While it is a topic that deserves too much attention and innovation, I see absolutely no work on it.
Why can't we create an MM that fights with randomness for long sustaining through worst of it and ultimately winning when variance cools down to the level of the house edge alone or closer?If you analyse any bet, you will find that after a reasonable span of time, a bet gets smooth enough to be beaten. All the extremes of variance are temporary and gradually every bet confirms to the mathematical expectancy attached to it, including the house edge. We see all the progressions meant for few spins or a small session. Have anybody ever thought of a long term progression? By long term, I mean like a progression for an EC for 500 spins or 1000 spins for a dozen or may be until we get a net win.
Long term doesn't only mean a single long session of thousands of spins but could be for 10 or 20 sessions or more taken together as long run.
Hello dear Sumit,
When you talk about progression for long sessions, I can relate it to progression in the style of the "boom" technique for a single number; rising the base unit back and forth, consciously.
ie. after two missed tries player goes back to minimal unit while keeping track of current unit size. Later on right after a successful attack the player resumes further attacks back at the same tracked unit size level.
When dealing with measuring after those 200-some "short" sessions, -likewise- a boom-style money management for several numbers at a time (working cooperatively) can be worth a try.
With the added benefit of knowing there's a clear stop-loss “check-point”, with no chasing.
P.S. Another LONG progression coming to my mind is the progression in risk comprised by six (6) 36-unit parachutes, with strategy:
- Start one after the other at the even-chance level.
- On a hit you use the parachute covering the least (and hence paying more).
- On a loss, you use the parachute(s) covering the most (to try to get the much-needed hits to sustain the game in order to stay the longest).
This technique was widely studied at some spanish-speaking study groups. Over the English-speaking forums it was member GGasoft who advocated it.
I believe that we can discard martingale, Labouchere and Fibonacci type super aggressive progressions that none can afford to use being realistic of the obvious failures that we can face any moment. They are of course not meant for playing for the long run.
Oscar's Grind or raising +1 on a win and betting the same on losses is one of the long run progressions suggested. It is still better than many other conventional progressions but still, any simulation of long run proves it as a failure because it fails to earn unless we get a good streak of wins after losses. A normal flow of wins and losses could create many layers that it fails to break.
Hi Albalaha,
in your blog, you say...
===========================
Every bet selection reaches at its break even point minus house edge in long run
I do have my own set of trackers and bots. I have extensively tested all bet selections over millions of spins. In long run, say in 3700 spins (100 cycles of all numbers) or more, every bet selection gets to its break even point minus house edge. This applies very accurately to outside bets.
This fact ensures profit for casinos unless a player get lucky streaks and he could capitalize that too.
So 3700 spins is the long run?
What happens when you have done 100 of these long runs and you now have 370000 spins?
Doesn't that make your 3700 spins look like a short run, or hit and run?
I'm confused..
Hi Albalaha,
you say,
------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Virtual limit of persistent bad doing bets, in my observations(in european roulette):
straight up:only 4 hits in 1000 spins
split: only 15 hits in 1000 spins
street: only 40 hits in 1000 spins
corner: 60 hits in 1000 spins
line bet: 110 hits in 1000 spins
column/dozen: 250 hits in 1000 spins
EC bet: 405 hits in 1000 spins
double dozens/columns: 575 hits in 1000 spins
unquote.
----------------------
Thus, if we could have a progression, that beat, say,
EC bet: 405 hits in 1000 spins,
win=+405u,
lose=595u,
losses=-190...
then we need to have a progression,
that recoup -190losses,
by 405hits.
=====================================
or win, at least 1u, with only 405hits/1000spins!!!
that's a grail!!!
Greenguy,
3700, is assumed,
that all bet may around BREAKEVEN.
If you bet flat, u may win, or lose,
accordingly to your ladyluck.
Say, if we see, that a single number sleeps for 500spins, then you may bet that single, continuously, to 3700th spin.
and hopefully, as, or if it breakeven earlier, then you win, even before the 3700th spin.
column/dozen: 250 hits in 1000 spins
then, if you can,
250x2=+500u
losses=1000-250=-750.
losses=750-500.=-250
if you can figure out, how to recoup,
-250losses, by 250hits,
or win, with only 250hits/1000spins...
then you got a way to win...constantly.
Quote from: greenguy on March 17, 2016, 07:14:13 AM
So 3700 spins is the long run?
What happens when you have done 100 of these long runs and you now have 370000 spins?
Doesn't that make your 3700 spins look like a short run, or hit and run?
I'm confused..
3700 spins could be considered long run for an EC bet but I have defined it far better in this topic:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400636/Long-run-in-gambling#.Vup3uNJ97IU
Quotethen we need to have a progression,
that recoup -195losses,
by 405hits.
=====================================
or win, at least 1u, with only 405hits/1000spins!!!
that's a grail!!!
Absolutely.
You won't find any such progression that can beat 405/1000 wins of an EC in all patterns they can appear.
Quote from: Albalaha on September 27, 2014, 08:54:53 AM
While it is a topic that deserves too much attention and innovation, I see absolutely no work on it.
Why can't we create an MM that fights with randomness for long sustaining through worst of it and ultimately winning when variance cools down to the level of the house edge alone or closer?If you analyse any bet, you will find that after a reasonable span of time, a bet gets smooth enough to be beaten. All the extremes of variance are temporary and gradually every bet confirms to the mathematical expectancy attached to it, including the house edge. We see all the progressions meant for few spins or a small session. Have anybody ever thought of a long term progression? By long term, I mean like a progression for an EC for 500 spins or 1000 spins for a dozen or may be until we get a net win.
Long term doesn't only mean a single long session of thousands of spins but could be for 10 or 20 sessions or more taken together as long run.
It seems to me that the problem lies in the impossible task of measuring variance. We can only guess at it and perhaps calculate the outer limits of SD.
Labby, Fib, Marty, etc. out? Yes. D'Alembert? Not so fast. Sorry to be a one horse show but this endeavor always brings me back to S. Bailey contemplating the flaw of D'Alembert and refining it to adjust to variance with various mechanical or semi-mechanical progressions. A favorite of mine (and his) is -X, +X; Flat. Whereby we go up 1 on a loss and if win stay at that level until a loss then go up 1 again. Of course adjustments can be made to taste and not always have the same unit size for both sides.
Variance comes in as a matter of perception or SD if one could calculate risk of ruin for a win/loss "likely" sequence. So how does one accomplish this to gain a net profit?
It's mostly guessing of course but there are limitations that one can count on. Baccarat shoes: I know that in the 5000 + shoes I've logged the lowest I've ever gone is a 32% hit rate within about 60 or 70 "spins" and that is rare. The overwhelming majority of closed spin sessions are going to be between 47% and 53% I'd guess.
So when you begin to go south you got to increase but only to a point. But when you go too far south you got to decrease. At some point when a north trend begins you must increase. Maybe incorporating rules such as Seth uses with "Turnaround" or his latest stuff to help soften the curve. Half back, Cut back, dump and pump . . . ?? Big bankroll required.
This whole concept reminds me of "Price Cost Averaging" (not Dollar Cost Averaging) whereby algorithm used to buy as stocks drop and sell as they rise. Works wonderfully for cyclical movements such as we are dealing with.
J
D'alembert or its other variants do work upto a particular stage and is not meant to work well in long run thereby. When there is a very bad stretch going like 25 wins in 100 spins or anything alike, it goes so bad that later it never gets to recover, in any manner. After extreme bad sessions, very good ones can not be expected always and in expectation of getting "corrective" wins, we get "not so good" time and "below average" times that makes it failure.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 17, 2016, 05:30:59 PM
D'alembert or its other variants do work upto a particular stage and is not meant to work well in long run thereby. When there is a very bad stretch going like 25 wins in 100 spins or anything alike, it goes so bad that later it never gets to recover, in any manner. After extreme bad sessions, very good ones can not be expected always and in expectation of getting "corrective" wins, we get "not so good" time and "below average" times that makes it failure.
I guess you weren't paying attention. The D'Alembert like ALL progressions are failures without being able to take a measurement of losing trends and make adjustments. My example above is just to demonstrate such an adjustment. When one uses the -X, +X; FLAT or a variant offset it ceases to be a D'Alembert.
You can have the last word. I just wanted to add my 2 cents about the progressions.
J
Going by Albalaha's finding,
then,
in an oversimplified example,
if we see, say,
an EC sleep for 10spins,
then there will at least 405/990spins.
thus a 'worst' table below.
sleep for...
0 spin=405hits/1000spins.[40.5%]
10spins=405hits/990spins.[40.9%]
20spins=405hits/980spins.[41%]
30spins=405hits/970spins.[41.7%]
to...
190spins=405/810spins=breakeven?!
=====================
BlueAngel's marthy 1234...stepping up every 37cycle,
I wonder...,
"could yours win, if only 405/100hits???"
in whatever patterns they can appear.???
BlueAngel? You read this?
Let say,
in an OVERSSIMPLIFIED hypothesis.
EC sleeps for 404spins, then if we bet falt, then at 404th spin, we have -404u losses,
then we need a streak of 405win, to win 1u,
1st spin=lose..=-1u
to
404th spin=lose=-404u.[405win/remaining=596spins]
the problem , is there still 190losing spins to tackle!
Then how are we going to "progress"???
-----------------------------------------------------------
in whatever patterns they can appear.???
If we start betting from the 1st spin???
Quote from: Jimske on March 18, 2016, 12:51:07 AM
I guess you weren't paying attention. The D'Alembert like ALL progressions are failures without being able to take a measurement of losing trends and make adjustments. My example above is just to demonstrate such an adjustment. When one uses the -X, +X; FLAT or a variant offset it ceases to be a D'Alembert.
You can have the last word. I just wanted to add my 2 cents about the progressions.
J
I appreciate your inputs but a demonstration over a session that starts too bad and later only gets average, will help more to establish your viewpoints as to how do you expect it to work. Every MM is good enough for an average session but I am talking of when extreme comes followed by "normal" flow of wins.
I've always thought that you could run a progression deep enough to allow you to withstand most any negative outcome. There's an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with what seem to be an unbreakable style of play. But, there are practical consideration in that for his style ya need a 10 000 units lifetimes bankroll and ya need to have access to tables offering the fat spread so you can make a max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. I said it again and I'll say it before, in the end it boils down to havin the balls and bankroll baby, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on March 18, 2016, 06:42:31 PM
...balss and bankroll baby...
No argument here. ^-^
Quote from: soxfan on March 18, 2016, 06:42:31 PM
I've always thought that you could run a progression deep enough to allow you to withstand most any negative outcome. There's an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with what seem to be an unbreakable style of play. But, there are practical consideration in that for his style ya need a 10 000 units lifetimes bankroll and ya need to have access to tables offering the fat spread so you can make a max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. I said it again and I'll say it before, in the end it boils down to havin the balls and bankroll baby, hey hey.
Can you reproduce that MM for evaluation here? If it is set to win, a bet of 1000 or a bankroll of 20k units is OK for me. Let us see that.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 19, 2016, 03:47:44 AM
Can you reproduce that MM for evaluation here? If it is set to win, a bet of 1000 or a bankroll of 20k units is OK for me. Let us see that.
Sorry, I promised the old Armenian cat that I wouldn't divulge the beans and reveal the specific of his play. So, I can only speak generally, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on March 19, 2016, 04:38:54 AM
Sorry, I promised the old Armenian cat that I wouldn't divulge the beans and reveal the specific of his play. So, I can only speak generally, hey hey.
Have you verified his claim? Can it pass through the worst of cases and winning at last?
Quote from: soxfan on March 19, 2016, 04:38:54 AM
Sorry, I promised the old Armenian cat that I wouldn't divulge the beans and reveal the specific of his play. So, I can only speak generally, hey hey.
Can you speak about the progression and not the specific style of play
Quote from: Albalaha on March 19, 2016, 06:49:20 AM
Have you verified his claim? Can it pass through the worst of cases and winning at last?
I tested his style of play bucking up against what would equal about six month of dice action and it was good for about 33 units profit per hour, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on March 19, 2016, 05:15:29 PM
I tested his style of play bucking up against what would equal about six month of dice action and it was good for about 33 units profit per hour, hey hey.
It better have a big return! ROI and all that. Deep progressions are going to have a high average bet size and therefore when win should hit a high per hour rate.
Quote from: Big EZ on March 19, 2016, 01:22:12 PM
Can you speak about the progression and not the specific style of play
The progression/mm scheme IS his style of play as he always make the same bet, hey hey.
In his latest that shrewd Seth cat show how you can win regular using the deep negative progression, hey hey.
http://targetbetting.blogspot.ca/
I simulated Seth's "Turnaround" system years ago and it was a loser. The guy makes some outrageous claims and just plain weird statements on his site, such as the Wizard of Odds is a shill for the casinos. How can anyone who debunks gambling systems be considered a shill? A shill would be someone who PROMOTES systems, not exposes them as worthless. In other words, a shill is someone like Seth!
I wrote to Seth Theobeau @Ian Palmer regarding his methodology and he replied me through emails. I presented his ideas here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400639/Seth-Theobeau-Ian-Palmer-wisdom#.Vu6Eo-J97IU
I simulated his ideas and as expected, it tanked badly. Reason was the wrong assumptions he based his MM upon. Unless you understand the reason of a disease, there is no chance of finding a cure.
So far Wizard of Odds is considered, his site was meant to earn commission from casinos and he was also into arranging tours of LV and Macau.
Lastly he sold his site to latestcasinobonuses.com which is the biggest affiliate of online casinos having thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of views. Topics regarding gambling were written not with the purpose of enlightening gamblers but to catch their attentions and show them links of various casinos.
If someone think such sites are meant for any noble purposes, he needs urgent psychiatrist help. Same is the case with another very popular affiliate site: casinomiester.com .
Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 11:19:12 AM
So far Wizard of Odds is considered, his site was meant to earn commission from casinos and he was also into arranging tours of LV and Macau.
So what? Your reply is disingenuous; there is a huge amount of useful information for gamblers on his site, and he has exposed a number of unfair gambling practices over the years. More to the point, he doesn't mislead gamblers into thinking that there is some magic system or progression which will overcome the house edge in NE games.
The affiliate ads are there because no one could reasonably be expected to put so much effort into a website and expect no return. Would you?
Quote from: Mike on March 20, 2016, 12:07:16 PM
So what? Your reply is disingenuous; there is a huge amount of useful information for gamblers on his site, and he has exposed a number of unfair gambling practices over the years. More to the point, he doesn't mislead gamblers into thinking that there is some magic system or progression which will overcome the house edge in NE games.
The affiliate ads are there because no one could reasonably be expected to put so much effort into a website and expect no return. Would you?
It seems you are awestruck of his so called useless info. Even a guy who studied maths till Xth can understand all that. People ask most silly questions there like what is the probability of getting 20 blacks in a row etc. He is merely a commission agent and better maths can be understood with high school books than upon his site. It doesn't need an expert level knowledge to understand that it is not easy to win in gambling. We do not need professors or CPAs to tell all these.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 12:29:34 PM
Even a guy who studied maths till Xth can understand all that.
So why don't YOU? In my experience most gamblers are utterly clueless about the math, they don't even know what the house edge means.
If you understood the math you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to find the "perfect" progression, or asking others to help you find it.
Quote from: Mike on March 20, 2016, 09:04:51 AM
I simulated Seth's "Turnaround" system years ago and it was a loser. The guy makes some outrageous claims and just plain weird statements on his site, such as the Wizard of Odds is a shill for the casinos. How can anyone who debunks gambling systems be considered a shill? A shill would be someone who PROMOTES systems, not exposes them as worthless. In other words, a shill is someone like Seth!
I tested that Seth cat's Target style and it worked well, but need a large bankroll, hey hey.
albalaha, earn it, sum it or whatever your name is,
1) Post a session with 25 wins out of 100 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
2) Post a session with 66 wins out of 200 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
Then I'll show you what's the meaning of this topic.
Are you ready?
I'm waiting...
Quote from: Mike on March 20, 2016, 12:40:18 PM
So why don't YOU? In my experience most gamblers are utterly clueless about the math, they don't even know what the house edge means.
If you understood the math you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to find the "perfect" progression, or asking others to help you find it.
I believe in working to better things and not in whining that it is unbeatable like Michael Shackleford and yet he refers casinos to join with his referral links to earn commission which is much more in the nature of a shameless exercise.
I believe in out of box innovation to make things better. If I believe the game to be unbeatable why would I be in a gambling forum? Why are you here in a gambling forum after knowing there is no hope?
A perfect progression needs lots of working, improvements and re working and winning in long run is not impossible. I beaten over 10 million spins earlier to prove this. That was based upon calculations that were not humanly possible. I want to better that.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 20, 2016, 03:18:10 PM
albalaha, earn it, sum it or whatever your name is,
1) Post a session with 25 wins out of 100 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
2) Post a session with 66 wins out of 200 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
Then I'll show you what's the meaning of this topic.
Are you ready?
I'm waiting...
Interesting. Will you play every bet?
This is the first one. Please go ahead.
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 03:39:58 PM
This is the first one. Please go ahead.
R=result B=bet T=total ME=minimum expectation
R B T ME
L 1 -1 25
L 1 -2 25
L 1 -3 25
W 1 -2 24
L 1 -3 24
L 1 -4 24
L 1 -5 24
L 1 -6 24
L 1 -7 24
L 1 -8 24
W 1 -7 23
L 1 -8 23
W 1 -7 22
L 1 -8 22
L 1 -9 22
W 1 -8 21
L 1 -9 21
L 1 -10 21
W 1 -9 20
L 1 -10 20
L 1 -11 20
L 1 -12 20
W 1 -11 19
L 1 -12 19
L 1 -13 19
L 1 -14 19
L 1 -15 19
L 1 -16 19
L 1 -17 19
L 1 -18 19
L 1 -19 19
L 2 -21 38
L 2 -23 38
L 2 -25 38
L 2 -27 38
L 2 -29 38
L 2 -31 38
W 2 -29 36
L 2 -31 36
L 2 -33 36
L 2 -35 36
W 2 -33 34
L 2 -35 34
L 3 -38 51
W 3 -35 48
L 3 -38 48
W 3 -35 45
L 3 -38 45
L 3 -41 45
W 3 -38 42
L 3 -41 42
L 3 -44 42
W 4 -40 52
L 4 -44 52
L 4 -48 52
W 4 -44 48
L 4 -48 48
L 5 -53 60
L 5 -58 60
W 5 -53 55
L 5 -58 55
L 6 -64 66
W 6 -58 60
L 6 -64 60
L 7 -71 70
L 8 -79 80
W 8 -71 72
L 8 -79 72
L 9 -88 81
W 10 -78 80
L 10 -88 80
L 12 -100 96
W 13 -87 91
L 13 -100 91
L 15 -115 105
L 17 -132 119
L 19 -151 133
L 22 -173 154
W 25 -148 150
L 25 -173 150
L 29 -202 174
L 34 -236 204
L 40 -276 240
W 47 -229 235
W 47 -182 188
L 47 -229 188
L 58 -287 232
L 72 -359 288
L 90 -449 360
L 113 -562 452
L 141 -703 564
W 176 -527 528
L 176 -703 528
L 235 -938 705
W 313 -625 626
L 313 -938 626
W 470 -468 470
L 470 -938 470
L 939 -1877 939
W 1878 +1 0
Looks like a standard martingale or negative progression. Your last bet would be $ 187,800 if you were betting $ 100 a unit in baccarat.
I think even Bill Gates would begin to sweat that bet.
Quote from: tdx on March 20, 2016, 05:30:58 PM
Looks like a standard martingale or negative progression. Your last bet would be $ 187,800 if you were betting $ 100 a unit in baccarat.
I think even Bill Gates would begin to sweat that bet.
That's true my friend, but can you do better with such bad results??
Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 03:39:58 PM
This is the first one. Please go ahead.
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
Do those w/l result represent roulettes dozen or even chance, hey hey?
Quote from: soxfan on March 20, 2016, 05:44:00 PM
Do those w/l result represent roulettes dozen or even chance, hey hey?
Even Chances, but not so even after all!:-)
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 20, 2016, 05:48:29 PM
Even Chances, but not so even after all!:-)
Dang, if that represented dozen outcome I could have made a little cake. I have never encountered anything that bad at the baccarats, hey hey.
Indeed, it's rare because there is no worse!
But the solution is not in changing my progression, there isn't better progression to handle such negative outcomes.
Let's take a step further and establish some intervals every 100 outcomes...
From 25 wins out of 100 results we are arriving on the next interval of 66 wins out of 200 outcomes.
Let's assume that the first 100 and the next 100 are from the same session, 25/100 is 25% while 66/200 is 33%.
As you see from the first checkpoint to the next there is an increasement of 8% (33-25=8).
We could expect a similar increasement (8%) within the next set of 100 results which means approximately 40% of 300 outcomes or 120 wins VS 180 losses.
It's becoming apparently clear that regression towards the mean takes place after extreme deviations, so by expanding the event's horizon we're moving closer towards the mean and in return help us to recover smoothly.
This is where the solution lays and could be applicable in practical terms (within limits of time and money)
With my style I could capture regular nice profit winning just 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bet, depending of course how those w/l cluster, hey hey.
First of all, I appreciate blue angel's efforts but to cross check if his same progression holds in a lesser harsh 64/200 or not I am giving another session. If the same methodology beats this session too, it is worth checking since even marty or labby would have failed to win this session even with much higher bets.
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
Quote
From 25 wins out of 100 results we are arriving on the next interval of 66 wins out of 200 outcomes.
Let's assume that the first 100 and the next 100 are from the same session, 25/100 is 25% while 66/200 is 33%.
As you see from the first checkpoint to the next there is an increasement of 8% (33-25=8).
We could expect a similar increasement (8%) within the next set of 100 results which means approximately 40% of 300 outcomes or 120 wins VS 180 losses.
It's becoming apparently clear that regression towards the mean takes place after extreme deviations, so by expanding the event's horizon we're moving closer towards the mean and in return help us to recover smoothly.
This is where the solution lays and could be applicable in practical terms (within limits of time and money)
Very true and this is what we need to work upon as a progression of long run. Let's see if your methodology works to beat this 64/200 with same idea.
Regression towards mean starts to help with further wins going closer to average gradually but we can't guess the span after which it should start to work in our favour and that is why we need to think of longer like 500 or even 1000 spins progression to win at last. We might not win all types of 25/100 or 66/200 but for sure the worst of 1000,i.e. 405/1000.
Quote from: soxfan on March 20, 2016, 06:47:36 PM
With my style I could capture regular nice profit winning just 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bet, depending of course how those w/l cluster, hey hey.
even Oscar's Grind wins in 20 losses vs 6 wins
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW W
BUT it doesn't make it a winner in 17% wins in different styles, hence useless.
We can't get wins in our desired way, hence something working in different varieties is needed.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 21, 2016, 03:42:27 AM
Very true and this is what we need to work upon as a progression of long run. Let's see if your methodology works to beat this 64/200 with same idea.
I said 66 wins out of 200 results, not 64.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 21, 2016, 08:36:23 AM
I said 66 wins out of 200 results, not 64.
Add two more wins anywhere u prefer after first 11 wins and then try.
R=result B=bet T=total ME=minimum expectation
R B T ME
L 1 -1 66
L 1 -2 66
L 1 -3 66
L 1 -4 66
W 1 -3 65
L 1 -4 65
L 1 -5 65
L 1 -6 65
W 1 -5 64
L 1 -6 64
L 1 -7 64
W 1 -6 63
L 1 -7 63
L 1 -8 63
L 1 -9 63
L 1 -10 63
L 1 -11 63
L 1 -12 63
L 1 -13 63
L 1 -14 63
W 1 -13 62
L 1 -14 62
W 1 -13 61
L 1 -14 61
L 1 -15 61
W 1 -14 60
L 1 -15 60
W 1 -14 59
L 1 -15 59
W 1 -14 58
L 1 -15 58
L 1 -16 58
W 1 -15 57
W 1 -14 56
L 1 -15 56
L 1 -16 56
L 1 -17 56
W 1 -16 55
L 1 -17 55
L 1 -18 55
L 1 -19 55
L 1 -20 55
W 1 -19 54
L 1 -20 54
L 1 -21 54
L 1 -22 54
W 1 -21 53
L 1 -22 53
L 1 -23 53
L 1 -24 53
W 1 -23 52
L 1 -24 52
L 1 -25 52
W 1 -24 51
L 1 -25 51
L 1 -26 51
W 1 -25 50
L 1 -26 50
L 1 -27 50
L 1 -28 50
L 1 -29 50
L 1 -30 50
L 1 -31 50
L 1 -32 50
L 1 -33 50
L 1 -34 50
L 1 -35 50
L 1 -36 50
W 1 -35 49
L 1 -36 49
L 1 -37 49
W 1 -36 48
W 1 -35 47
L 1 -36 47
L 1 -37 47
L 1 -38 47
W 1 -37 46
L 1 -38 46
L 1 -39 46
L 1 -40 46
L 1 -41 46
W 1 -40 45
L 1 -41 45
L 1 -42 45
W 1 -41 44
L 1 -42 44
L 1 -43 44
L 1 -44 44
W 2 -42 86
L 2 -44 86
L 2 -46 86
L 2 -48 86
L 2 -50 86
W 2 -48 84
L 2 -50 84
L 2 -52 84
L 2 -54 84
W 2 -52 82
L 2 -54 82
W 2 -52 80
L 2 -54 80
L 2 -56 80
W 2 -54 78
L 2 -56 78
L 2 -58 78
W 2 -56 76
L 2 -58 76
W 2 -56 74
L 2 -58 74
W 2 -56 72
L 2 -58 72
L 2 -60 72
W 2 -58 70
L 2 -60 70
L 2 -62 70
W 2 -60 68
L 2 -62 68
L 2 -64 68
W 2 -62 66
L 2 -64 66
L 2 -66 66
L 3 -69 99
W 3 -66 96
L 3 -69 96
L 3 -72 96
W 3 -69 93
L 3 -72 93
L 3 -75 93
W 3 -72 90
L 3 -75 90
L 3 -78 90
W 3 -75 87
L 3 -78 87
W 3 -75 84
L 3 -78 84
L 3 -81 84
W 3 -78 81
L 3 -81 81
L 4 -85 108
W 4 -81 104
L 4 -85 104
L 4 -89 104
L 4 -93 104
W 4 -89 100
L 4 -93 100
W 4 -89 96
L 4 -93 96
L 4 -97 96
W 5 -92 115
W 5 -87 110
L 5 -92 110
L 5 -97 110
L 5 -102 110
L 5 -107 110
L 5 -112 110
W 6 -106 126
L 6 -112 126
W 6 -106 120
L 6 -112 120
W 6 -106 114
L 6 -112 114
W 6 -106 108
L 6 -112 108
L 7 -119 126
W 7 -112 119
L 7 -119 119
L 8 -127 136
W 8 -119 128
W 8 -111 120
L 8 -119 120
L 8 -127 120
W 9 -118 126
L 9 -127 126
L 10 -137 140
L 10 -147 140
W 11 -136 143
W 11 -125 132
L 11 -136 132
W 12 -124 132
L 12 -136 132
L 13 -149 143
W 14 -135 140
L 14 -149 140
W 15 -134 135
L 15 -149 135
L 17 -166 153
W 19 -147 152
L 19 -166 152
L 21 -187 168
W 24 -163 168
W 24 -139 144
L 24 -163 144
L 28 -191 168
W 32 -159 160
L 32 -191 160
W 39 -152 156
W 39 -113 117
W 39 -74 78
W 39 -35 39
W 39 +4 0
Cheers!
Hey Blue,
I assume that this is different than the other (HG) method that you posted.
Can you post the rules?...........looks like a smaller dd than the other................or perhaps that's just the numbers selected.
Thanks! :thumbsup:
Dear Blue Angel,
Are you sure it is a mechanical way to play? I can see that in first session u played with 1 unit for about 30 spins. In 2nd session you played with 1 unit for too long. Can you describe how a method is being played actually and how do you calculate your next bet?
Thanks in anticipation
and Kudos for trying to fight with extreme.
I thought it was pretty obvious the way it works.
I don't share something like this if I don't have something better...
So this betting plan begins by defining the minimum expectation for any given bet selection within a specific amount of results.
If we know the minimum possible expectation then we use it in combination with the respective payout of our selection.
The payout and the minimum expectation are creating the progression, the progression I've used in the above examples.
The second example was smoother, milder than the first because the minimum expectation moved towards the probability, in other words its deviation declined as the total of spins increased.
This is what we call regression towards the mean and both of the above examples are VERY extreme occasions!
Let's say that 66 wins out of 200 results is the minimum possible for any EC, 66/200 is roughly 1/3, BUT it's different to use the one third of 30 results and different of 300 or even 3000.
As the total of outcomes increases events tend to average out as their probability indicates, in small samples such as 30 or 50 results we could experience huge deviations from probability.
This is what we call law of large numbers.
Back to my mathematical progression, I prefer to use a minimum expectation of a relatively large total of results because I know that sooner or later I'm going to achieve my minimum expectation.
To be more specific, I believe that this total should be between 222 to 333 outcomes if we are talking about EC on roulette.
222 spins are 6 x 37 and 333 are 9 x 37, anywhere within those spins even the most extreme deviation can be tamed as the time passes by.
So we have to be careful and conservative in the beginning and act more drastically as time is on our side.
If I establish my minimum expectation on 100 wins out of 300 results most likely I'm going to get these 100 wins before I bet 300 times, by the time I achieve my 100th win I must be in positive balance.
Every time I win my bet I deduct from the minimum expectation the same amount I just won from my bet, if I raise my bet to 2 units I'm multiplying the remaining wins by 2, if I raise my bet to 3 units I multiply the remaining wins by 3 and so on...
However there is an "Achilles heel" in my progression, if I'm in negative balance and the remaining wins are too few, like 1 or 2, at that time the bets would increase rapidly like Martingale.
If the last expected win is far from the before last win and on the same time I'm in negative balance my bets would increase like Martingale.
If this happens during I'm in positive balance, it's not problem because I can stop right there and restart from scratch.
Of course I've found a solution for the other case but I'm not going to share it with you, I've already told you enough.
The system that always wins but little ...
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=260.msg1949#msg1949
Quote
After reading the discussion on Johnson progression and Belgian, it was created a similar system.
The system starts from the following assumptions:
-the selection of the spin does NOT exist (but if the players think they have one, so much better and win more easily)
-it comes to exploiting a financial strategy that, necessarily, must be very sophisticated or even very complicated;
-in 100 spins on the EC, it is impossible for a player NOT win at least 22 spins;
-the yield is 4%(not very high) of strokes played.
So in a pattern of registration there will be about 100 spins, losers spins (78) CP, surely winning spins (22) CV and the winning goal (4) OV.
CP, CV and OV are linked together by a formula that indicates the bet after each spin.
So, you can imagine, every attack closes at the 22nd win into 100 spins. It could be at the 100° spin (bad luck!) Or after 22 spins if we win them all in a row (Lucky!).
BET = losers spins (CP) 78 + Objective of winning (OV) 20 (ie 4 pieces of 5 €), all divided by the winning spins (CV) 22.
The first bet will be of 5 euro (approximately in excess).
If you win the next BET is 78 + 15 (3 pieces from 5 euro), all divided by 21.
If you lose instead the BET is 77 + 25 (4 pieces of OV, plus 5 euro lost), all divided by 22 and so on.
Three suggestions for simplify things:
- Play in the differential mode, if possible;
- Do not play the system "continuously". Therefore, at each winning a piece, then starts again. The yield is still 4% of strokes played, and the games will be less time duration;
- Winning goal (OV), the formula must be ZERO! Yes, Zero, AWESOME! Why?
Explanation: it is clear that in 100 spins, the system closes as soon as you have reached the 22nd winning.
If the 22nd winning happens at the 100th spin, we will be in equal position after maybe we lost 4 hours at the table for anything, but it does not practically happen.
If the 22nd win happens to the 50th or 60th spin (very often!) or even earlier, however, we will have a win that will always be equal, ON AVERAGE, the difference between winning spins and lost spins.
I open a parenthesis, that will be useful later when you try to build your own system.
If instead of playing on simple chances,EC , you want apply such formula on dozens:
BET: CP + OG, all divided for CV and then multiplied for 2(the dozen pays 2 pieces), 11 would be multiplied if we play on triplets, 35 multiplied if we play on plein number, etc.
It is important to set the correct parameters of winning and losing spins.
In the case of Belgian system, it would used as parameters that in 200 spins i expect to win 65 spins(because i know that at least black or red will reach that level) and 135 lost spins.
CP=135 OG=0 or what you prefer CV=65
First bet is: 135/65 = 2 euro
I hope i gave you some good idea.
[end quote]
Quote from: BetJack on March 21, 2016, 04:50:16 PM
The system that always wins but little ...
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=260.msg1949#msg1949
Quote
After reading the discussion on Johnson progression and Belgian, it was created a similar system.
The system starts from the following assumptions:
-the selection of the spin does NOT exist (but if the players think they have one, so much better and win more easily)
-it comes to exploiting a financial strategy that, necessarily, must be very sophisticated or even very complicated;
-in 100 spins on the EC, it is impossible for a player NOT win at least 22 spins;
-the yield is 4%(not very high) of strokes played.
So in a pattern of registration there will be about 100 spins, losers spins (78) CP, surely winning spins (22) CV and the winning goal (4) OV.
CP, CV and OV are linked together by a formula that indicates the bet after each spin.
So, you can imagine, every attack closes at the 22nd win into 100 spins. It could be at the 100° spin (bad luck!) Or after 22 spins if we win them all in a row (Lucky!).
BET = losers spins (CP) 78 + Objective of winning (OV) 20 (ie 4 pieces of 5 €), all divided by the winning spins (CV) 22.
The first bet will be of 5 euro (approximately in excess).
If you win the next BET is 78 + 15 (3 pieces from 5 euro), all divided by 21.
If you lose instead the BET is 77 + 25 (4 pieces of OV, plus 5 euro lost), all divided by 22 and so on.
Three suggestions for simplify things:
- Play in the differential mode, if possible;
- Do not play the system "continuously". Therefore, at each winning a piece, then starts again. The yield is still 4% of strokes played, and the games will be less time duration;
- Winning goal (OV), the formula must be ZERO! Yes, Zero, AWESOME! Why?
Explanation: it is clear that in 100 spins, the system closes as soon as you have reached the 22nd winning.
If the 22nd winning happens at the 100th spin, we will be in equal position after maybe we lost 4 hours at the table for anything, but it does not practically happen.
If the 22nd win happens to the 50th or 60th spin (very often!) or even earlier, however, we will have a win that will always be equal, ON AVERAGE, the difference between winning spins and lost spins.
I open a parenthesis, that will be useful later when you try to build your own system.
If instead of playing on simple chances,EC , you want apply such formula on dozens:
BET: CP + OG, all divided for CV and then multiplied for 2(the dozen pays 2 pieces), 11 would be multiplied if we play on triplets, 35 multiplied if we play on plein number, etc.
It is important to set the correct parameters of winning and losing spins.
In the case of Belgian system, it would used as parameters that in 200 spins i expect to win 65 spins(because i know that at least black or red will reach that level) and 135 lost spins.
CP=135 OG=0 or what you prefer CV=65
First bet is: 135/65 = 2 euro
I hope i gave you some good idea.
[end quote]
I've posted mine before user "Paulnewman" did on 15/04/2015, so that user copied mine and Kavouras copied his.
My first topic on 12/04/2015regarding the particular progression: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=257.msg2556#msg2556
My second topic on 18/04/2015 regarding the particular progression: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=267.0
However it's not exactly the same because the other progression must bet decimal amounts while 1 unit could only be divided when your initial bet is 10 units, this means tenfold bankroll for the same results!
I've posted mine before user "Paulnewman" did on 15/04/2015, so that user copied mine and Kavouras copied his.
My first topic on 12/04/2015regarding the particular progression: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=257.msg2556#msg2556
My second topic on 18/04/2015 regarding the particular progression: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=267.0
However it's not exactly the same because the other progression must bet decimal amounts while 1 unit could only be divided when your initial bet is 10 units, this means tenfold bankroll for the same results!
In the second session, your ME went upto 44 correctly. Then it shot to 86 for unknown reasons. Later after 66 it again rose to 99. Can you explain?
Paulnewman's method can be coded in excel and verified as it is mathematical. BA's method is similar but why ME changes periodically is a mystery which only he can describe best.
@programmers, please try.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 22, 2016, 02:57:42 AM
Paulnewman's method can be coded in excel and verified as it is mathematical. BA's method is similar but why ME changes periodically is a mystery which only he can describe best.
@programmers, please try.
Didn't I said that every time the bet raises so does the ME?
''Every time I win my bet I deduct from the minimum expectation the same amount I just won from my bet, if I raise my bet to 2 units I'm multiplying the remaining wins by 2, if I raise my bet to 3 units I multiply the remaining wins by 3 and so on...''
You have not paid attention and make me repeating myself.
One more session: 25/100
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
Wow!!!!!!!!
No reply to this session? It seems the system busted finally.
It will indeed bust as HP Johnson does. If you guys look at my sessions done, all big bets came at the last since the creator of the progression had prior knowledge of the number of wins, so it tried to win back all at last with even thousands of chips. It is as much foolish progression as martingale and doesn't help at all.
HP Johnson was too much boasted upon roulette30 forum and none cared to understand the fact that it is merely a flat betting to begin with, a normal labouchere in the middle and it ends with a martingale that if went a little bad could take millions of chips to win one. It just needs a bad beginning and a bad last win to doom without any limit.
My verdict: It is a fool's gold. Even worse than BA's delayed martingale.
If someone tries to make good an unfortunate last win that sucked thousands of units without winning, it won't work either.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 24, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
It will indeed bust as HP Johnson does. If you guys look at my sessions done, all big bets came at the last since the creator of the progression had prior knowledge of the number of wins, so it tried to win back all at last with even thousands of chips. It is as much foolish progression as martingale and doesn't help at all.
HP Johnson was too much boasted upon roulette30 forum and none cared to understand the fact that it is merely a flat betting to begin with, a normal labouchere in the middle and it ends with a martingale that if went a little bad could take millions of chips to win one. It just needs a bad beginning and a bad last win to doom without any limit.
My verdict: It is a fool's gold. Even worse than BA's delayed martingale.
If someone tries to make good an unfortunate last win that sucked thousands of units without winning, it won't work either.
I agree with what you said but you forget that I was the first who warned you about the ''Achilles heel'' of my progression.
I've found the solution but this is a different story...I've already said enough without being obliged to do so.
A clever person could read between the lines and discover what I've found.
You have nothing that even work slightly. First you proposed a delayed martingale that will go till infinite without winning at one point of time. Anybody can simulate that. Now you came up with even worse idea that can easily lead you to a loss of few millions in just one bad drag.
Just one bad win followed by many losses will cause irreparable losses. Reverse engineering a progression in some particular favorite situations led us to martingale and labby type failed ideas already, do not make more comical versions of that.
I am talking of a progression that doesn't lose too huge while a bad stretch like 66/200 is encountered but later when things go near normal, we stand to win. That is the core of this debate.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 24, 2016, 03:26:21 PM
You have nothing that even work slightly. First you proposed a delayed martingale that will go till infinite without winning at one point of time. Anybody can simulate that. Now you came up with even worse idea that can easily lead you to a loss of few millions in just one bad drag.
Just one bad win followed by many losses will cause irreparable losses. Reverse engineering a progression in some particular favorite situations led us to martingale and labby type failed ideas already, do not make more comical versions of that.
I am talking of a progression that doesn't lose too huge while a bad stretch like 66/200 is encountered but later when things go near normal, we stand to win. That is the core of this debate.
You don't know what I am capable so you are not in position to judge my abilities.
Nothing can be more hilarious than your definite statements, you sound like you already know everything but if you would then you wouldn't post such ridiculous comments.
If YOU are not able to do something this doesn't mean that nobody else cannot do it, except if you think that you are God!
You see, reality doesn't starts and ends at your own abilities, you are just a drop in the ocean!
You are using a 200 years old joke called Martingale with a little pinch of salt and claiming to win any 25/100 or 66/200 situation
Quotealbalaha, earn it, sum it or whatever your name is,
1) Post a session with 25 wins out of 100 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
2) Post a session with 66 wins out of 200 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.
Then I'll show you what's the meaning of this topic.
Are you ready?
I'm waiting...
and later running away from the same in just one little unfavorable case. Hilarious.[/size]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Indeed a case of 25 wins in 100 trials is not beatable. Same goes to 66/200. There may be a few isolated situations in those wins which may lead to win by a particular MM plan but if anybody claims to beat all types of 25/100 or 66/200, he is either very ignorant or a fraud.
Old Faulty progressions that we see relied upon very false assumptions and hence fail. If we ever encounter 25/100 or 66/200, only way to not doom is keep betting low. Never try to guess the number of wins that you will get and even if we presume 25/100 or 66/200 as limits, they can not be beaten by any MM plan with all scatters and clusters possible.
Hi Albalaha,
With your conclusion,
then,
do you suggest,
that,
we should concentrate,
to bet longer spins, say,
500, or better, 1000spins,
since they will almost always
near breakeven, and RTM?
Thanks.
I suggest to be prepared for the worst as it come without warning you, any moment, any session. A nice strategy has to keep the worst in mind always. If anybody suggests you that he can avoid the worst forever or his betselection is immune from the worst stretches, he is either ignorant or a crooked. No betselection is better than all other and all are subjected to the harshest possible moments with whatever we chose.
Regarding playing for 1000 spins in mind, I have a few things to say:
1.Even 1000 spins might not be enough and you may need to bet ahead to get a win;
2. Betting long term like 1000 or more spins may not happen at a stretch. If you play 1000 spins in a day or in 20 days, doesn't matter. A long run could be construed as 100x10 or even 50x20. Long run simply means multiple sessions taken together that leaves no room for temporary bias against you or in your favour.
3. What could happen in 1 million spins could randomly show within 100 spins too. Never think you can do hit and run by randomly entering the game. Remember, randomness is dancing around you too and ready to "hit" you to make u run out of casino.
If you are a big fan of "hit and run" only way advised is try your luck in a spin like what Ashley Revell did and either win the maximum or lose the same on an EC bet of French Roulette wheel(he got to bet American wheel BTW). First and last bet to try your luck. Win or lose, never try that again.
4. Do not expect flat betting to win for you. Advantage player could be an exception but nothing else can win flat, in long run.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 25, 2016, 05:43:10 AM
2. Betting long term like 1000 or more spins may not happen at a stretch. If you play 1000 spins in a day or in 20 days, doesn't matter. A long run could be construed as 100x10 or even 50x20. Long run simply means multiple sessions taken together that leaves no room for temporary bias against you or in your favour.
3
Hi Albalaha,
Just couldnt understand, how and why,??
1000 spins in a day or in 20 days, doesn't matter??
please explain...
Thanks in advance.
You may get a net win in very first bet you make. You may conclude your session with profit in say 100 spins of play but that won't hold when you get to face the worst. Say, you have a strategy that may seek even 2000 spins to get at net profit, if the worst shows.
Say you play 100 spins in your first day and get 30 wins only that makes you lose till the conclusion of 100th spins. You are tired, frustrated and worried. If you keep on betting in that stage, there is strong likelihood of losing your temper and lose even bigger.
Better way is, consider 100 spins of play as a pause and later when you enter casino again, resume your betting as if you played in a stretch. It doesn't change any probability and you are still on the same road. If you play 1000 spins in a go or 100x10, it doesn't change randomness or probability of the game while you get to relax and work on a calculated strategy.
I agree to disagree with you ...
1000 spin not equal to 100 SPINS x10 sessions is not equal to 50 SPINS x20 sessions
http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/how-true-1072r1077-my-results/msg39643/#msg39643
Hi Albalaha,
If what you say is true...
Then,
Your grail,
may win on the very first few bets,
or prolong up to thousands of spins???
And since in your own blog,
you say,
"3700spins",
is a , "proven",
spins length, that produces, all the bets,
EC, DZ, STREETS, etc, to almost RTM,
almost BREAKEVEN,
albeit the edge...
Then permit me to say, that,
I deduce,
your grail must certainly,
designed to bet,
up to 3700 spins, to win????
Then ,
[I think, many people here,
interested, to see your argument],
could you ,
at least, give a rough guideline,
how a ,
perceived-grail, should have???
Thanks.
Quote from: BetJack on March 25, 2016, 08:44:50 AM
I agree to disagree with you ...
1000 spin not equal to 100 SPINS x10 sessions is not equal to 50 SPINS x20 sessions
http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/how-true-1072r1077-my-results/msg39643/#msg39643
to understand what is long run I prescribed a topic from my blog: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400636/Long-run-in-gambling#.VvUmQOJ97IU
anything below that may quite vary from each other so a particular 100x10 may be slightly different from a particular session of 1000 spins but in larger perspective it is close to equal due to
variance if your are familiar with the term.
Understand the basics of randomness and probability before jumping into an argument with me.
Dear BTW,
Your question regarding how to beat the game in all probabilities is a bit weird in itself. There are many instances where taking/accepting losses is only wise thing, you can do.
However, if you want to win surpassing the worst, you need to have a strategy with these features:
1. It should not go insane in multiple losses coming one after another
2. It should not go too high in successive losses in a stretch as marty, labby or fibo does
3. You may need to play too long to get into plus or to leave at not too big loss.
We may make an alert, trigger, pause and resume methodology that can use a reverse filter to sort the worst of the worst moments off the game.
My extreme variance management i.e. pausing at 1.5 to 2x of Break even is just one among them.
Then, your MM has to be very mild and reasoned to sustain long bad stretches and to win at last. Forgetting extreme moments and avoiding dragging them to win just 1 unit is also very essential. We need to understand that each and every situation can not be possibly beaten even with million chips.
Learn to simulate your ideas or that of many kindergarten system writers as they can harm you more than you can imagine and your short sightedness or inability to simulate can confuse you too much.
Trying to conclude things sooner than later led to hasty progressions like Martingale, Fibonacci and Labouchere which fails on very face of them. Everybody knows that one can get even 25 successive losses in a row failing martingale till a few million chips. Same goes to Labouchere and Fibonacci in one large bad stretch or tricky times like 25 wins in 100 trials or anything of that nature.
That is why I ask everyone to discard the obvious failure systems at the very outset.
Hit and run doesn't work as you are still in a random world and it gives you no immunity. Do not fool yourself.
A long run progression can be assumed to be helpful if:
1. They pass through even 25 losses in succession without ever betting too high. This bad stretch can come anywhere, in the beginning, in the middle or the last stretch. Do not put them into your convenient places to prove your pathetic progressions as good one.
2. They pass through Very tricky wins like 25 wins in 100 trials in a variety of ways followed by a below average span that is followed by an average span as per the principal of RTM.
3. Do not presume or expect "corrective" wins after too bad stretch.
4. Never say my betselection gives me any advantage by itself. It is the most idiotic statement I hear from a majority of members. If you can not simulate your betselection, get help of a programmer but stop rumour monger regarding any bet without knowing reality.
I can make "acid test" sessions for any MM or you can make a few yourself keeping all of the above in mind.
If anybody has a long run progression that incorporates all the harsh moments and ability to win in long run where only house edge remains as a constraint, he is a sure shot winner. That is the soul of a mathematical HG.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 12, 2016, 03:40:25 AM
...a long run progression that incorporates all the harsh moments and ability to win in long run...
By " incorporates all the harsh moments and ability to win in long run" do you mean a progression that never loses and never busts? One that eventually and always moves into profit no matter what?
Or do you mean a progression that busts from time to time but shows an overall profit for the long run?
Quote from: greenguy on April 12, 2016, 06:16:34 AM
By " incorporates all the harsh moments and ability to win in long run" do you mean a progression that never loses and never busts? One that eventually and always moves into profit no matter what?
Or do you mean a progression that busts from time to time but shows an overall profit for the long run?
It can be either way. It should not go bust in the long run after playing say 1000-2000 sessions or even more. It should be capable to surpass the harshest ever possible patches of too bad losses.
Gentlemen,
Since Baccarat's
"player/banker",
will,
or rather,
may,
near BREAKEVEN,
or RTM.
,Say,
after, 2000, to 3000bets,
to hit around 45%,
[depending on your unavoidable 'luck-factor']...
and a long streaky possibility too.
Then, I THINK,
bet 1u, for say, 1000bets,
if lose, then bet 2u, for 1000bets.
if still lose, then bet 4u for 1000bets.
Thus inevitably, the streaky will come, and with the ,
"at least 45%",
winning will be no problem...
Or if we try to bet, say,
45% of player hit/3000bets,
by applying BlueAngle style,
of MINIMUM EXPECTATION,
45% of player hit/3000bets,
MINIMUM EXPECTATION,=1350u.
BUT! expect the marthy to kicks in,
at the very last bet!
or,...
simply bet 123456...
1u for first 100bet.
2u for 2nd 100bets,'
3u for 3rd 100,
4u for 4th 100,
5u for 5th 100bet,
till win...
why so?
Since the chances for LONGGGG Baccarat=RTM...
Since I can't do simulation,
maybe some of you could try , and post the result.
What U think???
Thanks.
Increasing in this manner doesn't help. Did you see the fate of Blue Angel's system? It tanked even hundreds of thousands. Azim's tracker prove that as well. How do you come up with loser ideas again and again. Increasing in patches of 37 or 100 or 1000 won't help.
BEAT-THE -WHEEL,
Your idea will not work.
However,
Do you have baccarat results from reliable source? If you do, write me the rules and I will write you a tracker for it.
This way, everyone gets to see it for them self.
Quote from: VLS on October 28, 2014, 03:38:22 AM
Hello dear Sumit,
When you talk about progression for long sessions, I can relate it to progression in the style of the "boom" technique for a single number; rising the base unit back and forth, consciously.
ie. after two missed tries player goes back to minimal unit while keeping track of current unit size. Later on right after a successful attack the player resumes further attacks back at the same tracked unit size level.
When dealing with measuring after those 200-some "short" sessions, -likewise- a boom-style money management for several numbers at a time (working cooperatively) can be worth a try.
With the added benefit of knowing there's a clear stop-loss "check-point", with no chasing.
I think,this is the same approach mentioned somewhere by GIZMOTRON, is it?
Quote from: Albalaha on March 17, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
Absolutely.
You won't find any such progression that can beat 405/1000 wins of an EC in all patterns they can appear.
What happens if you have the worst numbers and have a go at it after a count is at a certain level?
No offence meant but I never saw Gizmo writing anything that can ever be put to real play in any defined manner. Can you point to the topic where Gizmo mentioned this?
Quote from: Azim on April 13, 2016, 06:26:04 AM
What happens if you have the worst numbers and have a go at it after a count is at a certain level?
Can you explain and illustrate as to what you mean?
Quote from: Jimske on March 17, 2016, 01:27:34 PM
It seems to me that the problem lies in the impossible task of measuring variance. We can only guess at it and perhaps calculate the outer limits of SD.
Labby, Fib, Marty, etc. out? Yes. D'Alembert? Not so fast. Sorry to be a one horse show but this endeavor always brings me back to S. Bailey contemplating the flaw of D'Alembert and refining it to adjust to variance with various mechanical or semi-mechanical progressions. A favorite of mine (and his) is -X, +X; Flat. Whereby we go up 1 on a loss and if win stay at that level until a loss then go up 1 again. Of course adjustments can be made to taste and not always have the same unit size for both sides.
Variance comes in as a matter of perception or SD if one could calculate risk of ruin for a win/loss "likely" sequence. So how does one accomplish this to gain a net profit?
It's mostly guessing of course but there are limitations that one can count on. Baccarat shoes: I know that in the 5000 + shoes I've logged the lowest I've ever gone is a 32% hit rate within about 60 or 70 "spins" and that is rare. The overwhelming majority of closed spin sessions are going to be between 47% and 53% I'd guess.
So when you begin to go south you got to increase but only to a point. But when you go too far south you got to decrease. At some point when a north trend begins you must increase. Maybe incorporating rules such as Seth uses with "Turnaround" or his latest stuff to help soften the curve. Half back, Cut back, dump and pump . . . ?? Big bankroll required.
This whole concept reminds me of "Price Cost Averaging" (not Dollar Cost Averaging) whereby algorithm used to buy as stocks drop and sell as they rise. Works wonderfully for cyclical movements such as we are dealing with.
J
I think, when you reach a certain ratio you revert to minimum bet as mentioned by Victor.
Once you see the numbers getting favorable increase the bet size as mentioned.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 13, 2016, 06:27:00 AM
No offence meant but I never saw Gizmo writing anything that can ever be put to real play in any defined manner. Can you point to the topic where Gizmo mentioned this?
I could do it any other way. Sorry if i have broken any rules. LET me know.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 07:33:01 PM
Why does there have to be a mathematical edge for there to exist an advantage? If there are fluctuation waves that exist in early play, where the waves cycles above and below the base line value of the expected long term distribution of outcomes, commonly known as the house's edge, then for a while, the player has a mathematical short termed possibility of choosing to exit the game while in a positive position, especially if that position is just 1 unit up.
I find it disconcerting, that at a discussion forum about gambling, that my point is anything that excludes unclear. So don't act like I don't make sense. My point is simple. Why do I have to end my sessions on the base line value of the houses advantage or worse? You can't negate the existence of being ahead early on in a session. You can't deny the existence of fluctuating results from a session of betting. You are also clearly oblivious to the knowledge of coincidental circumstances. It is clearly possible to exit a steep downturn whenever you feel like it.
It takes all the spins to create a house's advantage. The casino doesn't make you bet the same amount and every spin too though. You have the control on when to quit, when to increase a bet, and when to pull back your bet amounts.
I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins. I don't ignore them, you do. You use arithmetic as an excuse not to discover what I'm trying to show you. I'm glad you do that stubborn thing though. It makes discussions here kind of my advantage. And what's funny about that is you have no idea what you are missing, and that comes through with that stone wall of probability is king thingy you do.
He is right.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 21, 2016, 04:14:07 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious the way it works.
I don't share something like this if I don't have something better...
So this betting plan begins by defining the minimum expectation for any given bet selection within a specific amount of results.
If we know the minimum possible expectation then we use it in combination with the respective payout of our selection.
The payout and the minimum expectation are creating the progression, the progression I've used in the above examples.
The second example was smoother, milder than the first because the minimum expectation moved towards the probability, in other words its deviation declined as the total of spins increased.
This is what we call regression towards the mean and both of the above examples are VERY extreme occasions!
Let's say that 66 wins out of 200 results is the minimum possible for any EC, 66/200 is roughly 1/3, BUT it's different to use the one third of 30 results and different of 300 or even 3000.
As the total of outcomes increases events tend to average out as their probability indicates, in small samples such as 30 or 50 results we could experience huge deviations from probability.
This is what we call law of large numbers.
Back to my mathematical progression, I prefer to use a minimum expectation of a relatively large total of results because I know that sooner or later I'm going to achieve my minimum expectation.
To be more specific, I believe that this total should be between 222 to 333 outcomes if we are talking about EC on roulette.
222 spins are 6 x 37 and 333 are 9 x 37, anywhere within those spins even the most extreme deviation can be tamed as the time passes by.
So we have to be careful and conservative in the beginning and act more drastically as time is on our side.
If I establish my minimum expectation on 100 wins out of 300 results most likely I'm going to get these 100 wins before I bet 300 times, by the time I achieve my 100th win I must be in positive balance.
Every time I win my bet I deduct from the minimum expectation the same amount I just won from my bet, if I raise my bet to 2 units I'm multiplying the remaining wins by 2, if I raise my bet to 3 units I multiply the remaining wins by 3 and so on...
However there is an "Achilles heel" in my progression, if I'm in negative balance and the remaining wins are too few, like 1 or 2, at that time the bets would increase rapidly like Martingale.
If the last expected win is far from the before last win and on the same time I'm in negative balance my bets would increase like Martingale.
If this happens during I'm in positive balance, it's not problem because I can stop right there and restart from scratch.
Of course I've found a solution for the other case but I'm not going to share it with you, I've already told you enough.
You are right with your explanation.
However, let me ask you this:
I create a set of 300 spins, I will give you the source after i have had you play 30 sessions of 10 spins, will you tell me what your next bet will be after each session?
Blue Angel's Delayed martingale was foolish and it has been proved. Why are you quoting from him still? His method expects "corrective and successive wins" after initial bad stretches and he pushes with a martingale that can easily lead to loss of millions too at the worst moments.
Ignore his. Look at the explanation by Gizmo.
Quote from: Azim on April 13, 2016, 07:29:43 AM
Ignore his. Look at the explanation by Gizmo.
You can't extract anything practically usable from this. If you can, please show us.
Hello
From reading through the pages I conclude that ...
Albalaha dislikes Negative progression ....
and all of them are wrong....
so if you change direction....
We will get...
a Long Run Positive Progression ...
Maybe if someone can make ...
this kind of animal....
Quote from: BetJack on April 13, 2016, 06:42:14 PM
Hello
From reading through the pages I conclude that ...
Albalaha dislikes Negative progression ....
and all of them are wrong....
so if you change direction....
We will get...
a Long Run Positive Progression ...
Maybe if someone can make ...
this kind of animal....
It is not like that. Negative progressions can help but not in the way they have been used considering only short run. If one can prepare a negative progression considering odds of the long run, he is more likely to succeed as long run results are more likely to be closer to the mean. For example, due to the house edge, in 1000 spins, Red or black are likely to hit approx 486 times but due to the extreme run of variance against it may lead it to hit 10% lesser, i.e. (486-48)=438 times, one should still be able to win. That is the core idea.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 14, 2016, 01:39:21 AM
It is not like that. Negative progressions can help but not in the way they have been used considering only short run. If one can prepare a negative progression considering odds of the long run, he is more likely to succeed as long run results are more likely to be closer to the mean. For example, due to the house edge, in 1000 spins, Red or black are likely to hit approx 486 times but due to the extreme run of variance against it may lead it to hit 10% lesser, i.e. (486-48)=438 times, one should still be able to win. That is the core idea.
Exactly, the deep negative progression allow you to withstand the extreme deviation from the close to 50-50 outcome. And my style allow me to win well, and regular even if I only win 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bets, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on April 14, 2016, 01:54:27 AM
Exactly, the deep negative progression allow you to withstand the extreme deviation from the close to 50-50 outcome. And my style allow me to win well, and regular even if I only win 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bets, hey hey.
It is not even possible with martingale, in long term. Can your progression withstand any of the horror sessions?
My single dozens progression can go to 15 steps and will hardly ever bust.
The problem is that when it does bust the loss is very expensive, and a few busts in short succession can be devastating.
So what do I do? I never go past the first 9 steps. The bust out rate is higher, but the expense is more manageable.
The 9 steps I use are 1.1.2.3.4.7.10.15.28
But that's not good enough. If you look over the progression you will see 2 points at which the profit is only 1 unit. These are on step 2 and step 5. What I do is play for 3 rounds totalling about 300 spins where I do not wager on steps 2 and 5. If and when either of those bets win, I absorb the loss and start my next round of bets at step 1. If and when either or both of those bets lose, I continue along the progression adding in steps 2 and 5 as I go. This way I can play the whole 9 steps, but only ever risk wagers up to step 7, which is a bet of 10 units. The total loss for 9 steps is now only 28 units plus whatever I've absorbed along the way. It generally works out significantly cheaper than pushing through the whole 9 steps every time.
After playing like this for 300 spins or so, I will play 2 rounds over the next 150 spins or so by not wagering on step 2 only. Again absorbing any loss from a step 2 win, and adding in the step after any step 2 loss. This way I can play the whole 9 steps, but only ever risk wagers up to step 8, which is a bet of 15 units. The total loss for 9 steps is now only 43 units plus whatever I've absorbed along the way. Again, it generally works out cheaper than pushing through the whole 9 steps every time.
The final single round of play is about 50 spins at most. Here I push on through the whole 9 steps, risking the whole progression bust of 66 units. But I only play this round if I am in profit for the first 5 rounds. If I'm losing money at this stage I do not play the last round risking the whole progression bust of 66 units.
That is my long term progression winner in brief form. Obviously there are other components within the money management, such as using win goals and stop losses along the way to signal when to move on to next rounds and next spin sets.
Attuned to my fabulous single dozen bet selection, I can confidently beat just about any 10000 spin set you'd care to throw at it.
Anyway, I've shared it here so hopefully it will help people interested in finding ideas for progressions.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 13, 2016, 03:25:48 AM
Increasing in this manner doesn't help. Did you see the fate of Blue Angel's system? It tanked even hundreds of thousands. Azim's tracker prove that as well. How do you come up with loser ideas again and again. Increasing in patches of 37 or 100 or 1000 won't help.
Since none of my ideas work,
and also,
since none of anyone ideas here worked,
and also none posted any workable progressions.. .
or any workable method,
or any workable system,
or any workable strategy, here..
Since no ideas or strategy works...
I think I might , as well , forget about
gambling...
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on April 14, 2016, 09:51:29 AM
Since none of my ideas work,
and also,
since none of anyone ideas here worked,
and also none posted any workable progressions.. .
or any workable method,
or any workable system,
or any workable strategy, here..
Since no ideas or strategy works...
I think I might , as well , forget about
gambling...
What a good idea.
Bye bye to you then. :beer:
If you know that negative progressions are not working, maybe we'll try positive on these bad sessions, we use safe breaks after 3 L in wait for a virtual W
Progression is positive, after Win +1, -1 after Lose
Always we reset the progressions when we are on plus
Still do not know what the highest level of progression define, maybe 10 or 12 prog progression as the tallest how we play.
Bankroll which we use, is 1,000 units
Maybe you need stoplose at some stage.
QuoteThe 9 steps I use are 1.1.2.3.4.7.10.15.28
This is as much a failure as a 9 step martingale on an EC or rather even easier. A dozen can sleep even upto 45 spins and you can not create any push to win progression that can beat such spans. Even one such loss become irreparable and hence totally impractical.[/size]
QuoteIf you know that negative progressions are not working, maybe we'll try positive on these bad sessions, we use safe breaks after 3 L in wait for a virtual W
Progression is positive, after Win +1, -1 after Lose
Always we reset the progressions when we are on plus
This is another classic failure progression called D'alembert. Had winning be so easy with +1/-1 every body will do that without hesitation. This is not a positive progression either. A positive progression only increases at a win like Oscar's grind or Parlay.
A positive progression believes in getting "corrective" streaks after a bad span which you may not get in real play. No positive progression is proved to work and even with a bet as large as a million, it may not win a net profit. Simulate that to understand it better.
In my post I write about positive d'Alembert, raising the stakes after Win, decrease after Lose
Quote from: ozon on April 14, 2016, 06:34:14 PM
In my post I write about positive d'Alembert, raising the stakes after Win, decrease after Lose
Doesn't make any difference in troubled sessions. Try that to convince yourself.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 14, 2016, 05:07:45 PM
This is as much a failure as a 9 step martingale on an EC or rather even easier. A dozen can sleep even upto 45 spins and you can not create any push to win progression that can beat such spans. Even one such loss become irreparable and hence totally impractical.
45 losses in a row can cost my progression as little as 127 units. Not too much to recoup.
All progressions have a sweet spot that should not be overstepped.IMO
Quote from: greenguy on April 14, 2016, 09:56:39 PM
45 losses in a row can cost my progression as little as 127 units. Not too much to recoup.
All progressions have a sweet spot that should not be overstepped.IMO
It seems you are pretty naive about progressions. Even a progressions as simple as 1-2-4 a three step marty that Pattern Breaker used for ECs or 1.1.2.3 of yours for dozens equally harms and fails. Come out of these sick progressions that are meant for even faster losses. Even if you play a simple 1-2 on ECs it will have the same fate.
Not so naive.
I have an advanced knowledge of progressions and their frailties.
You just don't see the big picture, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining any further.
Quote from: greenguy on April 15, 2016, 03:53:19 AM
Not so naive.
I have an advanced knowledge of progressions and their frailties.
You just don't see the big picture, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining any further.
Your suggested progression explains your capabilities clearer than anything. You better not elaborate or explain them as they need no explanation being proven failures. Further, if you consider knowing this as advanced knowledge only a non human can have an inferior knowledge. :stress:
I have done extremely well, when I win, with my 1-3-2-6. It has served me fine and although at times when I am feeling a streak or perhaps the 6th wager of a win streak, where I went down/back to 1 unit on the 5th wager and the streak remains strong, I will go back to 6 units if not greater and then keep it at that until it does eventually fall off.
What gets me, is that people on this board talk about progressions up to 11 and 12 turns, IMO they must be playing/wagering with a few pennies to start or free money, but bear in mind I am playing at the very min $50.00 USD or $100.00 USD per hand in my local area and in Vegas at $300/500 min.