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. 
   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.