Variance is the biggest killer in a random game as roulette or baccarat. Variance is momentary and a huge one can not last too long. Gradually RTM will bring in better patches and eventually in a very long stride, it will all look very close to the mathematically expected value.
           Take a case of an EC bet like Player in Baccarat. We get only 60 hits in 200 attempts. It is -5.27 SD and a kind of even below the virtual limits but as nothing is impossible and only remote, it happened while we played it. Later, in subsequent 400 more trials say we get 186 more hits of our bet Player. It is still at -3.76 SD in 600 trials and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow.

         Do we have any strategy that can win even in such cases after 600th trial even 1 unit Or we only have wishful thinking that such things could never happen to us. Even if we do not stand to win even after 600th trial here, how many will get bearable losses that could be recovered ahead easily?

......"and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow"......

That is absolutely correct.  No better said. 

I have created a virtual session incorporating the absolute variance as we discussed in the beginning of this topic. It has 246 Wins vs 354 losses. First 200 trials has merely 60 wins. IF anybody has any all over money management strategy that beats the given case without going deep in thousands of chips and that should be meant for playing all kind of sessions, i.e. good, average and bad ones, that would end the quest for beating the game of chance. The game of chance will then become a game of skill.


L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

[attachurl=3]

@Tapolov1,
               Your results look impressive with very nice finish and no scary dropdown. I can see you are winning and losing in one trial too. Are you playing both ways? Please explain your methodology in detail.

The methodology is not exactly how it should be played, what if it happens is that permanence favors the results by having enough dispersion of an equiprobable coverage, say that it could be called a modification of a planning or balance management, in which to be enough Balls will meet some odds.

my 1cent.
But since all my previous view, being
laughed as naive and fallacy,
I will just argue,
as *academic theory* only.

for the record, worst ever recorded EC,
is still 69hit/200,
that beatable with labby,
as labby only need
33%+1win to win 1unit.

now (with due respect)
Albalaha, try to push the limit ,
to 60/200...
that's,
unbeatable with conventional labby, but
beatable with modified labby.

Albalaha also found that,
(but only few hundreds thousands zumma's hands)
that the worst WAS 30hit/100.
but he argued that the
worst may less than 30/100,
lurking somewhere in the
zumma's, not yet found by anyone.

but 30hit/100 can
easily beaten with modified labby, albeit, hundreds of chips, which impossible in bm.
Now, if Albalaha could search the millions of zumma's, and (very sure, 100% confirm)
if there never less than 15player/50hands,..30%...
then could easily won with modified labby,( though less then needed 33%). and need less chips compare to 100 or 200 hands...that run into thousands of chips!
few people already know how to beat with modified labby, but,
of course keep their mouths tightly shut, else casino change rules!

@Tapolov1,
           Curve fitting or saying that I will win by playing other side is not the challenge in this thread. This topic is all about sustaining through the worst and winning thereafter in below average times for an EC bet( not betting on the counterpart EC together) that could be played in normal sessions too. You failed to explain what you propose to do in such scenario hence your way is out of topic here.

@PatternAnalysis,
           Since we observed 30/100 as worst, it doesn't guarantee that even worse can not happen. It is only an estimated/observed limit. We need to prepare ourselves for even 20/100. Actually, we should not focus upon winning the worst itself but rather losing least in such cases and winning back all losses without expecting compensatory or clumping wins thereafter. If you think you can sustain 30/100 by pushing the hardest but not 28/100, it is as bad an idea as basic martingale.
                     Regarding Modified labby, yes I have incorporated mini stop losses and several other safeguards to avoid losing all, even if it goes 10/100. Recovery is not that difficult if you lose least in the worst phases. Losing huge in bad phases is what kills most progression players. That is the biggest blunder one can do.

Quote from: Albalaha on February 11, 2020, 03:06:42 AM
@Tapolov1,
           Curve fitting or saying that I will win by playing other side is not the challenge in this thread. This topic is all about sustaining through the worst and winning thereafter in below average times for an EC bet( not betting on the counterpart EC together) that could be played in normal sessions too. You failed to explain what you propose to do in such scenario hence your way is out of topic here.

ok

@PatternAnalysis,
           Since we observed 30/100 as worst, it doesn't guarantee that even worse can not happen. It is only an estimated/observed limit. We need to prepare ourselves for even 20/100. Actually, we should not focus upon winning the worst itself but rather losing least in such cases and winning back all losses without expecting compensatory or clumping wins thereafter. If you think you can sustain 30/100 by pushing the hardest but not 28/100, it is as bad an idea as basic martingale.
                     Regarding Modified labby, yes I have incorporated mini stop losses and several other safeguards to avoid losing all, even if it goes 10/100. Recovery is not that difficult if you lose least in the worst phases. Losing huge in bad phases is what kills most progression players. That is the biggest blunder one can do.

Tried first 139 decisions so far (in the horrible 60/200 session) and at -75 now. I think it is easily recoverable. Will post full session sometime soon. With lots of rules to follow and manually calculating what to bet, it will take a week to conclude entire 600 decisions.
Remember, I m playing every bet and has set of rules applicable for all over game. No triggers, no pauses and the methodology meant for good and average sessions too. No curve fitting, no cherry picking.
[attachimg=1]

I firmly believe that anybody who has a firm approach to beat this case that beats normal sessions much easier will be a true Holy Grail and albeit slow but only mathematical approach to beat randomness of casino gambling forever. Even if someone doesn't beat this till 600th bet but loses less than 54 units in an all over play (since there are 108 extra losses than wins) is a very nice player. Remember, curve fitting experts may advise a progression that runs too slow in the beginning and gets accelerated after 200 bets. I would ask the same gentleman to beat the later 400 spins the same way. Something capable of handling -3.5 SD should beat -1.5 SD cases even easily. Many smart fellow would come and argue that they won't play such bad bet but its counterpart. I would like to tell all of them that any bet of yours could suffer from negative variance, any moment. There is absolutely no safeguard against that, whatever you do. I did put a similar challenge like this earlier but did not hear even a single sane approach. It seems that people have already surrendered before the randomness and can't even think of beating a virtually worst case.

Tested upto 232 hands/spins. It went as bad as -141 and recovering a bit after first 200 hands. Max bet used so far is 5 units, I think.
Check graph.
[attachimg=1]

I did 600 spins. Losses recovered by and large and graph turned upward but at 600th spin, it did not finish in a net win yet. Then I generated a random 200 more spins from random.org with 99 wins and 101 losses and no large string of wins/compensatory wins. I added the same to the previous 600 and it yielded a nice net profit finally. Max bet applied was 17 units. Max drawdown was -141. Total 345 Wins against 455 losses. Net profit at 800th trial=42 units. Last bet=2 units. Graph will tell the rest of story.


[attachimg=1]

After this gigantic test, I am 100% sure that I can play and sustain through even the worst possible and win too, thereafter without ever requiring compensatory or clumping wins within a reasonable table limit and bankroll. This is the biggest feat of mine, so far. I am attaching the entire 800 W/L for all to see and try their methodologies here. It will be kind of litmus test for all system testers. 345/800 is still -3.15 SD for european roulette. Gladly it was done with logic and mathematics and by a purely mechanical process. Please understand that my methodology sustains in the worst possible with bearable loss and wins thereafter in below average hit rate which is considered impossible, so far. It is an all over play approach.

I'm wondering what we can do working together. 

as.