When asked how someone did today in speculating in the stock market, Forex or commodities, or a casino game such as baccarat dice or roulette, the amateur ( which includes 99.9% of the people in a casino), will respond saying that he made $ 200 or lost $ 400.

The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PM


The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

Well said, indeed.

Whatever investment you make, even a game of chance is an investment with a certain risk.  You always look at the return (profitability ratio) on investment (ROI) in terms of percent. The most commonly used ROI formula is net profits divided by the total cost of the investment which in a gamblers case is his initial BR (Bank Roll), and where the quotient is converted to a percentage by multiplying it by 100.

It is basically a simple formula that investors or professional gamblers can use to evaluate their risk investments and judge how well a particular investment, or game,  has performed compared to others. There are of course more complex formulas where time is included (longevity of exposed risk versus profit), but essentially all end up with a converted quotient in percent in any professional gamblers mind.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 11, 2017, 03:55:07 AM
                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

Good point.

Maths forks fully whenever any single outcome is equally probable and coincident to the expected probability values per each spin or hand.

Nobody can say for sure that those statements are fulfilled per each spin or per every hand.

Casinos analyze the randomness of their games by chi square tests or sd analysis made on large samples.
Nevertheless even when statistical findings are in line with the expected but they are losing consistent money, they start to investigate further.
When they don't find a reason why a game produces continuous losses, they simply remove that particular game or even bar the few players suspected to be winners.

Since there is no reason to ban people betting good money on huge mathematical disadvantaged games, we can infer that not everytime mathematics works. Even in the long run.

On the other end, why winning players should divulge precisely their strategies?

Thorp had a reason to do that as he made a lot of money selling his book.
Pelayo's family hadn't, because they accumulated millions by taking advantage of things they couldn't publicly explain.

After all players are st.upids. They can get an astounding 7% edge on EZ F-7 baccarat bets but almost nobody cares, preferring to develop strategies that cannot work in the past, now and in the future.

If I'd say that a specific generator could lead to an edge of 12% every 40 spins on average, nobody would listen to me. Betting one time over 40 hands? No party.

as. 










   

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PMThe intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

I really like this.


So in my parting from activity at this forum, I'm showing the basic math of how I found what works for me.


I use 8 bets as my bankroll.
I settle for 18% as an achievement in speculation worth living for.
I never use the entire bankroll if I've discovered a very difficult session.
I settle for breaking even or even a 50% loss as good enough if a session just won't seem to get back to even.
Each spin has a 63% chance of winning.
It only takes 3 net wins to reach 18%.


That's all it takes to become a millionaire. You just have to know how to deal with situational awareness. I've clearly explained how to do this at the forums, especially this one. The effectiveness state is the secret in case you want to be told.


Three net wins at a game where two net wins is mathematically a normal expectation is not too hard to achieve.


I've tried to get 20 to 30 net wins and that was just too much to go after.


Now you all know the secret.


It is not that far from expectations for day traders in the market.

Bet risking 1u every bet, parlay the win plus 1u.
1st win=2
1+2=3, w=6
1+6=7=14
1+14=15=30
31=62,
63=126
127=254
That 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

QuoteThat 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

BTW

It depends from what you bet, game could be streaky or choppy, both can win or lose.

In my point of view you need to be flexible in order to come out on top whether results favor 1 side or both (balanced).

So how do you achieve it?
Employ 2 different/separate selections and progressions.

Let's say you bet 1st dozen + High, on the dozen use its classic negative progression 1,1,2,3,4,6,9...etc and on High use the parlay which you have described above.
The 2 progressions work independently, when you have choppy table the negative progression on the dozen will thrive, when you have streaky results the parlay on EC will dominate.

Proceed both progressions till your BR reaches new high.
You have effectively connected the 2 opposite roulette poles and solved its enigma.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 17, 2017, 01:36:53 PM
Re: World's Best And Safest Roulette System [Really...?]
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2014, 02:57:23 am »
ReplyReplyQuote
This system is good only for the bet selection as it produce near equilibrium after a long FLAT-bet!
The million dollar grail lies in the PROGRESSION.
Any bet selection that produce nearly equal profit loss, after..., say 100 spins, is always a good bet selection, and throw in a godly PROGRESSION,  and it will be a constant winner!!!

Is this what you were looking for?

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 17, 2017, 01:36:53 PM
Bet risking 1u every bet, parlay the win plus 1u.
1st win=2
1+2=3, w=6
1+6=7=14
1+14=15=30
31=62,
63=126
127=254
That 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

It will happen for sure at some point of time but till then u could be losing much more than you gain from this parlay. Parlay looks attractive but it may not work as per your convenience. Be it a single Win or a set of seven wins, all could go far far from where you expect it.

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
When asked how someone did today in speculating in the stock market, Forex or commodities, or a casino game such as baccarat dice or roulette, the amateur ( which includes 99.9% of the people in a casino), will respond saying that he made $ 200 or lost $ 400.

The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

  I do not agree on this in terms of casino gambling. Coming out of casino at -4% or +2% of what you carried to bet as bankroll is hilarious. So you go to casino with $500 in pockets and after losing $20 in 3-4 hands you say, oh, it is -4% and I being an  intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler should stay prudent and run out now. What i the point of  carrying $500 then? Go casino with $20 only and then again you need to try all you have. If I go to play a session of roulette with $500, I try to rather come out at +300 or -500. At times, I can try to even make $1000 profit and I have done it numerous times.
Gambling is not an investment. It is only about assessing risk and reward of your style of betting and then determining when you come out of casino.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 18, 2018, 05:12:00 AM
  I do not agree on this in terms of casino gambling. Coming out of casino at -4% or +2% of what you carried to bet as bankroll is hilarious. So you go to casino with $500 in pockets and after losing $20 in 3-4 hands you say, oh, it is -4% and I being an  intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler should stay prudent and run out now. What i the point of  carrying $500 then? Go casino with $20 only and then again you need to try all you have. If I go to play a session of roulette with $500, I try to rather come out at +300 or -500. At times, I can try to even make $1000 profit and I have done it numerous times.
Gambling is not an investment. It is only about assessing risk and reward of your style of betting and then determining when you come out of casino.

I meant 2% or 4 % 5 % etc of your total bankroll..........not the bankroll ( or buy in ) you take to the casino for one session.

QuoteI meant 2% or 4 % 5 % etc of your total bankroll..........not the bankroll ( or buy in ) you take to the casino for one session.

       Even that is hypothetical. Have you determined your lifetime bankroll in advance? I play with day's bankroll and do not count if it is 3% or 10% of what I can lose max. This bookish term of life bankroll is unrealistic, in my humble opinion.