Example 1. There is a student whose aim is to earn his living by playing BC. His potential gaming bank doesn't exceed 100$ which include his own enslaving. However, his aim is to earn 1,000,000$ in a year. That's it! He doesn't agree on other conditions, so we have to choose a perfect strategy for him taking the fact that his average number of monthly bets is 25 into consideration. Average coefficient of his bets is 1.95 (let's take totals as an example). We can see straight away that flat and OAC won't help him. Only a strong overtaking with a maximum number of iterations between 3 and 4 is able to make something out. The only maneuver he can take is to set the bank on the bets he's sure in, which will let him save some money on the iteration for the bets he doubts about. Let's wave our hands to him and wish him a lot of luck in the form of long winning streak.

Example 2. (Unpublished idea set in my last topic at BYW). There is a student whose aim is to earn his living by playing BC. His potential gaming bank doesn't exceed 100$ which include his own enslaving. However, the student's aim is to earn nothing but living by playing BC. We know that he needs only 10$ a month. Let's choose a perfect strategy for him taking the fact that his average number of monthly bets is 40 into consideration. Average coefficient of his bets is 1.95 For the first month: Option 1. During first two weeks he plays using a strong overtaking expecting the maximum of 2-4 iterations. Then he switches to the OAC strategy. Option 2. For the whole month he plays using a strong overtaking expecting 3-5 iterations. In the beginning of the second month he switches to the financial OAC strategy.

The first option was tested at BYW, so the example we analyze is real. (But, please, don't take me for a student.) After two weeks the profit came to 473% which means that the bank would be of 573$ which would give us (according to the OAC strategy) the reserve of 36 moves (equivalent to the flat of 2.8% for each bet) and 0.5% of additional profit on each two moves even if the guessing will be only 50% with the coefficient of 1.95 (accidental guessing). It means that the minimum potential profit would be at least 10$ a month - all that we need according to the conditions of the problem. Thus, two weeks of lucky gaming almost guarantee him 10$ a month for the rest of his life. Is it true that it's never advantageous to bet 30% or 70% of your bank? Judging from the example above, every percent risked at the beginning of the month brings a much bigger profit. We can say that a 30%-bet with the coefficient of 1.95 actually gives the profit on the coefficient of 10 if not more.

Addition to the example 2 and to the whole topic.

It is noticed that the fans of classic flat keep on criticizing all financial strategies. "You just try flat and you will understand the whole thing!" I don't say that flat is shit - it's just about the way it smells and that's it… Classic variant is betting 2% of the bank on the coefficient of 1.95. In my humble opinion, it can't be used real wide in real life. Talking about Example 2 - let's just laugh at it. How much time and what guessing rate do we need to get such profit? 50% guessing at the coefficient of 1.95 does nothing but f*cks the whole thing up. Guessing 50% we will have zero profit. Guessing 53% we get the profit of 1.8% a month. Does it mean that professional BC gaming is not for average humans?.. And don't forget that holding 53% guessing is not that simple!!! Grandpa Miller would sell his soul for such guessing percent. And if you remember that you must spoil before you spin - ouch! And when after a winning year you get a losing streak and blow all your money - there's nothing left for you to do but sit and cry.

Why do I say it all? You should remember that the game depends on your aims and desires. Some want a million, some just enjoy the game, so all they need is blow their 200 rubles in as much time as possible. The only thing that has no meaning at all is betting for the betting itself.

Another thing that has to be said about Example 2 - super aggressive gaming in the very beginning doesn't suit everybody. Everyone's mind is different, just like everyone's opinion about the rationality of the game. Everyone's got different opinion about the choice of the bet and the size of it. Those who are not in a hurry should play different. I will express my opinion about it and remind you about the importance of coefficient and number of bets next time.

Note about number of bets (again as shortly as possible).

Example: Player А = 20% of the turnover + 100 bets a year. Player B = 10% of the turnover + 200 bets a year.

Both have 1000$ and both bet 2% flat at the average coefficient of 2. Yearly profit: Player А = + 400$ Player B = + 400$ The profits are the same, but which player would you want to be?

In this very example, I'd rather be Player A because a higher percent of the turnover needs a higher guessing level, thus the blowing of the bank is lower just like the losing streaks. Besides, I want to remind you that the higher is the coefficient, the higher percent of the turnover is reached. (I will write about the coefficient next time).

On the other hand, we can see that number of bets, is as important as the percent of the turnover. There are players, though, who value number of bets more and vice versa.

Talking about real life and personal experience including the analysis of other players' style I can make the following conclusions: 1) It's easier to raise the percent of the turnover than the number of bets; 2) It's easier for a player with high percent of the turnover to increase number of bets without losing his own percent. 3) Increase of the number of bets results in the decrease of the percent of the turnover. Looks like a vicious circle, huh?

Conclusion: you have to keep your optimum balance. Main conclusion: never break your profitable balance! Even if it's not an optimum balance - keep it! Those who had estimated their monthly turnover and similar figures noticed that 2-3 unnecessary bets a month can spoil the yearly result if the number of bets is not really high!!!

All the information stated above is nothing more than educational material, etc. Talking about myself, I would state that everything depends on the bets made according to personal opinion! If you bet on some statistic regularities, correspondence of BC coefficient with the probable result of the match, etc, all you have to do is don't give a f*ck about it all and get armed with patience.

Here we should say a couple of things about OAC. If you are already familiar with it, you must have noticed that an increase in number of bets will lead to the increase of profit anyway (if the strategy stated above is used). Basically, that's the way it is but there are several exceptions.

Let's see the example of the player A. Player A = 20% of the turnover + 100 bets a year. 1000$ bank, average coefficient is 2 - but let's change the 2% flat into OAC with the minimum bet of 2% and additional profit of 0.2% for each tied move. As a result, we will have a +80$ profit increase which will give us +480$ in total and increase the percent of the turnover index from 20% to 20-24%, even though it won't mean the increase of bet size (the risk to blow the bank will grow slightly which doesn't have any meaning on practice, though. I want to remind you that the financial OAC strategy was made to be put into PRACTICE, the practice that can be used by every single rookie).

Let's assume that Player A had decided to raise his number of bets just to squeeze more out of OAC itself which resulted in the decrease of his percent from the flat turnover to 0% but let him make 200 bets a year. So, the average coefficient is 2, let's combine it with the OAC that has a minimum bet of 2% and additional profit of 0.2% for every tied move. As a result we will have the profit of +200$ and 0-5% of the turnover (there's a high possibility to blow the bank because of the drop in bet quality - the change of financial strategy will play only a minor role in it).

So, Player A got f*cked because he didn't take a lot of factors into consideration, which cost him 280$.

I will try to tell more about possible risks, coefficient size and the worst foes of the player next time.

P.S. All the conclusions have nothing to do with the exceptions and unique players.

Important: P.S. Because of the high degree of data interrelationship I could have placed a huge number of specifications, references and links to future texts - but I didn't want to make this incredibly tangled text any harder. I hope that the ones interested in the topic will get through it…