Yes, I know, as soon as I read the thread.

That's why I wrote the tracker to prove it.

Thanks a tonne, Azim. My humble excel tracker proved the same but since too big claims were made regarding the greatness of this delayed martingale, as Blue Angel proposed it to work, your tracker removes all the doubts.

              Simulations are the best way to conclude an argument.

I reiterate: No way of picking bet is superior to any other. All will get good, bad, best and the worst moments.

Well considering the claim was it had gone through the whole German database and never lost.
That gave it up.

Martingale never loses. It only sinks hundreds of thousands of units before winning back 1 unit but we can not consider it playable for that capacity.

My point is who can bet hundreds of thousands of units of bets to win 1 unit on an EC and which casino will allow someone even if someone is crazy enough

to do so?

Very true...  Even in his example.  People fell for it. Who would bet 4 units  for 37 spins to make a 1 unit.

I won't mind betting 4 units for 37 spins to win 1 unit if there is any assurance of that win. If that 1 unit of earning ask me to bet 16,000+ unit per spin, I would mind, of course. We can win all data of world with infinite bets and martingale. Anybody interested in doing that?

It wasn't 16000 for 1 spin it was 16000 for 37 spins.

Quote from: Azim on April 05, 2016, 06:01:15 AM
It wasn't 16000 for 1 spin it was 16000 for 37 spins.

Yeah, I said 16000+ bet per spin. There is no guarantee that even betting this big we can win. Indeed this method can even seek betting a million chips each spin at some point of time.

Horror session No.: 6      240 spins, 89 wins, 151 losses. First 100 spins have only 20 Wins
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W

Taking this sequence as P/B I get +28 

If you take Ls as Ws and vice versa you will win even flat but that is not the motive of this. I want to see whether anybody has any strategy to cop so many losses and only average number of wins thereafter.
        Whatever betselection you choose you may encounter such bad phases. Question is how much you lose or win considering that as a bad session that crept in your favorite betselection.

If the strict rule based pauses are allowed, then a few mild progressions with low stakes can survive these horror sequences with tiny profit. Flat betting is not enough for all of 6, especially in the 4th session - with my rules. But if the expectation is continous betting, then it is a different story.

Please illustrate your way.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 24, 2016, 07:42:52 PM
Please illustrate your way.

I tend to choose the option "B" (for now). 

Identical sequences with partially same main-rule (regarding the pauses) as before, but substituted with flat betting...so with continous betting. The highest bet was ~400 units in the session 3, but in most sessions was below ~250 units.

Btw there is no progression or generally money management (yet), (at least I have not found) which can handle all distributions. So these type of "tests" better than nothing, but not completely relevant. I think.