[CBH123]

Adding one every time you win and subtracting every time you lose seems ridiculous to me. I think the only people who make real money doing this type of thing treat it like a business and realize anything can happen on any given bet. There is no such thing as a "LOCK," even though oftentimes you can find a bet you feel really confident about based on experience or research/your system. A %R system where you risk a fixed percentage of your total bankroll would keep you in the game during losing streaks, and help you to increase your winnings exponentially if you have an overall winning strategy. To be honest my background is trading the foreign exchange markets, and not sports betting, but I think the same principles apply.

[Wrecktangle]

First off, hitting 59% is a guaranteed winner. The reason you have a bigger profit with the progressive system is that your average bet was bigger in the progressive system, hence bigger profits. However, if you look at the average bet sizes, you will find that your average bet is more on the losing games than it was on the winning games. This is like a reverse dollar cost averaging on the stock market.

However, if you are starting with a fixed bankroll and have a system with a positive expectation on each wager, then a progressive system like yours (or Kelly criteria) is the best way to maximize the growth. It's also the only way to keep from going bust if you truly have a fixed bankroll.

Unfortunately, 59% does not "guarantee" a winning season. Show it to yourself by building a simple betting simulation that draws from a 59% win distrubution.

According to the number of trials, the portion of winning seasons is higher at 59% than lower %s, but there is no guarantee that every season will win for flat betting or any version of Kelly.