Although, Positive gambling module takes care of 90% of the harshest sessions possible to take them out of placed bets but even after all the safeguards, one can still witness tough and bad stretches in EC betting. Let us see how the different harsh sessions were dealt by Positive Gambling Module, I call it PGM.
Note: All Ls and Ws were played ones.
Session 1:
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
It was one of the worst sessions possible. 151 Losses and 89 Wins only. No streak to help much.
Max bet=43 units.
Max DD= -203
End=+25
Session:2
Maxbet 23 Finish 11
Count L 60
Worst -85 COUNT W 45
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
3rd Session:
Maxbet 25 Finish 9
Count L 64
Worst -105 COUNT W 52
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
4th Session:
Maxbet 29 Finish 19
Count L 69
Worst -88 COUNT W 56
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
5th Session:
Maxbet 13 Finish 6
Count L 57
Worst -59 COUNT W 43
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
Session 6:
Maxbet 15 Finish 1
Count L 57
Worst -89 COUNT W 43
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
Session7:
Maxbet 23 Finish 8
Count L 82
Worst -77 COUNT W 63
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
Albalaha,
Most progressions which I've experimented with that do well over longer stretches don't do so well in the short sequences. This is because you are always anticipating the run from hell so don't raise your stakes too quickly.
Although the run from hell has to be provided for, most sessions will be average, so does your money management make reasonable profits for the overwhelming majority of average sessions?
I can provide you with some bad runs and would be interested to see how your progression does with them.
Quote from: Jake on June 21, 2016, 12:31:11 PM
Albalaha,
Most progressions which I've experimented with that do well over longer stretches don't do so well in the short sequences. This is because you are always anticipating the run from hell so don't raise your stakes too quickly.
Although the run from hell has to be provided for, most sessions will be average, so does your money management make reasonable profits for the overwhelming majority of average sessions?
I can provide you with some bad runs and would be interested to see how your progression does with them.
Jake,
My progression does great in good and average times too and it is not tailor made only for bad stretches. It is a dynamic approach of play that is tough even to imagine for 99.99999% of players.
You can post tough sessions but the toughest patch will also smooth down later, so u need to send me atleast 500 spins starting from the start of the bad stretch. I do not claim to win each and every permutation and combination or every possible scenario but can hold in the most or lose 300 units max.
An MM meant only for a particular style of variance is sure to lose in others as Martingale, Laboucher, HP Johnson, D'alembert etc does. Those who are unable to simulate long enough, get trapped in those easily.
Jake, you also need to specify if you and Betjack are one and same and who among you wrote me recently on my email?
Hi, I made 1 quick test with just one milder type hybrid progression, substituted with flat betting (so continous betting), and withOUT any BB increment, LSH, and x% recovery rule...it could solve all of these harsh sequences by itself without too deep DDs, but with too high bets sometimes (risky) - due to the lacking safeguard options. So, there are better iow SAFER soutions.
Max. bets:
1st seq.: 50 units
2nd: 16 un.
3rd: 40 un.
4th: 15 un.
5th: 21 un.
6th: 79 un. (dd: -179 un.)
7th: 93 un. (dd: -154 un.)
Regards
Dear Janos @ Audiokinesis,
Indeed the last two sessions are not so harsh with compare to earlier 5 but it all depends on the MM you chose to play with. Bet of 93 or 79 units should not have been needed but Drawdown is not that big with compare to the variance we are getting.
You are closer to perfection, yet need to work more to make it better.
;)
Harsh Session #8:
Maxbet 9 Finish 1
Count L 61
WORST -31 COUNT W 46
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
Quote from: Albalaha on June 21, 2016, 03:55:21 PM
You can post tough sessions but the toughest patch will also smooth down later, so u need to send me atleast 500 spins starting from the start of the bad stretch. I do not claim to win each and every permutation and combination or every possible scenario but can hold in the most or lose 300 units max.
Ok, but that doesn't sound very practical or realistic for actual play if you need 500 spins in order for things to even out.
Quote
Jake, you also need to specify if you and Betjack are one and same and who among you wrote me recently on my email?
No I'm not Betjack and haven't sent you an email.
QuoteOk, but that doesn't sound very practical or realistic for actual play if you need 500 spins in order for things to even out.
To win in the cases where u get only 7 wins in 50 spins or 20 wins in 100, what u need most is patience. If you think gambling is all about having fistful of chips and earning for sure in an hour, you are talking of negative gambling that is a sucker. Positive gambling corrects all fallacious thinking and provide the most accurate approach to play that has a positive expectation to win in/after the worst too apart from regular sessions. If you do not have enough patience or chips you should have too much of good luck to win. Sadly, even people with the best luck do not stand a winner in long run by their luck alone.
9th Harsh session:
Maxbet 43 Finish 14
Count L 113
WORST -180 COUNT W 89
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
I apologize if this question has been asked previously.
Are these "decisions" only bets placed or are they from a continuous game, meaning you are playing every hand or spin?
AD
Quote from: ADulay on June 22, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
I apologize if this question has been asked previously.
Are these "decisions" only bets placed or are they from a continuous game, meaning you are playing every hand or spin?
AD
Every Win and loss is real and we played all of them in all the given sessions. Actually, the purpose is to see if despite all our safeguards below average or harsh moments come, can positive gambling defend and win still or it merely relies on the old rhetoric that I won't get such bad times or I will run away in those times as running away is not a remedy.
Hello
here's my attempt to conquer these difficult Sessions
Useing the same method as before
I wanted to see how bad it can go
results
seq /max bet / Drop dwon/ profit/
session 1 / 109 / -384 / +64 /
session 2 / 33 / -100 / +4 /
session 3 / 54 / -199 / +29 /
session 4 / 66 / -198 / +41 /
session 5 / 15 / -44 / +18 /
session 6 / 38 / -232 / +2 /
session 7 / 23 / -80 / +7 /
session 8 / 43 / -88 / +26 /
session 9 / 109 / -107 / -88 /
as evidenced by the results I failed to beat session 9
generally expected to be doing more badly than that
@Betjack,
Your method is very similar to blue angel's stepped martingale. It will have the same fate in long run simulation. Never try that at casinos. A free advice.
Harsh Session #10
Maxbet 37 Finish 45
Count L 170
WORST -177 COUNT W 130
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
Quote from: Albalaha on June 22, 2016, 05:03:02 AM
Dear Janos @ Audiokinesis,
Indeed the last two sessions are not so harsh with compare to earlier 5 but it all depends on the MM you chose to play with. Bet of 93 or 79 units should not have been needed but Drawdown is not that big with compare to the variance we are getting.
You are closer to perfection, yet need to work more to make it better.
;)
Hi Sumit, then closer to the 'perfection'...with one different type hybrid progression than before.
The other money management rules are almost same (flat betting substitution, etc.), with only one PLUS safeguard:
more than -50 units loss, I use a Reset near the break-even point, on the x% recovered path. No needs needlessly risk.
Strict rule, no "empirical guessing", so consistently and mechanically applied.
One noticeable 'heartbeat': the highest bet was 50+ in the 8th session. :-X
net min. units,max.
1# 10 -67 22
2# 7 -55 27
3# 7 -37 30
4# 10 -11 9
5# 8 -27 12
6# 13 -17 12
7# 1 -26 15
8# 13 -180 63
9# 8 -42 27
10# 15 -96 45
results
seq /max bet / Drop dwon/ profit/
session 10 / 54 / -272 / +34 /
BETJACK
Betjack,
You are going wrong way. You can win well till lose huge, as happen to other progressions. See the topic, :"anybody think such...".
Blueangel created a similar approach as yours and it failed in simulations very badly. Your way, it may need to bet a million without winning.
In long run, it is only to fail. Your problem is, you can't simulate to assure urself that it will not work.
Quote
old
results
seq /max bet / Drop dwon/ profit/
session 1 / 109 / -384 / +64 /
session 2 / 33 / -100 / +4 /
session 3 / 54 / -199 / +29 /
session 4 / 66 / -198 / +41 /
session 5 / 15 / -44 / +18 /
session 6 / 38 / -232 / +2 /
session 7 / 23 / -80 / +7 /
session 8 / 43 / -88 / +26 /
session 9 / 109 / -107 / -88 /
session 10/ 54 / -272 / +34 /
new metod
results
seq /max bet / Drop dwon/ profit/
session 1 / 25 / -162 / +16 /
session 2 / 3 / -18 / +6 /
session 3 / 3 / -10 / +8 /
session 4 / 3 / -13 / +9 /
session 5 / 5 / -23 / +8 /
session 6 / 4 / -13 / +7 /
session 7 / 3 / -17 / +6 /
session 8 / 2 / -18 / -3 /
session 9 / 5 / -30 / -16 /
session 10/ 9 / -41 / +29 /
BETJACK
Why I fail in the long RUN ?
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/
You can not use red and black the common way as you see them, is not the same way as to take advantage of the true nature of the game which is different.
The last 20 years you have have hit 5.59 SD once in Monte Carlo (in real Life) and several million simulation confirm it with 5.49 SD.
So you would not break the World record getting beyond.
There is no way to bet every single event from scratch and beat 6.0 SD you need at some Point reach some kind of virtuall mode Before.
I solve this.
And the solution is not what you Think it might be, as you can not rellay on regression as the main part to make it a winning method.
Your expectaion might be a very tiny regressopn and it can start growing again without you capitilazing.
For example after four hits you drop 1 SD and it can grow nine steps more to get back to the orignial postion and it can go back to back several times.
So the false postive with this method is that you belive that regression part will solve the solution when it boild down the worst and extreme, which not is the case.
Harch session 10 is nothing to mention with worst 19 contra 2 which only is 3.70 SD or 24 contra 3 which is 4.03 SD this happens on regular basis.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 21, 2016, 03:33:26 AM
Although, Positive gambling module takes care of 90% of the harshest sessions possible to take them out of placed bets but even after all the safeguards, one can still witness tough and bad stretches in EC betting. Let us see how the different harsh sessions were dealt by Positive Gambling Module, I call it PGM.
Note: All Ls and Ws were played ones.
Session 1:
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
It was one of the worst sessions possible. 151 Losses and 89 Wins only. No streak to help much.
Max bet=43 units.
Max DD= -203
End=+25
Question, if you were playing that session backwards (from bottom to top), would you still have the same results?
That's what I call reverse engineering!
34 contra 3 is 5.09 SD and after that it drop and get weaker.
It has to, if not, then you will see a new world record or win the lottery as the probability is the same.
By the way, I've made a profit of 12 units from that fictitious session with max drawdown of 245 units and 64 units max bet.
3 hits for an EC within 37 successive outcomes ONLY in Albahala's world!!
If you play against RNG, even BV no zero you see this type of sessions, they are bordering on virtual limits, RNG play against you.
Quote from: ozon on July 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM
If you play against RNG, even BV no zero you see this type of sessions, they are bordering on virtual limits, RNG play against you.
That's why I've stopped playing RNG's and air ball machines, I'm traditional on this one.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 17, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
3 hits for an EC within 37 successive outcomes ONLY in Albahala's world!!
I've never buck up against outcomes that bad, hey hey.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 17, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
By the way, I've made a profit of 12 units from that fictitious session with max drawdown of 245 units and 64 units max bet.
3 hits for an EC within 37 successive outcomes ONLY in Albahala's world!!
Oh really!!!
I never met more ignorant gambler ever.
Quote from: ozon on July 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM
If you play against RNG, even BV no zero you see this type of sessions, they are bordering on virtual limits, RNG play against you.
I totally beg to differ here, Ozon. Rather, betvoyager is the only casino that can guarantee no foul play and complete randomness.
If you do not trust me, you may trust Bayes on this. See reply number 6 here: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1045.0
No, you misunderstand me, BV is almost the only RNG whom I trust, I play there every day, I know that they have equal odds in long run, but sometimes series from hell happen very quickly when you begin to use a new strategy, but in long run probability is ok, I think that they are honest.
37 contra 3 could happen and is 5.37 SD
But i will give you the scale
2.5 / 3.0 SD is pretty common
3.5 / 4.0 SD is pretty rare
4.5 / 5.0 SD is very rare
5.5 / 6.0 SD has happen once during several million simulations and happen once in monte carlo for 20 years ago.
@Sputnik,
There is a virtual limit by our observations but there is no absolute limit to what can happen in succession. A very unusual looking streak or say 5 SD below mean may look too remote to happen but it can happen any moment without anybody can guess its arrival.
We can count SDs as per our own convenience in any span but it doesn't help much, in real play.
My scale is valid and i can measuring several different combination during one sample with 100 trails and measuring SD.
So if you use 100 trails i get 300 using R&B H&L O&E with one combination and 600 using two combination and 900 charting three combinations and 1200 using four combinations.
This means i see 3.0 SD and above several times in real World just tracking and charting for 3 hours.
You have to understand, if you are going to play against the worst and the extreme you should only measuring the first 100 trails as you need the next 200.
That is what you should base your playing model upon if you want to succed.
But with only one single combination you will charting and tracking the Wheel for weeks with out experience 3.0 SD or above in the real World.
And you have to share you method with me if i am going to belive that you can bet from 0.00 to 6.00 SD without losing, my opinion it can not be done (you need virtual trigger)
Shall also mention that it does not matter how the animal or worst or extreme look like - you can clustering the loses and winning before they happen.
For example 10 contra 1 and 10 contra 1 and 10 contra 1 and 10 contra 1 that is 40 contra 3 and 5.64 SD which would be the same as winning the Lottery if it would happen during your lifetime playing.
Cheers
It seems you are too much into counting SDs and playing that way. May look good as you get betting opportunities after too many spins, the way you want, even if you track a few dozens bets together. So, to see the bets being devastated with whatever MM you use, u need to simulate with high end tracker capable to track millions of spins.
Playing after super harsh times have two in-buit disadvantages:
1. It gets you negligible spins to bet in, practically not doable in any real casino
2. Even if you chose 3 SD below mean as an opportunity to start, it can not guarantee winning flat or with most of the MMs known.
3. It will still have all the troubles that comes in all over play. Only thing by your side is the virtual limit.
I did work a lot in "Regression towards Mean". While it is a statistical truth but the difficulty in using that practically is we can never guess the span where regression will start to work. We can rather get disillusioned with pseudo temporary regression as well.
SESSION #12:
138 LOSSES VS 109 WINS
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
Well that is thanks to me that you know about Regression towards the mean as i introduce it into gambling boards the year 2005 at VIP Lounge.
And your assumption is wrong, you can not and should not Place 19 losing bets with 3 winnings bets, that is a waste of time and Money.
In real Life or real game you can not survive waiting for the bad strike to happen, because it might be no time left to play so you will lose.
And there is no progression that can cover 0.00 SD to 6.00 SD so you will fail.
We measuring the statistical Ecart and Variance and have done several million simulations.
So if you want to spend your Life trying to win the Lottery (experience above 5.59 SD) you will probably die Before you will experience it in real Life or real game.
The result above is nothing 2.84 SD or 13 contra 2 as worst and drop to 1.60 SD.
This is also one thing you do wrong, your expectation should be 1/3 or 1/4 of regression or less after a strong imbalance which is just a coupel of hits.
You base you method upon many winnings after the worst and extreme which is rare and is not working with any kind of staking plan to recoup.
You need to narrow down things into Cut Point Methodology and not try to invent whe Wheel again.
Cheers
QuoteI did work a lot in "Regression towards Mean". While it is a statistical truth but the difficulty in using that practically is we can never guess the span where regression will start to work. We can rather get disillusioned with pseudo temporary regression as well.
I agree it is difficult to use practically and we can not deny the statistical truth of it. That is why is so interesting to play with and try to observe how it works, how it signals its arrival and how it manifests.
In my opinion the more you measure, the more information you have about the permanence to base your decision upon.
Sputnik has great knowledge on this, you should study his cut point Methodology.
BetJack,
I am just reading - rather - and mostly lot of blahblah throughout the forums. 99% of the published systems, strategies, methods are simple and surely failed in the long run. What does it mean? You will lose your money, only matter of time. (I do not speak the Fun mode; meaningless for me.) Due to the "rare" events. The back to back loser sessions, the back to back -300 units cut-off sessions. Too much -300 units cut-off and your BR hole is deeper and deeper - in an inevitable and unblockable form. The good charts/graphs can clearly speaks itselves. Same as your 5000# random.org samples.
But honestly, in my world, there is no exists like normal, rare and very rare invents, just simple random events.
Do your homework, let's study and learn the EXcel simulations, and simulate enough for the clear picture; you will not win all the random sessions! Never. Our fix mechanical progressions will never cover all of the distributions, all of the possible SDs, and the back to back loser sessions will harm us - surely and inevitable.
At first no need any Betvoyager, no need any Random integer platform, you will only need the famous oldy WIN7 pseudo random generator, and just work and work with it. Someone says it is rigged. Yes, maybe...or maybe not. I do not know, I do not care, because If it is rigged, then the "beating process" will be easier, isn't it?
But if you can't gain any 0,0001% edge (the number of the zeros is optional) with EXcel RNG in your runs, you will never reach with any others too.
1/ superior Bet selection is exist? I do not know, I do not "see" yet...and I do not believe in, yet. After more than ~5 billion (BILLION) simulated spins with any form of RNGs, be it lifespins or created, I think: no exist. Simple play Red (if your choice is EC), and goo!
2/ If there is no superior Bet selection, there will be not enough room for the Flat betting. Never...in the system playing. Just in the AP playing. Truth: without more accurate predictions (=superior Bet selection) we will need some clever MM plan, what can help us survive the random flow. Key word: survive. I speak about NO zero, so there is no HE. Sadly, it is almost impossible too - without positive variance (=luck), and appropriate bankroll with high risk tolerance.
See the 11th and the 12th Harsh sequences. One of my EC MM plan can survive all of the 10+7 (10 Harsh sessions + 7 sessions from the "Anybody such bad..." thread) sessions, But Not the new 11th Harsh. I make these with 2 type of the same MM plan, one milder and one more aggressive type (1.,2.,3., and 4. pics). What does it mean in overall? Am I happy with my "illusion"? Nooo. It simple means - as I said somewhere and sometime in one relevant topic, this type of tests are better than nothing, but it can not solve every problem of the random.
Let's see other example; one of my best 2 number (straight up) system (5. pic). Basically the Latest 2 numbers with strict triggers and one clever hibrid progression, and with other MM safeguards. This is very good example of the necessity of the appropriate bankroll and the high risk tolerance.
Summary, general 10000# chart:
141,18+ average, units
247346 overall, units
1752 sessions
17520000 (17.52 Million) spins
10000 spins/session
1225000 (1.225 Million) placed bets
~100 units Max. per bet
From the 1177th session, let's see the greatest DD (according to the general 10000# chart) the inevitable and unblockable back to back loser sessions, step by step in a row:
(units)
1214
1420
1060
688
1062
456
1214
1040
1128
962
-1552
-10062
-10012
-10004
778
-4386
-648
-8
432
986
-10000
804
-4300
996
924
-1536
-1880
820
1094
666
1342
1226
-10022
624
552
578
1174
384
-4988
1054
892
754
-10006
1096
-10026
Could you manage this deep DD with your pocket and your risk tolerance?
I think there is no any MM plan that can save us from these type of random behaviour (back to back loser sessions). Just the Not playing. This is the biggest problem of the long run. Sure, to me.
Bye
Hello audiokinesis
Your posts always inspired me
Your posts always filled ме with hope
It can be achieved...
BETJACK
Session #13: This may be the worst one ever seen:
446 Losses vs 354 wins
ONLY 65 WINS IN FIRST 200 SPINS
NEXT 200 SPINS BRING 89 WINS ONLY
NEXT 100 SPINS GOT 46 WINS ONLY
NO BIG WINNING STREAK EVER TO HELP with compare to losing streaks
outcome
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L'
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
I cannot find the 11th harsh session, where is it?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 20, 2016, 04:55:22 AM
I cannot find the 11th harsh session, where is it?
Dunno about HARSH session, certainly Ali is getting a HARSH time at GamblingForums.
They don't take kindly to scammers over there and are able to voice their opinion
Hi, with a bit roundabout but here it is, reply#1 from BetJack:
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/
Quote from: audiokinesis on July 20, 2016, 09:17:45 AM
Hi, with a bit roundabout but here it is, reply#1 from BetJack:
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/
Thanks
Quote from: Albalaha on July 20, 2016, 04:21:24 AM
Session #13: This may be the worst one ever seen:
446 Losses vs 354 wins
ONLY 65 WINS IN FIRST 200 SPINS
NEXT 200 SPINS BRING 89 WINS ONLY
NEXT 100 SPINS GOT 46 WINS ONLY
NO BIG WINNING STREAK EVER TO HELP with compare to losing streaks
outcome
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L'
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
This session is easy to win, you only hit 3.0 SD once or 14 contra 2
And 15 contra 2 once which is 3.15 SD - nothing extreme about that sequense, very common.
He is caculating the SD wrong and don't understand that the imbalance happend within a window around 16 to 25 events or you skip that particular imbalance.
The limit goes around 16 to 50 and better 16 to 40 which make the strenght behind the SD signficant, when you stretch things over 50 to 100 to 150 you lose strenght and the path for regression gets weaker.
Hey Sputnik,
So we should try to keep it under 50 spins to calculate SD?........I assume mathematically there is an exact number, but a rough estimate is probably close enough.
Thanks! :)
QuoteThis session is easy to win, you only hit 3.0 SD once or 14 contra 2
And 15 contra 2 once which is 3.15 SD - nothing extreme about that sequense, very common.
He is caculating the SD wrong and don't understand that the imbalance happend within a window around 16 to 25 events or you skip that particular imbalance.
Which book of maths you refer that tell u it is only 3.0 SD?
65 hits of an EC in 200 spins is 4.5 SD below mean, one of the toughest situation ever recorded in ECs.
It is easy to win? Show us how u can win this easily playing every spin.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 21, 2016, 02:34:55 AM
Which book of maths you refer that tell u it is only 3.0 SD?
65 hits of an EC in 200 spins is 4.5 SD below mean, one of the toughest situation ever recorded in ECs.
It is easy to win? Show us how u can win this easily playing every spin.
His tactic doesn't bet every spin but only after 3 SD
To wait to happen 3 SD without betting is very boring, it's like waiting for 15 reds in a row before to bet black by doubling up.
Dear BA,
Even I had a similar approach earlier for my positive gambling module as you can still read that but after lots of introspection I found that:
1. No waiting can give you very good time later. Even if you wait for 10 successive losses and play just 1 spin thereafter, u will still get the same amount of wins/losses as in a random game. So why wait?
2. No trigger can safeguard you from getting tough long stretches of losses or below average number of wins. So why wait?
Only exception to this is, if you attack a virtual limit by waiting for its 70%-80% going virtually and then attacking with a brute force do or die progression. As you can see here: http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/hg-for-baccarat-and-all-even-chances-bets-for-free/
Hence playing after 3SD doesn't offer any advantage by itself.
Poor understanding and do the most basics wrong.
For example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.
But is not the same as having a crystal ball which tell you what will happen in the furthure - but it is the expectation and probability after several million simulations and you will probably not break a new World record you time at the table.
So you can not assume getting more hits to recover from 20 loses and 2 wins - that is a false positive and why his method does not work.
And his assumption is wrong about waiting for 3.0 SD - that is just one example - they can grow to 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 SD without betting - you just observe.
Betting against 4.5 SD is silly and you can not recover with any existing staking plan.
The hole concept he present is wrong from the beginning.
And we can get 3.0 SD and above without betting at anytime without Charting and tracking or wait.
You only attack when there is a change present, so any SD can grow without you do nothing.
Quote from: Sputnik on July 21, 2016, 06:47:45 AM
Poor understanding and do the most basics wrong.
For example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.
But is not the same as having a crystal ball which tell you what will happen in the furthure - but it is the expectation and probability after several million simulations and you will probably not break a new World record you time at the table.
So you can not assume getting more hits to recover from 20 loses and 2 wins - that is a false positive and why his method does not work.
And his assumption is wrong about waiting for 3.0 SD - that is just one example - they can grow to 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 SD without betting - you just observe.
Betting against 4.5 SD is silly and you can not recover with any existing staking plan.
The hole concept he present is wrong from the beginning.
And we can get 3.0 SD and above without betting at anytime without Charting and tracking or wait.
You only attack when there is a change present, so any SD can grow without you do nothing.
But like this you are an observer, not a player.
Unless you are using another method as your primary, what you suggest has no practical value.
Missunderstanding again, you attack when regression is present not before.
Any one show belive they can bet against 19 contra 2 and recoup with no real expectaion measuring a the statistical Ecart & Variance is silly.
QuoteFor example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.
wow!! havenly revelation.From where did u get this wisdom?
nothing in past can indicate anything about future. Anything else you learnt is pretty fallacious.
and even if you know there will be atleast 4 wins in the next 24 spins, you can't win then by knowing that.
Quote
and even if you know there will be atleast 4 wins in the next 24 spins, you can't win then by knowing that.
Yes you can but i don't Selling any solution and will not talk more about the subject.
You can continue this topic and i will not be part of it.
Cheers
Quote from: Sputnik on July 21, 2016, 06:10:34 PM
Yes you can but i don't Selling any solution and will not talk more about the subject.
You can continue this topic and i will not be part of it.
Cheers
Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.
I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.
Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 22, 2016, 02:31:06 AM
Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.
I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.
Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.
It is possible and it is real, despite what you may think. I have seen it proven and i experience it everyday. It is a perception of reality you have to embrace and live with. Others might know some things you ignore.
I understand sputnik getting away from the discussion, as it doesn't seem you have the humility to learn otherwise. It seems to me you expect knowledge to be given to you for free with no effort or interest on your side. To prove you wrong isn't a motive strong enough to make others share their knowledge. It's the attitude. No hard feelings.
Sorry buddy,
I do not find most of the members even talking of sense. Most are taking dip still in age old proven failure fallacies. Sputnik claimed that playing after 3 SD is advantageous, I asked how. He gave example of if 16 spins have 1 win next 24 will have atleast 4 more.
First, it is a fallacious thinking in itself. We can't determine these things by observations. 4/24 is rare by itself but in no way it is a virtual limit.
Even if we take it as one, how will you beat each case of 4/24? He got no answer and ran away. Would you mind answering?
Playing after a very bad stretch is no guarantee of great times ahead or even average ones. It is always like playing all over, in terms of probability. You can not bypass the harshness of randomness by opting to play at time A or time X. It will be as random as ever.
Similarly, Gizmotron tried to preach that he can identify a streak, if it is a start or middle or end. This statement is another poor fallacy. If I see WWW, we can't say it will go WWWL or WWWWWWW or WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ahead. Anybody claiming to "sense" future is either a fool or a crook.
Anybody claiming to use patterns in making is either a fool or crook.
Anybody claiming to win a game of house edge flat or without risk of any loss is a fool or a crook.
In lesser harsh words, he may be an ignorant fellow incapable of simulating ideas in long run.
Any taker of 13th session?
I'll give it a go. Please provide the actual spin numbers with your L W data.
Put it in excel. It would be easy to handle then.
Hey gambling genius Albahala,,,,,,"Please provide the actual spin numbers with your L W data" was the question. You probably have a hard time reading. everyone already has the W and L schedule.
LW is sufficient to work out any strategy for an EC bet or even other bets. If we are betting even bet every spin, be it 2 or 32 or 12 or 22 doesn't matter but LW.
However, if someone needs it as inside numbers to be worked with any tracker, just replace the Ls to 1 and Ws to 2 or vice versa.
If he is talking of providing LWs with their spin numbers, that one can easily insert in excel.
Your data means nothing to me. There are hundreds of even chances opportunities instead of just R B O E L H.
If you took the time to log L W, then provide "proof" for the actual L or W with a number, something to hide? Afraid to be proven wrong?
How does this look? A nine year old can do this. Proof is what YOU demand of others, now where is YOUR proof, simple request.
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
I am not demanding anything from you. If you can't understand LW is enough to work upon showing working of any MM, relax and let it be like this. A few others can work as it is on this. I don't need to prove you anything and you are not being requested to do anything in specific. Move on.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2016, 08:00:09 PM
I am not demanding anything from you. If you can't understand LW is enough to work upon showing working of any MM, relax and let it be like this. A few others can work as it is on this. I don't need to prove you anything and you are not being requested to do anything in specific. Move on.
Albalaha,
I do believe that "The Crow" had a valid request when he asked for the spins and not just the decisions.
Many of us would like to see how these "worst best cases" came into being. Actually we probably don't care about "how" they got that bad, we'd just like to work with the numbers ourselves.
So, add me to the list of those who would appreciate having the actual decisions for these "worst case" outcomes.
Excel data would be acceptable to everyone I'm sure.
AD
11 NB
16 W
9 L
6 W
35 L
18 L
23 W
7 L
31 L
13 W
36 L
18 L
3 L
27 L
7 L
0 L
20 L
19 L
1 L
12 L
26 W
23 W
27 W
31 L
0 L
30 L
0 L
4 L
21 L
9 L
13 L
15 L
33 L
24 L
7 L
35 L
18 L
27 W
11 L
25 L
25 W
35 W
8 L
1 W
33 L
35 W
16 L
16 W
2 L
30 L
+27 units
Captain,
How a difficult session came for an EC doesn't matter much as it is not upto your wish. When I shown #3 of Zumma none could do anything on that too. The crow has selected a tiny portion of the session by God know which algorithm.
The purpose of putting harsh sessions is to see if we can pass through tough times with one predefined strategy as we have absolutely no control over what will come as L and W and in which cluster or scatter. We need to bet each decision and not trying to be smart here " I would have not played this" or "such harshness isn't possible in my bet" etc.
These sessions are extracted from a long excel tracker having nearly 23 kinds of EC bets. I never bothered to collect numbers as they do not matter to me in EC betting.
P.S>: There is some foul mouth dogs barking in each topic of mine doing mudslinging and namecalling intentionally. Administrative crew can check the deleted posts here. I have reported many of them. If Administration finds that language OK, I will reciprocate too as I did in gamblingforums.
Nope. I could see no evidence of "foul mouth".
[Nor any dogs either, come to that.]
Quote from: esoito on July 25, 2016, 06:50:35 AM
Nope. I could see no evidence of "foul mouth".
[Nor any dogs either, come to that.]
They are doing mudslinging and namecalling openly and you can't see that. Wow!!!
I made a few reports earlier too failing on deaf ears earlier.
Two three members deliberately enter my topics and start calling adjectives that I either need to delete or report and I see only one warning so far to Mark Tureya.
The thing to remember about threads such as this by Albalaha, is that solutions are posted and then he proceeds to delete them, no doubt like he will do with this post. Albalaha is here for one purpose only, he is phishing as far as he can for fresh meat, i.e customers, he is a seller, has been for over 10 years.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 25, 2016, 01:58:22 PM
The thing to remember about threads such as this by Albalaha, is that solutions are posted and then he proceeds to delete them, no doubt like he will do with this post. Albalaha is here for one purpose only, he is phishing as far as he can for fresh meat, i.e customers, he is a seller, has been for over 10 years.
The common sense says that if you had such a solution which is able to beat such harsh sessions, you would be able to win every session and make as much money as you want.
So why bothering with profit from sales??!
It doesn't make sense, doesn't it?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 25, 2016, 02:42:00 PM
The common sense says that if you had such a solution which is able to beat such harsh sessions, you would be able to win every session and make as much money as you want.
So why bothering with profit from sales??!
It doesn't make sense, doesn't it?
Of course it doesn't make sense, he has run these types of threads in the past, solutions have been posted, such as Izak's MM, Sure-Win, but he doesn't like those answers as it deflects people from thinking he has something nobody else has, so deletes the replies.
These replies will also get removed, so I will have to re-post them in a separate thread which he doesn't have editorial control over.
What about this ?
Is this real work?
I ask myself many times
betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/
betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/ (http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/)
QuoteWe need to bet each decision and not trying to be smart here " I would have not played this" or "such harshness isn't possible in my bet" etc.
These sessions are extracted from a long excel tracker having nearly 23 kinds of EC bets.
The name of this forum is "bet selection", by making those kind of statements you disregard and disrespect the very essence of this forum.
Can a progression wins disregarding completely the betting selection??
That has yet to be seen and verified, in my opinion, a progression supports a selection and the selection the progression.
You cannot have one without the other, simple as that.
Everyone just criticizes, but no one really knows whether the Albalaha system works.
No one here who criticizes, did not see on his eyes the strategy.
And all they call it a scam, and no one in fact did not check whether work.
Quote from: ozon on July 25, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Everyone just criticizes, but no one really knows whether the Albalaha system works.
No one here who criticizes, did not see on his eyes the strategy.
And all they call it a scam, and no one in fact did not check whether work.
They could work, but so do other betting methods, which he deletes. What does that tell you?
The situation is such that, with me as a player who has a lot of time on the game, but does not have a long term winning strategy. It is easier to try and buy such strategies than wasting my time and money on a multi-year experience. I've tried with some reportedly with the success players ,2 times pay for strategy, in other cases offered% from winnings.All their strategies have failed.
After hearing assumptions Albalaha strategy, I think it might be a good system.
It is better to pay for something that can work, than to lose it without a system in casino.
I really don't wish to argue with anyone about what Albalaha has posted. I have seen the messages he is claiming to be harsh towards him and they are close but nowhere near being removed but Albalaha removes so many messages in his own threads that a few that carry over in others won't kill him.
I've been casino gambling since the early 1970's and have NEVER had a losing streak of 17 in a row in any game I was playing and I used to be a big roulette phreak in my Bahamas days.
The reason I added to the requests for actual numbers/spins/hands is because I want to play against that evidently bad run and see where I would be bailing out, waiting or just taking the losses and playing on.
Evidently Albalaha is asking if you can survive the 17-20 losses in a row during play. I want to play it and see if my style can AVOID it.
A Win/Loss registry only shows, well, wins and losses. Bet a Martingale and you'll lose, obviously. Flat bet it and you're "only" down 17 at that point in time. We're all concerned with the middle ground mostly.
How did you get there is the important part to me and evidently a few others.
AD
Quote from: ozon on July 25, 2016, 04:28:04 PM
The situation is such that, with me as a player who has a lot of time on the game, but does not have a long term winning strategy. It is easier to try and buy such strategies than wasting my time and money on a multi-year experience. I've tried with some reportedly with the success players ,2 times pay for strategy, in other cases offered% from winnings.All their strategies have failed.
After hearing assumptions Albalaha strategy, I think it might be a good system.
It is better to pay for something that can work, than to lose it without a system in casino.
Well you better contact him then pronto, send him your money, but it won't make you a winning player according to the feedback, alternatively give up gambling. Of course he could simply post his solution here and share for others to evaluate, but he won't.
Captain,
This compilation of harsh sessions came from trackers as I said earlier. IF you did not see 17 losses in a row ever, either you did not play enough or have never tested any method on simulators/excel sheets. I have personally faced streak of 20+ losses many times playing online and in real casinos too I witnessed that. I have done over 100 million simulations on various methods with trackers from over a dozen programmers. Such streaks are nothing extraordinary. You can see the extremes here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-dispersionvariance#.V5b9b_l97IU
In my experience, people lose to casino due to two main reasons:
1. they are not prepared for unfavorable sessions
2. They lose huge in such cases blaming their luck.
I am not asking anyone to do these sessions and showcase. One can use these sessions as acid test for any method.
Those who are not interested can move to other topics. If someone tries to mock me, I will delete the worthless replies from my topic to keep it streamlined. It is within my authority. My topics are not meant for meaningless chit chats.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 26, 2016, 06:09:57 AM
In my experience, people lose to casino due to two main reasons:
1. they are not prepared for unfavorable sessions
2. They lose huge in such cases blaming their luck.
You omitted "skilled croupiers" (house burners).
If you haven't come across them or don't believe they exist, then you haven't gambled in B&M casinos enough, or play at a level that they just don't care.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 26, 2016, 07:32:07 AM
You omitted "skilled croupiers" (house burners).
If you haven't come across them or don't believe they exist, then you haven't gambled in B&M casinos enough, or play at a level that they just don't care.
I do not go for voodoo type ideas and look only for mechanical ways to play roulette/baccarat that can be played online too.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 26, 2016, 07:43:47 AM
I do not go for voodoo type ideas and look only for mechanical ways to play roulette/baccarat that can be played online too.
Yeah you're right, you need to bet at least $25 units, before you'll be noticed.
QuoteOne can use these sessions as acid test for any method.
Thanks
14TH HARSH SESSION:
126 LOSSES VS 103 WINS.
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
@ Albalaha
I've 2 questions regarding your money management:
Is it only for EC bets?
How many units on average a player could expect to win per session?
Thanks in advance
Yes the MM is primary meant for EC bets and I consider that as the best bet too. However, one can modify the same for any other bet too.
I recommend playing the same at bv no zero roulette from betvoyager for obvious best expectations.
Expectation to win depends upon the level of harshness one may need to face. If things are closer to break even, one can expect to win 10 units per 100 spins of betting.
Hi, regarding to the 13&14th HA sessions:
I did not modify any rules; same way wherewith I solved any other difficult sessions so far. The 13th (longer) session's first 200 spins was the most problematic sequence to my MM approach probably. I applied one strict -300 units Stop Loss. (But I do not know the real adequacy of the exact -300 units Stop Loss yet, without proper and longer testings.)
I think the 13th Harsh session (with 800 spins) is worth the effort for the complete re-do with some more effective MM approach, but for the relevant work - IF it could solve the whole 800 spins, - I need to re-do all of the Harsh + Bad sessions too. Later.
13th session:
354 wins
447 losses
max. bet: 45 units
min.: -383 units (after the -300 units reset)
net bal.: -195 units
14th session:
103 wins
127 losses
max. bet: 15 units
min.: -13 units
net bal.: +11 units
>
Great Job, Audiokinesis @ Janos,
You have been my best student so far and a real hardworking guy. It looks great to see you using different tweaks to better things. You can definitely play better than most members/guests here but you need to polish your skills a bit more. Even I am doing a lot of work to make things as better as possible.
Doing so much varieties of harsh sessions, you learn a lot of skills and graduate to be a sensible player. Anybody winning net profit over all these have positive chances to be ahead in real play.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 29, 2016, 03:42:21 AM
Great Job, Audiokinesis @ Janos,
You have been my best student so far and a real hardworking guy. It looks great to see you using different tweaks to better things. You can definitely play better than most members/guests here but you need to polish your skills a bit more. Even I am doing a lot of work to make things as better as possible.
Doing so much varieties of harsh sessions, you learn a lot of skills and graduate to be a sensible player. Anybody winning net profit over all these have positive chances to be ahead in real play.
Thanks, yes, tremendous amount of work was in the past 2 years. :thumbs up
I tried the previously used hybrid type cyclic progression (supplemented with flat betting as well) with one different tweak, and it could solved the Beast 13th (770 spins) sequence. Sure, one sample is not sample, so I tried this with the latest 4 HA sessions, from the 11th to 14th. So far so good.
13th session, re-done:
443 losses
337 wins
min.: -79 un.
max. bets: 33 un.
netbalance: 34 un.
>
Good Job again, Janos,
Now check Harsh sessions #1 to 10 too the same way and publish reports with graphs.
15th Harsh Session:
142 Losses vs 120 wins
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
16th Harsh Session:
79 Losses vs 64 wins
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
Harsh session # 17:
72 Wins vs 92 Losses (very tricky start)
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
Since Albalaha very sure that streaks of losses, always happened,
then we could bet both ways, since no casino rules, say we can't bet both sides!
Below I see them the WL as baccarat's decision, and forget the "half-payout".
==================
bet , if win, +1,
if lose, -1, play both sides,
=====================
Albalaha's
Session 1:
-1L/[w+1]
-1L/w2
-1L/w3
-1L/w4
-1L/w5
-1L/w6
-1L/w7
-1L/w8
-1L/w9
-1L/1w0
-1L/w11
-1L/w12
-1L/w13
-1L/w14
+1W/L-15
2Lw14
1Lw15
1Lw16
1WL-17
2L/16
1L/17
1L/18
1L/19
1L/20
1L/21
1W/22
2L/21
1L/22
1L/24
1L/25
1L/26
1L/27
1L/28
1L/29
1L/30
1L/31
1L/32
1W/L33
-2L/32
1L/33
1L/34
1W/35
2L/34
1L/35
1L/36
1L/37
1W/38
2L/37
1L/38
1L/39
2W/40
1L/39
1L/40
1W/41
2W/40
3L/39
1L/40
1L/41
1W/42
2L/41
1W/42
1L/41
1L/42
1L/43
1W/44
1L/43
1L/44
1L/45
1L/46
1L/47
1W/48
2L/47
1L/48
1L/49
1L/50
1W/51
2L/50
1L/49
1L/50
1W/51
2L/50
1L/51
1L/52
1W/53
2L/52
1L/53
1W/54
2L/53
1L/54
1L/55
1L/56
1L/57
1W/58
2L/57
1L/58
1L/59
1W/60
2L/59
1L/60
1W/61
2L/60
1W/61
2L/60
1W/61
2L/60
1L/61
1W/62
2L/61
1W/62
2L/61
1L/62
1W/63
2L/
1L/
2W/
1L/
2W/
3W/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
1L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3W/
4L/
3W/
2L/
1L/
1W/
2L/
1L/
1L/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3W/
4L/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1L/
1L/
1L/
1L/
1L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3W/
2L/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2L/
1W/
2L/
1W/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3W/
4L/
3W/
2L/
1L/
1L/
1W/
2W/
3W/
4W/
5L/
4W/
5L/
4W/
5L/
4W/
5W/
6L/
5W/
4L/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3L/
2W/
3W/
4W/
===============
WHAT IF W/L ABOUT THE SAME?
1L/1=0
1L/2=1
1L/3=3
1W/4=0
2W/3=-1
3W/2=-2
4W/1=1
5L/1=-3
4W/2=-1
5L/1=-5
4W/2=-3
5L/1=-7
4W/1=-4
5W/2=-1
6L/1=-6
5W/2=-3
4L/1=-6
3L/1=-8
2W/2=-8
3L/1=-10
2W/2=-10
3L/1=-12
2W/2=-12
3W/1=-10
4W/1=-7
Hello Forum Friend
Someone One Time Said me
If you gona Bet Both Sides (R/B or P/B) Better bet The the difference between Two BETS ...
with respect
BETJACK
p.s. example
if we bet both sides 3P/1B
3-1=2units
then we bet on one side 2units on P side
if we bet both sides 1P/3B
1-3=-2
then we bet on one side 2unit on B side
if we get 0. we do not bet.
Quote from: BetJack on August 11, 2016, 11:42:18 AM
Hello Forum Friend
Someone One Time Said me
If you gona Bet Both Sides (R/B or P/B) Better bet The the difference between Two BETS ...
with respect
BETJACK
p.s. example
if we bet both sides 3P/1B
3-1=2units
then we bet on one side 2units on P side
if we bet both sides 1P/3B
1-3=-2
then we bet on one side 2unit on B side
if we get 0. we do not bet.
It's called Differential Betting.
Quotebet , if win, +1,
if lose, -1, play both sides,
This won't work buddy in a random session. Do not fool yourself by reverse engineering only harsh situations where losses and wins are very unbalanced and differential betting or betting the difference will help. Normally, due to the house edge, each EC bet will hit lesser than what it should, so playing even both may not help.
Remember: trying to predict in a random game is as foolish as going with a fishing rod in Sahara Desert. Either it is not truly random i.e.unpredictable) or we can not predict.
Harsh session #18:
132 Losses vs 106 wins
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
w
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
w
w
w
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
w
w
w
l
l
w
w
w
l
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
w
w
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
w
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
w
l
w
l
l
l
l
w
w
w
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
w
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
w
w
l
w
w
l
l
w
w
Quote from: Blood Angel on August 11, 2016, 03:50:43 PM
It's called Differential Betting.
If you did the contra D'Alembert, I mean in positive way, the side with most hits would generate more profit than the loss of the other.
The classic D'Alembert increases by 1 unit after a loss, but the contra increases after a win.
Let's say you had 3 wins in a row 1+2+3=6 you are losing the 4th bet 6-4=+2 and now instead of betting 3 units on next bet, you'd bet 1.
After 1 loss you restart from scratch.
Harsh Session #19: offered by a friend of mine. He said he lost -300 twice in this session and no net profit to finish with
Wins: 449 vs Losses: 522 (positive gambling module beats it and ends positive without any stop loss, not even -200)
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
Harsh Session #20:
117 Losses vs 95 wins
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
Harsh Session # 21:
60 Wins vs 80 losses:
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
Harsh Session #22:
Losses=57, Wins=49 (bad start and later average)
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
Harsh Session #23:
147 losses vs 117 wins (very painful and tricky session)
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
Harsh Session #24:
Wins 42 vs Losses 51
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
Harsh Session #25:
60 Wins vs 71 Losses
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
Harsh Session #28:
87 Wins vs 105 Losses: Very tricky session
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
Al,
Are these "harsh sessions" you display here runs that you've played, seen, heard about or just imagined?
Where do these come from?
Thanks.
AD
I play and simulate in excel. I try to pick the worst( in different types of challenges) sessions as Harsh and the point where I get at net profit session ends. A few sessions are imaginary too and a few provided by a friend. Few are so harsh that they can not appear realistically or in other words you need lots of extreme badluck to witness them.
The motive behind compiling such diverse set of challenge is to see if my approach is really dynamic enough or not to handle all.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 06, 2017, 02:53:13 PM
Few are so harsh that they can not appear realistically or in other words you need lots of extreme badluck to witness them.
For whatever it is worth....badluck (which is not a viable explanation to what happens to players at a casino, but let's just call it that for sake of not arguing) happens all the darn time! All the time. So to witness them should be no problem. But hey, maybe it is the old school people that have played for so many years have no idea......huh????
An average regular player playing 3-4 hours twice a week religiously for over 30 years can see 3,75,000 spins approx. I test over this many spins in a day. I have been doing this for last 8 years, at least 300 days a year. Now you can count my experience versus an "old school player's". If you think this is an aggregation, I tested over 10 million spins with ophis within 3 days. I have dozens of bots and trackers made by Victor(VLS), madmax(michael),Ophis, Stef, Nickmsi and many others exclusively meant for me.
Experience alone doesn't matter unless one is educated enough to analyse the cause and effect. A patient suffering from an incurable disease may only feel the pain and troubles associated, he can not cure himself with his experience. Doing Harsh sessions is all about "not seeing pink only" and being aware of what can happen with you. Those claim to beat the game with merely their wise selections are either crook or ignorant. Every bloody player will face worst of times despite being the smartest behind around.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 06, 2017, 02:53:13 PM
I play and simulate in excel. I try to pick the worst( in different types of challenges) sessions as Harsh and the point where I get at net profit session ends. A few sessions are imaginary too and a few provided by a friend. Few are so harsh that they can not appear realistically or in other words you need lots of extreme badluck to witness them.
The motive behind compiling such diverse set of challenge is to see if my approach is really dynamic enough or not to handle all.
Albalaha,
If I were to change those "W" and "L" to "Bank" and "Player" would the overall effect be the same?
Thanks.
AD
I tired to figure out albalaha's reasoning but to tell you the truth I also tried to figure out Claudio Osorio and what Jeb Brush and Obama was involved with being part of Innovido. To me, both are very confusing.
But what do I know? I am silly and like to being the kids to the live arcades with those redemption counters where the parents spend about $80.00 to get about $4.85 worth of toys that last about 2 days at best.
Quote from: ADulay on January 07, 2017, 06:12:19 PM
Albalaha,
If I were to change those "W" and "L" to "Bank" and "Player" would the overall effect be the same?
Thanks.
AD
You can consider W to any EC and L to its counterpart like Bank and Player.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 05, 2017, 11:08:11 PM
Harsh Session #28:
87 Wins vs 105 Losses: Very tricky session
Albalaha,
After reading your response that these "Harsh Sessions" would be the equivalent of any EC game, I elected to run your latest one (#28) using my current normal play method.
As my baccarat sheets only go to 80 hands, I played the first 160 hands across two sheets.
Flat betting Harsh Session #28, with a small progression AFTER wins of 4 in a row and 9 in a row, like normal, the result was a very nice +22 to finish. (Without the small winning progression the result would have been +15 for strictly flat betting one unit per wager).
Between hands 32 and 55 the bankroll did drop from a +17 to +10 but it recovered nicely shortly thereafter during the 8 IAR that showed up.
The opening "10 IAR" set the tone nicely as the bankroll never went below that initial starting win.
Long winning streak was 10 (hands 107 to 118) and long losing streak was 4 hands (3 times).
I'll try to translate some of your earlier posts to see if this event holds up.
AD
I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 08, 2017, 12:47:29 PM
I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.
Albalaha,
Hopefully I can get some more free time to play with this and I'll run a few more of your posts. Would there be any particular one that I should take a look at?
Thanks.
AD
Try to do all with one predefined approach that you can play realistically.
Had some free time this morning before getting the first cup of tea and ran the next one back, #25.
Playing it "for real" as you would say it produced a trailing stop exit of +15 at hand 110. It had been at +25 at hand 84 but ran into a streak of 13 losses, 1 win and 7 more losses in continued play.
I obviously exited the shoe after dropping from +25 to +15.
Finishing off #25 it eventually finished at +6 in spite of the drama in the last 50 hands.
I will say that was the first time I've ever run into more than 10 losses in a row with any of "your" testing posts.
Flat betting saved the day for sure.
AD
LAST SESSION: DT 24TH JAN 2017
WINS : 88
LOSSES:105
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
There is a common element in ALL of your harsh sessions and as long as it exists MY progression will be always victorious, even if you turn all of those sessions upside down in order to reverse the results' order.
No, I'm not talking about the progression which I've shared with all of you.
Your last progression was disastrous and it got proved right here by coding. If you can beat all these sessions with a single progression you are at par with me or even better. May God help you.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 08, 2017, 12:47:29 PM
I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.
What does that mean?
AD
Quote from: ADulay on February 21, 2017, 04:19:49 PM
What does that mean?
AD
It means that you can reverse engineer a particular harsh case and find any MM workable for that case only but it is not possible for all the given cases. Anyone beating all the given sessions playing all over in a single well defined approach, is a guaranteed randomness and variance killer.
Albalaha,
Early on in this thread you mentioned that changing out "W/L" for any EC wager would result in basically the same outcome for your testing.
I do not believe this to be true.
With the examples presented, the enormous amount of long string "L" would skew the results so far to the positive for anyone playing a streak type method that the results would invariably show up as "positive" for any run.
So, for anyone "testing" these results and transposing "W/L" into "P/B" or "R/B", they would be using bad data for their tests.
I only bring this up as so far I've been showing a profit on every test posted running a rudimentary streak method.
Generating a string of "W" and "L" is not the same as generating a string of "B" and "P".
From what you have presented in this thread, it could probably be boiled down into merely asking "Can you survive a loss of 17 in a row?" (I think that's the largest "L" string displayed so far).
Just my thoughts on what is being presented
AD
Captain,
These sessions are not normal ones but harsh ones. Keep this in mind, first of all. Harshness could mellow after 50 trials and it could not even after 500 trials in extremes that are possible. My motive behind doing/compiling these sessions to bring different varities of trouble sessions that should kill any known progression. Winning Flat bet is impossible and I am not debating about that here. Those who think that they can win flat bet by their bet selection alone in a game of negative expectations are godsend angels and they can even fly across ocean.
If we work only one kind of trouble session like those not having any long stretch of losses, even the dumbest person can suggest a 10 step martingale as panacea. Similarly with long streches of losses and wins, one can easily suggest D'alembert. For just a little below average number of wins, one can suggest playing labouchere or fibonacci or any other silly version of them like HP Johnson. Many came up with gradual martingale like what Blue Angel suggested once. They forget that one key won't fit other as the key is made seeing one kind of lock/trouble only. These harsh sessions show mirror to those daydreamers and confused lots who has any so called money management for their help. They can cross check their expertise on these sessions and innovate to better their approaches.
If you don't mind I have a few questions.
1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?
2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?
3. If f you check large amount of results, like 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 you would find that one of the two sides has more wins than the other combined with 0.
If you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?
The more bets and decisions you have experienced the larger becomes this difference between the winning side from its opposite (including 0), therefore progressions make no sense as long as you never know exactly when a win or a loss will occur.
But backing the winning side with flat bets does, the big question is how to know which one ?
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.
Do you agree?
If not, could you explain why?
QuoteIf you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?
We can never predict what will be happening next. It could be the best possible or the worst possible or anywhere in the middle. My point is to make a system that can behave reasonable in the worst of times alongwith the best times possible and yield without bleeding too much. That is where every known progression sucks.
Understood, but you've failed to address all of my enquiries...
Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2017, 11:59:28 AM
Understood, but you've failed to address all of my enquiries...
provide the link when you posed your queries.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 01, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
provide the link when you posed your queries.
1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?
2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?
We don't need a crystal ball in order to know that ALWAYS there is unequal distribution on that which supposed to be equal, there is always a dominant side by much or less, even 1 appearance more than the other makes it uneven/unequal.
Since this is a hard fact we should focus on it in order to expose it in the best possible way.
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.
Furthermore, streaks could contribute to somewhat equal totals, for example 5 streak for 1 side and then 5 streak for the other.
Streaks are ideal to identify dominant EC's because their cycle is just 2 spins, for example a sample of 100 spins contains 50 EC cycles, 10 streak could be interpret also as five 2 streaks.
For other bet sections which their cycle is longer clump or cluster theory is more accurate to determine their dominance levels.
Ok.
1. It would be the best to use baccarat and pick Players as your permanent bet. I have given reasons to pick that earlier in my blog.
2. It would be the best to expect balance only in very long run. I have explained long run too earlier.
QuoteFrequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.
If you believe this, you are more than ignorant after so many years of being on forums. No betselection gives us any edge by itself. Every betselection be it the simplest one or the most complex one will face same level of good and bad times as any other will do. Any prediction is only a blind speculation and only prediction that would be true always lies in "the law of large numbers".
Such harsh sessions are possible with any EC betting one can choose and an informed gambler will be losing the least in the worst of the possibilities too. Expecting flat bet win or "intelligent guessing leading to victory" are F OO L's Gold only.
30TH HARSH SESSION: 67 WINS VS 81 LOSSES
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
There is a pearl of simplicity called d'Alembert.
Its principle is crystal clear and rock solid, for every loss there is a win, the only question is how much time and money needed in order to overcome even the worst possible situation?
D'Alembert doesn't need to reach equilibrium state in order to become profitable but a 35% wins approximately will suffice.
I've checked all of the horrible sessions here and from user ''beatthewheel'' and the worst was 67 wins VS 133 losses, which is 66 losses more than the wins, after that point this difference will be reduced gradually and within the next 100 to 200 outcomes D'Alembert would turn things around by ending up with a profît even after such terrible results.
A lifetime bankroll equal to the worst scenario (67 wins VS 133 losses), would be approximately something less than 2,500 units, in such extreme deviation the max bet would reach 67 units and the max duration till profit would be approximately 370 bets/results.
I understand that for some sounds too much money and time but we are talking about winning every possible sequence under the sun!
In my consideration it is like investment rather than gambling, 2500 units lifetime bankroll it's an amount which you are going to double it within a month from the time you start.
What I'm saying is not subjective but certainty as the sun will dawn tomorrow. period
Are you still seeking for HGs??
Blue Angel
You count on less deviation in subsequent spins, but it may not happen.
I experienced worse sessions on betvoyager RNG, where for 500 spin deviations were unreal, maybe on the live wheel would be to avoid.
But RNG will destroy such progressions in a moment
Quote from: ozon on July 29, 2017, 08:16:59 PM
Blue Angel
You count on less deviation in subsequent spins, but it may not happen.
I experienced worse sessions on betvoyager RNG, where for 500 spin deviations were unreal, maybe on the live wheel would be to avoid.
But RNG will destroy such progressions in a moment
I thought users Albalaha and beathewheel have already posted the worst of the worst, if you have seen worse than those then you should post such sequence in order to scrutinise it.
It's hard to believe you've experienced worse than all of these harsh sessions here and at: ''does anyone think that can beat such bad streak?''.
I just have progressions, similar to Albalaha.
Prepared for the heaviest sessions, is unfortunately to slow on the live wheel.
The simulations look great,
But RNG gives such a series that mathematics has nothing to say.
I played this progression really much, betvoyager was not the worst.
Software netent like royal panda. Crazy sessions. Unbelievable deviations.
I does not save the session, but after my progression and spins amounts sometimes I can judge how bad the session was.
And when i lose session after session, i know is something wrong.
Quote from: ozon on July 29, 2017, 09:09:24 PM
I just have progressions, similar to Albalaha.
Prepared for the heaviest sessions, is unfortunately to slow on the live wheel.
The simulations look great,
But RNG gives such a series that mathematics has nothing to say.
I played this progression really much, betvoyager was not the worst.
Software netent like royal panda. Crazy sessions. Unbelievable deviations.
I does not save the session, but after my progression and spins amounts sometimes I can judge how bad the session was.
And when i lose session after session, i know is something wrong.
I believe you are telling the truth, but I'd like to listen Albalaha regarding RNGs in general and BetVoyager specifically.
It's hard when you lose with a sophisticated progression/selection and on the same time a degenerated gambler wins big amounts by playing slots, this is where your money goes, to progressive jackpots! What a joke!
Your well thought plan/strategy doomed just because you, like everybody else, has to lose no matter what method you are applying!
It's a sugarcoated stuff that they expect us to swallow, but we don't have to!
Afterall luck beats brains and nothing can stand against a sequence from hell(?)
If the kind of progressions you are using are ''slow'' in profit then perhaps are not worth to bother at B&M casinos, or you should use higher value per unit to make it worth the time at the tables.
I found the site with the simulation d'alambert
https://bettingsimulation.com/
I lost BR 3000 units in 3500 spins, the highest bet was 97 units.
I have some good patents that will improve the usual dalambert and maybe something to keep from losing 3000 units and be a plus
Betvoyager is an honest casino when it comes to numbers.
But disconnections increase the edge of the casino to a huge percentage of what makes it completely impossible to play there.
I even have a strategy that in the longrunie beats the casino nozero even with a commission of 10% of the winnings, but the exclusion completely ruins it.
Edge is generated so small that it does not win on roulette with zero
The progression of which I wrote unfortunately is not too good for the BM casino, sometimes you need 400-500 spins to get out plus in very heavy sessions.
Calculations are also complicated and you have to play each spin.
Quote from: ozon on July 29, 2017, 10:08:27 PM
The progression of which I wrote unfortunately is not too good for the BM casino, sometimes you need 400-500 spins to get out plus in very heavy sessions.
Calculations are also complicated and you have to play each spin.
Not so practical in short, makes you wonder if it worths to bother.
I believe it doesn't have to do with your progression specifically but with EC payout in general.
I've said several times before that gaining an edge by betting ECs is possible but the profit would be so puny which doesn't worth the time, effort and money invested in my consideration.
On roulette I play only straight up numbers, besides if you are fond of EC bets then why to bother with roulette when you can find better odds on Craps, Baccarat and Blackjack?
I've never been more interested in blackjack.
But lately I've just read that using single deck blackjack and using a basic strategy will reduce house edge to 0.17%
I even learned that my country in the BM casinos unfortunately do not have this variety of blackjack.
I have positive progression on using double dozen bets I can generate profit on wheels nozero
I'm currently trying to translate this progression into EC bets, but I have not done any RX simulations yet, so I do not know.
I know it works with 1.50 odds but I do not know how to use that to odds 2.00 odds.
Basic strategy alone is not good enough, consider the 2 following options:
1) Looking for 2 wins in a row has something less than 25% chance to happen or 1 out of 4 trials
2) The dealer to get busted has something more than 33.33% probability to occur or 1 out of 3 decisions
When you win twice in a row you net 3 units (excluding your first wager) or more if these wins coincide with BlacJack(s).
When you lose 75 times out of 100 your bankroll will be depleted by 1 or 2 units.
When you win by the dealer getting busted you could win up to 5 units by betting simultaneously on 5 different boxes.
When the dealer is not busted this doesn't prevent you win by BJ naturals or otherwise.
But you have not to get busted before the dealer, thus you have to take decisions for all boxes and not to hit when you have 12 or more (excluding Aces).
Split only 2,3,6,7,8 and aces only if you could hit after splitting (optionally).
Therefore the second strategy is better because you are going to win 33 times out of 100 5 units (on average), more wins and more profit per win.
Keep a mental count of how many decisions passed since the dealer has been busted last time, bet the required amount of units per box in order to be in overall profit when the bust occurs.
What you opined made many play progressions like martingale and lose what can not be earned back. Things are not so easy and simple.
Quote from: ozon on July 29, 2017, 10:08:27 PM
... and you have to play each spin.
Can you explain why you have to play each spin, or why it is a disadvantage to miss some spins?
It was about progression, she is long enough to not pass any spin. It is so constructed.
I'm not against triggers, if you have a strategy that thanks to bet selection it improves accuracy.
I played the game for this very long progression I played black.
Leaving some spin at it just did not calculate, even playing live online roulette would have to be done in a group because, as I wrote not workable for one person would be playing a 500 spins session without interruption.
Lots of talks over spins getting disturbed due to connectivity or playing each spin in continuity. It is not required to play spins in continuity. You can play 100 spins today and can play 100 more some other day at some other time. All of them will offer same odds. Rather, each spin, irrespective of them being together or far, offers same odds so do not bother about disconnections or missing a few spins. It won't change anything in long run.