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)