The book doesnt have just one single system . The author is a member of this forum and drops in from time to time . I will email him and ask him to provide answers for what you termed fraud.

The set monthly income sheets were free of charge to forum members or whoever else wanted it. The book he sells has 12 programs in it.

I haven't bought or read the book, but since he proposes and advertises a system that would leave people bankrupt so easily, I am completely uninterested in anything else he has to say. He lost his chance to sell it to me. Maybe I shouldn't accuse him of fraud, because I don't know his intentions. Instead, I'll say that I don't think he did enough research before writing that article. I hope he can write better articles and books in the future, but honestly, I don't really care. But really, go ahead and buy the book and read it. At least he put in the time of writing it, and if anything, you might learn something you didn't know before. After all, you DO have the option of disagreeing with him, don't you?

Also, I willingly tested this theory, but I'm not here to test everyone's theories. Sorry.

theqman: I think discipline is important. In my opinion, the article uses the word discipline in a deceiving way. When I criticize discipline, I criticize his use of the word, not the true meaning of the word. If I did not believe in discipline, would I be sitting here doing calculations? No, I would probably be betting on instinct alone, raising my bets every time I lost, and waiting for that one win to save me from bankruptcy.

ucdrummer00: If you don't mind posting an email address, I'll send it to you that way. Otherwise, I don't know. I'm also not too familiar with this messageboard. Is there private messaging?

-Dave

nntrader,

My numbers may be off, but it would only be that it was the way I thought the examples were laid out in the book sample. I may have misunderstood, but I thought the goal of each series was to win 1/4 of your goal. 4 series with 2 wins per series to reach your goal.

My series to reach the goal was 10-5-10. So, I added the losses of the previous series divided by 3 to my base series goal.

Not disputing that I could have misunderstood, but at this point I don't really care. I'm not using this system currently, only watching to see how you guys hash out the perfect system. I figure I'll be here watching until I'm old and gray.

George

Thanks for taking the time to run the figures and contribute here . The information you provided is appreciated whether everyone agrees or not . This system has not failed me yet (I began back in November) . I have been actively searching for better programs though. Thanks again

And thanks for clearing up what you were referring to. I retract my comments about who I am dealing with. I just misunderstood I guess.

George,

Your numbers at step #2 are correct, but step #3 and the rest are not. You almost have the progression down... you need to divide your most recent bet by 3 and add it to the last series, not the first series. Remember, you need to recoup not only your most recent bet, but all previous loses as well until you hit 2 winners for the series. (See the example on page 13, starting with bet #16, for example of 4-in-a-row loss.)

I've posted in previous threads where you are better off just doing straight martingale, where if $100 is the goal per series, then start at $50. Just win 8-per-month like the Set Monthly Income System and you're fine. In this case you can win just 20% of your bets and reach your goal, rather than only 26%... but of course, realize you need alternating W's and L's (like with ANY up-as-you-lose progression). Your average bet size will also be less, and you can withstand two 4-in-a-row losses within the same series (something you cannot do with the Set Monthly Income progression). Of course, for either progression, if you lose 5-in-a-row... boom, game over.

great article