
I do not want to spend too much time explaining these trends, but I do want you to understand what we are talking about later in the book. We will return to this many times in future pages. The whole basis for PROJECT 202 is trends, and how to bet them. So please understand the reason behind the rules. This will make it easier for you to apply those rules.
In all wagering, regardless of the game you are playing at the time...different levels of results can be expected to happen. By "levels" I mean in terms of wins and losses. Thus it can be said, if you make ten bets and win all ten of these bets, you are on the first level of results. You had no losses, so you should not venture beyond this bet scheme, since you are in fact...winning. But suppose you lost two or three of the bets you made, and your win/lose sequence looked like this...W W W L W W L W W L . Betting one unit on each decision you would end the betting sequence with seven wins and three losses.
This would give you a profit o f . . .four units. Yes, I said four units. At first glance you would think with a 70% win return, out of ten bets you would do better than just four units. But each win must cover a loss...right?
Now lets turn this sequence around. We will now show what happens when we encounter seven losses and only three wins. Example...L W L L L W L L W L . Our ending series leaves us with a minus of four units. Once again each loss is cancelled out with a win, so even though we lost 70% of our bets we still lost only 40% of our capital. This is also true with the above example which showed us winning 70% of the time, we still only showed a 40% profit.
In both of these examples something remarkable has been shown.
OUR ACTUAL WINS AND LOSSES, PERCENTAGE WISE...CONCERNING OUR CAPITAL WILL ALWAYS BE LESS THAN THE REAL PERCENTAGE OF RESULT WINS AND LOSSES, EXCEPT WHEN WINS AND LOSSES ARE VEN. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE RESULTS ARE ZERO. This is remarkable because, we will always need less real capital than whatever the true win/loss sequence is. This means that each loss in result does not mean a 100% loss in capital. See above, a 70% loss only equaled a 40% loss of capital overall. So it ban be said, when we lose one bet we only lose approximately 60% of the unit.
This is based, of course, on the overall series of results and not just a situation of making one bet & leaving, win or lose. Although the same can be said for winning, the most important discovery here is the fact that the losses are not as bad as first thought with a bad win percentage. Even if we won only one bet out of the ten...with 90% losers, we will still lose 80% of our bets (capital). Although this seems pretty bad anyway, our losses are still less than the real win/loss sequence of results.
This simple example points out the difference between the fallacy of using the win/loss sequence or blind math, to determine what the real money results will be at any given point for a game of chance. This is the basis for a plan of wagering which can show dramatic results, even when the win/loss sequence is far from profitable on an even bet scale. It is this discrepancy which alerted me to the possibility that mathematicians were wrong when they stated that games with a negative percentage were unbeatable.
I would like to show an even more dramatic result with our original ten result sequence from the preceding page. If you can't picture it, this is what it looked like...W W W L W W L W W L. Now suppose we were betting in units of ten, on each result...and we raised our bets just 10% after each result, win or lose...until we showed a profit, then we would start with the original ten unit bet. I will show the bet and the result after each wager below:
W————bet 10———— +10
W————bet 11———— +21
New series would begin here W————bet 10————+31
L————bet 11———— +20
W————bet 12———— +32
New series would begin here W————bet 10———— +42
L————bet 11———— +31
W————bet 12———— +43
New series would begin here W————bet 10———— +53
L————bet 11———— +42
We made an additional profit of 2, if we had been betting flat bets this would be a total of 40 and not 42. This is not dramatic because we were betting more money overall. Now let-me explain something about the progression of bets above. In the first bet we did win, so you may ask why we didn't keep the second bet at 10 since we did show a profit at that point. The reason is, it is not a profit because we would have bet that on the next result, so after you made the second bet, before you knew the result, you would still have just the same amount of capital.
The results above, when turned around change the final picture from betting flat bets. In that situation the results would look like this...L L L W L L W L L W . On the next page I will show what happens when we apply the same betting scheme to these results...raising our bets 10% after each win or loss until a profit is shown. When figuring the 10%, rather than calculating what 10% of 11 or 12 is, we will simply raise it by one until we reach 15, then raise it 1.5 (1 1/2). The results in reverse follow:
L————bet 10———— -10
L————bet 11———— -21
L————bet 12———— -33
W————bet 13———— -20
L————bet 14———— -34
L————bet 15———— -49
W————bet 16.5—— -32.5
L————bet 18———— -50.5
L————bet 19.5—— -70
W————bet 21———— -49
Now at this point we are 49 behind, when betting flat bets we were only 40 behind, so at first glance it would seem to be a bad way to bet. But there are hidden good points within the results above.
First, look at the amount of money which was wagered. With flat bets a total of 100 units would have been bet with a 40 unit loss, which would equal a 40% loss. Above...a total of 150 units were wagered which is a full 50% more but our loss only increased about 24%...less than half! Also, only three more winning bets would put us ahead, but with flat bets three more winning bets would still put us 10 units behind. We will continue out the series above with the three additional winning bets below;
W————bet 23———— -26
W————bet 25———— -1
———————————————————— (At this point our bets would still be raised because we continue raising 10% until we show a profit.)
W————bet 26.5—— +25.5
Now something which is not supposed to happen, has happened. We have lost more bets than we have won...we lost seven and won a total of six.
Mathematically, we should be behind, but in reality we are ahead! Now please do not think PROJECT 202 is based on the above progression, and now you are ready to attack the LIVE casinos, or race tracks. The examples above ARE NOT the rules to PROJECT 202. So please do not jump to any conclusions.
The examples are to show how a simple betting scheme can change the face of mathematical permutations. What is an apparent losing series...six wins-seven losses, has been turned into a winning series by altering the bet ratio according to the prior result.
PROJECT 202 does this, but different than the examples just presented. It has built in safety features which will turn results even more dismal than presented here into winning results. . . in the long run and protect profits at each point.
We now have a basis for understanding PROJECT 202. The winning process must involve what we have discussed so far, the ability to alter wagers according to the results which are currently in progress. Not by some wild form of progression which will blow us away at the first mild upset...but a well planned escalation and de-escalation of wagers at just the right time within the betting series.
This, in essence...is how PROJECT 202 works.