Math wizards may not agree with me but it is no fallacy. Playing after a very bad patch which is touching the virtual limits ensure that another similar very bad patch may not be so easy immediately again and impossible in succession.

Do one thing, find an EC W/L to me wherein we see anything like:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW
5 wins in 50 trials
We do have millions of hands of baccarat data and even more roulette data available. With Ophis I worked upon over 10 million spins of roulette already, years back.

If I consider 30/100 to be a virtual limit of an EC bet and I have just seen 20 spins hitting only 2 Reds,I can assume that in rest of 80 spins, at least 28 more Reds are likely. 28/80 could be easier to handle than 30/100. Isn't it? Even if there are only 20 hits in the rest of 80 spins, we still escaped an absolutely unbeatable stretch by not betting during the first 20 spins giving us merely 2 wins. Please contradict me sensibly.

Sir,
I could not disagree anymore...
you are absolutely right.
(You already posses a hg.)

I rest my case and forever grateful to you.
You are second to none in gambling knowledge!

by the way...what the worst ever known dz/100?
Thanks.

Without engaging with you, at least in baccarat (similar to the Black/Red comparison) in my experience really bad sessions/downturns/losing streaks, etc., are usually followed by 'better' presentments which are easier if you can hold your same frame-of-mind with your bet selections and recoup or at least come close to recouping.  Moving/Playing past recouping and profiting is extremely difficult to capitalize on due to emotions, psych and financial concerns for most all players, again IMO. 

Huge problem being, is the player's frame of mind and his ability to recognize the presentments and capitalize on them so close to the emotional and financial drain that just happened.

But as you said, there is, let us say, a good opportunity that will resurface after the bad patch subsides.   

Again, in my experience I state the above.

The worst after several million of spins - 5.35 - same as winning the lottery :-)

QuoteThe worst after several million of spins - 5.35 - same as winning the lottery :-)

can you showcase the worst ones available to you?

A very bad patch is itself rare, its repetition is "the rarest of rare" thing to happen and "successive rarest of rares" are so remote, nobody most likely will see them in lifetime.

Nope, at least when playing at baccarat.

Since any shoe is the product of a definite card distribution, we do not know if previous very bad patterns will be followed by favourable patterns. Not in the same shoe, not in the next ones.

Sayed that, you are absolutely correct that we should investigate the fluctuations in term of sigma values.
But such fluctuations must be restricted in the correct terms, again it's the bet selection which helps.

I'm 100% certain that no one bac pit would be happy to have me, you, Sputnik and Alrelax playing together.

Probably Al is the best player to transform the "bad" in "good", you are a master to control the deviations, me and Sputnik will do the rest. :-)

as. 

Quotewe do not know if previous very bad patterns will be followed by favourable patterns. Not in the same shoe, not in the next ones.

That would be fallacious to think of. A bad one may or may not be followed by a good one. Nothing for sure.
Only sure thing is, from 1 or 2 in 20 to 3 in 10 to 5 in 10 has to happen. Compensatory wins might never happen even if the worst has just happened. My assertion is based upon a statistical principal of Regression towards mean. A working formula makes me safe during the worst possible and to recover later and not pushing too much in the worst like 30/100.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 17, 2019, 04:35:18 AM
A working formula makes me safe during the worst possible and to recover later and not pushing too much in the worst like 30/100.

I believe you, yet imo the problem lies in the word "later". How much later?

In my blog I've presented an "unbeatable progression", meaning that it can't be overcome by the worst successions in the world (ok, almost). Still without a proper bet selection, a player utilizing such progression could easily stay in the negative zone for a long time.

That's not a conceptual problem, of course, but a practical problem as the vast majority of players want to win or breaking even at least per every session played.

And this is just the main reason why players go at home broke.

as. 
 

QuoteI believe you, yet imo the problem lies in the word "later". How much later?

When a certain % of total wins vs losses come gradually.

Remember, it is about Regression towards Mean. Do not mix it with any fallacy like "compensatory wins has to come" etc.

All negative progressions fail due to their limits. Martingale fails itself if it is a single big bad stretch going too long, beyond its capacity. A labby or fibonacci loses if the wins are less than 1/3rd of the total outcome. Those forget this fundamental, has to lose.

Gradually is the keyword and we can't define it in exact number of trials but we can have some rough estimates regarding the virtual limits which are almost unbreakable. I gave 28/80 example which is purely beatable with a little aggressive progression like labby.

Come up with a data where we have only 2 wins in 20 spins and the later 80 spins have less than 28 wins.  I won't die even if this happens somehow due to the RTM principles.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 21, 2019, 06:01:17 AM
Come up with a data where we have only 2 wins in 20 spins and the later 80 spins have less than 28 wins.  I won't die even if this happens somehow due to the RTM principles.

I fear this could happen, a couple of years ago i've watched a shoe unbelievably shifted to Banker's side followed by another one where Player seemed to be an inexistent option. I can't' say how many Players had come out, I remember the display where the sixth row was almost horizontally filled with red dots crossing the streaks several times.
There was just one player betting $20.000 a hand (maximum limit) and I remember floormen whispering "at least we are collecting the 5% commission" LOL.
At the end this guy had his seat literally filled with white and 25k chips and shared four bottles of the most expensive champagne to everyrone being there.

I've never seen a thing like that in my millions of pc generated shoes data, that's why I stress about the importance to consider how good or bad the LIVE shoes are shuffled.

as. 

A 30/100 would look as much horrible as you seem to witness. Since you did not count it, you can not tell perfectly. The average number of cards per hand is 4.94. Assuming 15 burn cards, a six-deck baccarat shoe would have about 60 hands. You might have seen only 7-10 wins in a shoe or even more that will look nearly non existent in front of a big array of losses.
                     I say, if there is even a 60 hands with only 6 wins for my bet, I won't bleed dry there. I would lose the least possible betting there, betting all hands and may recover all in the next two normal shoes. Most likely, I will recover very easily. If I play after a very bad patch, most likely, there will be no bet during the first shoe.

I gathered some worst of the worst data, specially on Player bet in Baccarat, which is considered weaker than its counterpart yet appeals to me due to no commission and easy progression calculations. Progressive betting upon Banker is a disaster due to commissions, one must know this fact.
            Beating the worst is becoming my forte, be it the worst number of zumma american roulette, zumma baccarat, Wizards of odds 2000 shoes, all playing all over and within a reasonable bet limit.

Should I feel I have got a personalized Holy Grail with me or it's a delusion merely?

What exactly is a "very bad patch"?

In numerical terms, it is not easy to define but let me try. For an EC bet, I believe 30 spins to be a virtual limit of one hit and therefore, 1 to 6 hits in 30 spins is a very bad patch and highly unlikely to repeat further. 9 wins in 50 spins/hands is the worst I found so far. It is merely an idea of how Regression towards mean work and no bet is good or bad perpetually and even after the worst of worst hit rate, it will ultimately hover near its mathematically expected hit rate.

QuoteIn my blog I've presented an "unbeatable progression", meaning that it can't be overcome by the worst successions in the world (ok, almost). Still without a proper bet selection, a player utilizing such progression could easily stay in the negative zone for a long time.

   Where is that? Link please.