In my many years of research upon various sides of gambling, I found one conclusive thing:

Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.

             Ironically, all old school progressions and betselections(I do not think one can pick better bets with any methodology) are so much foolish that trying any of them is pretty childish. Every progression designed either fails easily or earn slowly till it loses all. I wonder that how come progression creators of Martingale, Labouchere, D'alembert etc  deserved to be called mathematicians.

If anybody is even slightly serious about gambling and earning from there or atleast not losing huge, working on handling all sorts of variance with least harm is the only prudent thing to be done.
 
   All talks of oldschool ideas are mere wastage of time.

You are correct, if you desire to continue to play.

The average player will win and many times, no statics but rather quickly.  The problem you cite will enter the picture and the player is then doomed to give back the winning plus their buy in and probably continued buy ins until they get wiped or give up.

The player needs to learn how to walk when they win before giving it back. 

Quote from: alrelax on December 09, 2016, 12:04:04 AM


The player needs to learn how to walk when they win before giving it back.

Actually I believe that giving some back is one of the things players need to factor into their method in order to handle the variances that Albalaha is talking about.

Again, correct.

1/3rds have served me well and many others

Personally, I am willing to give back 1/3 to continue, perhaps a tad bit more depending on the cards.

http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/know-when-to-stop-or-go/

AND ALSO

http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/13-13-13-summation/

Again, it boils down to one thing, in and above, betselection--money management--progressions.... Which to me are all important.  But, if you win you have to get many many things out of your mind and know how and why you won. 

For me, I realize if it was myself wagering on what the shoe actually produced or if it was 'sheer luck' and haphazard wagering.  There is a difference, at least for myself there is. 

As far as walking away and as far as risk additional win money or buy in money to see if you can really rack it in---the 1/3rds work spot-on for me.  Here is an example as to what happened to player a few nights ago. 

I know the guy from the casino, I don't know his personal wealth or struggles, I do believe he is not wealthy and makes an average living, he plays once or twice  week, usually buying in for $200 or $300 and that is it.  Many times he will triple his buy in and leave, calls it a session, sometimes not, but overall more so than not.

The other night he buys in for $200.  Up and down.  Hit a few and presses aggressively.  Had $10.00 out on the Fortune 7 and hit for $400.  Stack it up in the next couple of wagers and lost it.  Hits another Fortune 7 in 5 hands after the first for another $400.  Wagers between $100 and $300 a hand and hits probably 7 or 8 out of the next 10.  Then about another 6 hands or so after doing well on the B's or P's having at least $2,000 in winnings, more than he normally ever wins, he hits another Fortune 7 for another $400 which now it is around hand 50 or so.  He plays real aggressive and has that aura about himself that he is bulletproof.  He lost it all by the end of the shoe.

My whole point to all this---is that you have to govern yourself.  Easily said, harder and most of the time NOT done at the tables.  Think about it. 

Quote from: Albalaha on December 08, 2016, 11:41:22 PM

Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.
...
   All talks of old school ideas are mere wastage of time.

Actually you know what I think. Variance is a living, breathing, and constantly changing thing. It causes your bet selection technique and your money management to adapt to it or to be eliminated by a mismatch of consequences. Luckily, you can control your playing dynamics to compensate for these changes.


"Fortune rewards the prepared mind."

Quote from: alrelax on December 09, 2016, 08:32:05 AM
The other night he buys in for $200.  Up and down.  Hit a few and presses aggressively.  Had $10.00 out on the Fortune 7 and hit for $400.  Stack it up in the next couple of wagers and lost it.  Hits another Fortune 7 in 5 hands after the first for another $400.  Wagers between $100 and $300 a hand and hits probably 7 or 8 out of the next 10.  Then about another 6 hands or so after doing well on the B's or P's having at least $2,000 in winnings, more than he normally ever wins, he hits another Fortune 7 for another $400 which now it is around hand 50 or so.  He plays real aggressive and has that aura about himself that he is bulletproof.  He lost it all by the end of the shoe.

If you don't know that all win streaks come to an end then you don't know much about gambling.

And that is what I have been preaching along with a few other things with figuring out a win and giving myself a boost with the 1/3rd system everyone here is apparently against.  But hey, it's all good! 

Mild progression works best but even that is not enough by itself to handle all varieties of variance. Gizmo's claim of identifying opportunities is a bit vague. In my humble opinion we can not identify any opportunities. By seeing WWWW, we can't say if it will go any further or end right there. Both are equally likely and house edge/house fees is still there to worsen things.

All money management approaches(be it progression, regression or flat betting) are tailor made to handle one type of situation only and disastrous in adverse cases making them  fool's gold.

             For example a ten step progression can handle a 10% hit rate and super variance like:
LLLLL LLLLW LLLLL LLWLL LLLLL LLW
but one incident of ten step loss like LLLLL LLLLL will kill this cleverass idea. Same holds true with all other progressions known to mankind. Flat bet winning is making castle in the air only.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 10, 2016, 11:31:51 PM
Mild progression works best but even that is not enough by itself to handle all varieties of variance. Gizmo's claim of identifying opportunities is a bit vague. In my humble opinion we can not identify any opportunities. By seeing WWWW, we can't say if it will go any further or end right there. Both are equally likely and house edge/house fees is still there to worsen things.

Here is how to look at it. In a 200 spin session you will see more than 50 six in a rows, 10 eight in a rows, and 2 fifteen in a rows of singles or sleeper opportunities. It takes a first win on double dozens to help average out the balance point of placing double dozen bets that balance two out of three times to make up a 50/50 outcome, by flat betting. By winning that first bet at twice the value of your second bets and beyond you change the dynamic of the balance point. This is done at a 64% chance of doing it too. At that point you are hunting for possible starting points that are completely unknowable.


You must admit at some point to yourself that gambling is a risk and reward activity. I risk first bets at twice the value of my other flat bets in an activity that rewards me for finding opportunities that would go unrewarded if I didn't set out to discover them in the first place. All the rewards became apparent when the Global Effect for sleepers or singles kicks in. It changes to a situation that these opportunities swarm together all at once and continuously.


A person that wants to exploit opportunities must know that if opportunities can swarm together all at once, then they can also disappear at times like a stretch of no opportunities all swarmed together. Situational awareness is the key to knowing when to go for it and when not to. You can't walk into a casino and expect favoritism to bid you good fortune just because you have arrived. You must see what the wheel is currently dealing out in the stream of randomness. Is there a Global effect or is there not? Is there an active pattern of phases or are there no identifiable phases? Are there a swarm of doubles and triples while there are no singles? These phenomenon are so common that it is unbelievable to me that anyone would knowingly ignore them.


People wait for an advantage in the game of 21 and then they strike. I wait for a swarm of consistency of any kind and then I strike. If you know how to be good at taking those first bets down, then you know how to position yourself properly to take advantage of the almost always present opportunities. You just have to keep track of enough data so as to see the spread out opportunities.


I wonder why you don't see the opportunities. I spent years learning to see them and to properly take risks on them. I've tried to share just how to go about it. But my basics are imprinted upon my playing style. I can't make a person recognize situations that are the beginnings of favorable stretches. To make money you have to know how to live with risking money.


I don't keep digging if I'm not getting anywhere. I use dynamite when I'm on the Gold. You can't prevent yourself from seeing a working Global Effect once you have been trained to recognize one while it's happening. If you walk away from a working Global Effect then I'm not sure that gambling will ever be a worth while pass-time for any person that would do that.

QuoteIn a 200 spin session you will see more than 50 six in a rows, 10 eight in a rows, and 2 fifteen in a rows of singles or sleeper opportunities.

It is only as good as saying in 100 spins you should get 48/49 blacks and reds and rest 0. What should happen averagely may not happen while you play. It could go better or worse.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 13, 2016, 01:11:09 AM
It is only as good as saying in 100 spins you should get 48/49 blacks and reds and rest 0. What should happen averagely may not happen while you play. It could go better or worse.

I'm saying that almost every time I sit down to play there are almost always continuous opportunities, and am willing to prove it to you right here. I track 12 sets of dozens that make up 4 individual groupings. Most people know what the dozens/columns are. That's two groups easily known. If there is a total absence of opportunities from the sleepers or the singles then that too is knowledge. The flow of randomness is always telling you something, if you can read the language. Now I too must read the variance, or handle it as you say. But I'm never at the mercy of long term statistical arithmetic. It is far better to exist in the here-and-now of what randomness is currently offering up. For that matter it is the here-and-now of the variance too.

Here: Try to read randomness.




| 1  2  3 | A  B  C | 0  3  6 | P |
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 18
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 13
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
|    X    | X       |       X | P | -- 22
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 15
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 18
|    X    | X       |       X | P | -- 22
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 7
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 2
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 15
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 37
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 34
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 34
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 34
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 2
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 16
|    X    |       X |    X    | P | -- 21
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 25
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 33
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |       X |    X    | P | -- 21
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 10
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 32
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 36
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 2
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 2
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    | X       |       X | P | -- 22
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 5
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 10
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 25
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 16
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 3
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 10
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
|    X    | X       |       X | P | -- 22
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 26
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 5
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 34
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 32
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 5
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 36
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 18
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 13
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 36
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 18
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 3
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|    X    |    X    | X       | P | -- 23
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|    X    |       X |    X    | P | -- 21
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
|    X    |    X    | X       | P | -- 23
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 33
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 37
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 19
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 32
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 5
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 19
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 36
|    X    |       X |    X    | P | -- 21
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 19
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 3
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 2
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 16
|    X    |    X    | X       | P | -- 23
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 36
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 32
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 10
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 19
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 14
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 10
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 20
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 19
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 25
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
|    X    |       X |    X    | P | -- 21
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 37
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 33
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 5
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 16
| X       |       X |    X    |   | -- 12
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 3
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 3
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
|       X |    X    |       X |   | -- 29
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 27
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
| X       |    X    | X       |   | -- 8
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 16
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 34
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 24
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 4
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 33
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 37
|       X | X       |    X    | P | -- 28
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
|    X    |    X    | X       | P | -- 23
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 18
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 1
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X |    X    | X       | P | -- 32
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 9
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    |    X    | X       | P | -- 23
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 25
|    X    |       X | X       |   | -- 15



The spins: 9,17,18,13,1,29,22,9,8,15,31,18,22,7,35,2,11,15,12,37,34,9,34,4,34,2,6,27,16,21,35,25,33,17,
17,21,10,32,36,6,9,20,4,2,2,11,22,35,27,5,14,10,25,16,4,9,14,30,12,9,3,10,30,29,4,20,14,4,22,26,5,34,32,
5,36,18,9,11,20,29,27,14,13,6,29,1,36,17,18,28,3,24,8,23,27,27,8,21,8,30,31,12,23,33,27,37,19,12,1,32,5,
19,1,1,36,21,35,28,14,19,6,3,31,2,8,11,16,23,24,36,27,32,29,20,10,27,20,9,9,19,14,28,17,17,14,10,24,24,20,
19,8,25,28,30,4,21,12,37,35,31,30,31,9,33,9,17,28,5,24,16,12,3,3,31,29,27,6,8,8,16,34,24,4,33,37,28,1,23,18,
1,6,31,30,32,31,9,11,23,25,15,

 I may not be competent enough to read randomness and predict anything on the basis that you are elaborating but I am kind of very convinced that gambling is all about speculations and never about predictions in a short session. In a very large span, things go very close to the expected average but one may not play considering that in a session. So, the most practical way that I consider is having a dynamic MM that can adjust to all the good and worse times in the best possible manner.