Quote from: sean on May 04, 2020, 12:00:56 PM
How many units do you win with a session like this?

Just a net profit in the given stretch.

That's real interesting, but I guess that in order to recover any deficit you need W's coming in short intervals after the strongest L bad situations happened.

But say the "enemy" knows in detail your plan, thus rigging the game you're playing at.
Do you have any escape plans?

Thanks.

as. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 05, 2020, 09:33:03 PM
That's real interesting, but I guess that in order to recover any deficit you need W's coming in short intervals after the strongest L bad situations happened.

But say the "enemy" knows in detail your plan, thus rigging the game you're playing at.
Do you have any escape plans?

Thanks.

as.

Expectation of Clustering or clumping wins or compensatory wins is wrong even after the worst possible so my methodology doesn't look for one. If you see my worst 800, it has first 200 bets with 60 wins only, rest 400 has 186 wins only and the last 200 bets has 99 Wins. Thus, it only confirms to regression towards Mean and law of large numbers and there is nothing to compensate and no wins in big clusters. It still won without going -300 ever.
Regarding, a rigged casino, I do not believe it to be so easy and I do not ever try to win huge in EC bets so there is no room for rigging results only for me. That could be done for a martingale player. Playing on unrealistic premises is wrong by default.
I created this methodology primarily to beat "Player" bet of Baccarat in an all over game. So far, it is unbeatable even in the worst found stretches. I believe that I can sustain now even if there is an unbelievable case of 1/50 or anything alike.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2020, 05:18:06 AM
It was tough from #105 and it took 621 bets to beat it with a net profit thereafter. Horrible losses all over: 268 Wins vs 355 Losses

Impressive ! That was a tough session.

If I summarize the clues you already gave :

1. Start with a 0,1 labby
2. Stop betting when you have 5 mores losses than wins (Mini stop loss).
3. Accept the loss and restart betting the next spin with a new 0,1 labby.
4. Stop betting in certain conditions and restart after. Wich conditions and when do you restart ?
5. Increase the base labby in certain conditions. Wich conditions and how much do you increase the labby ?
...

Thanks hgwen,  I don't follow this thread with a lot of detail but your summarization helps me understand his MM.

J

Quote from: Albalaha on May 06, 2020, 03:31:51 AM
Expectation of Clustering or clumping wins or compensatory wins is wrong even after the worst possible so my methodology doesn't look for one. If you see my worst 800, it has first 200 bets with 60 wins only, rest 400 has 186 wins only and the last 200 bets has 99 Wins. Thus, it only confirms to regression towards Mean and law of large numbers and there is nothing to compensate and no wins in big clusters. It still won without going -300 ever.
Regarding, a rigged casino, I do not believe it to be so easy and I do not ever try to win huge in EC bets so there is no room for rigging results only for me. That could be done for a martingale player. Playing on unrealistic premises is wrong by default.
I created this methodology primarily to beat "Player" bet of Baccarat in an all over game. So far, it is unbeatable even in the worst found stretches. I believe that I can sustain now even if there is an unbelievable case of 1/50 or anything alike.

Ok, thanks.
Regarding baccarat, how many shoes on average do you expect to be behind when strong negative conditions are met? (Say 4 sigma or higher deviations)

Thanks again.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 06, 2020, 09:30:25 PM
Ok, thanks.
Regarding baccarat, how many shoes on average do you expect to be behind when strong negative conditions are met? (Say 4 sigma or higher deviations)

Thanks again.

as.

There could be many probabilities in the long run. At one in a million bad case, it may drag upto 10 shoes or even more but normally 1-2 shoes is enough to conclude. I believe that playing uninterrupted for long stretches is not required.

QuoteImpressive ! That was a tough session.

If I summarize the clues you already gave :

1. Start with a 0,1 labby
2. Stop betting when you have 5 mores losses than wins (Mini stop loss).
3. Accept the loss and restart betting the next spin with a new 0,1 labby.
4. Stop betting in certain conditions and restart after. Which conditions and when do you restart ?
5. Increase the base labby in certain conditions. Which conditions and how much do you increase the labby ?
...

Hmm. You knew the core that I elaborated. Now, think how to move ahead yourself and create an HG for yourself, if you can. I am ready to tell fundamentals whenever required. There could be many ways to do that.

80 Wins vs 124 Losses. Superbad first 50 bets. Yet recovered and won without much fuss.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

It is not quite good
to bet "fixed RED",
since we know,
great negative extreme
variance, will hit, after, few
easy sessions...
and then drawdown,
to -300u, just impossible,
to play in bm casino, except,
online with cents or a dollar
minimum.
We must have a bet selection,
that is fluid, by, changing side,
to take advantage, the other
side of negative; the positive
extreme variance.
But, people may screaming
their lung out,
and bulging eyes,
that its impossible!
But just because,
I cannot find, that bet selection,
I simply
cannot shriek
"ignorant!" toward others!

QuoteIt is not quite good
to bet "fixed RED",
since we know,
great negative extreme
variance, will hit, after, few
easy sessions...
and then drawdown,
to -300u, just impossible,
to play

OK and if you play a bet by changing it then you will not get great negative variance? Who tells you this? It seems you lack the skills/trackers to simulate and understand the reality. Once you get that you will know that no way of playing saves you from going extreme bad temporarily and occasionally. Better work on a durable MM than looking for magically safe bet.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 07, 2020, 03:08:03 AM
Hmm. You knew the core that I elaborated. Now, think how to move ahead yourself and create an HG for yourself, if you can. I am ready to tell fundamentals whenever required. There could be many ways to do that.

It's quite challenging but ok I can try if you're ok to help me (and I think i'm not the only one interested  ).
Could you please show a tough session with max bet, max drawdown, numers of bets, wins, losses and a clear graph ? It will be very helpful to understand your method.

Thank you!

Quote from: hgwen on May 07, 2020, 11:20:12 AM
It's quite challenging but ok I can try if you're ok to help me (and I think i'm not the only one interested  ).
Could you please show a tough session with max bet, max drawdown, numers of bets, wins, losses and a clear graph ? It will be very helpful to understand your method.

Thank you!

OK. Try the last 124:80 session.
graph:                   max bet: 15 units          worst drawdown:  -77
[attachimg=1]

Dear Albalaha,
Sir,

One pertinent question.

What the ratio of
Extreme vs within-math
seasons.

or in 100seasons,
how many seasons, averages,
are the extreme seasons?
Thanks.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 07, 2020, 11:47:59 AM
Dear Albalaha,
Sir,

One pertinent question.

What the ratio of
Extreme vs within-math
seasons.

or in 100seasons,
how many seasons, averages,
are the extreme seasons?
Thanks.

10% sessions always seem to disturb us with variance which could range from 1 SD to 5 SD.

IMPOSSIBLE SESSION : 23/100 in the first 100 bets and no win for 50 consecutive bets. 99 Wins and 162 losses
              Won with max bet=4 only. Unbelievable but true. 
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W