Lots of "systems" here and there. For price and for free but do they hold if we keep playing? Answer is no. Will someone dare to include the reasoning or logic to play this or that? Be it roulette or baccarat or even slots, what to play, when to play and why play that way is absolutely missing.
           Will people ever dare to put what, when and why too, in their so called systems? Three answers are necessary for both betselection and money management(progression, regression, flat betting, stop loss and loss recovery all included) but everybody shies away from them. I see lots of copy paste guys here and literally everywhere. A few prefer to write a single topic to 5 or more forums they belong to. A few write "daily systems" without even testing them enough. Will we ever see serious and worthwhile debates with serious simulations, tweaking and finalizing?

Quote from: Albalaha on December 10, 2014, 04:05:00 PM
Will someone dare to include the reasoning or logic to play this or that?

I doubt it, because there is no valid reason or logic to play any system. I think most people realize this, even if they're totally ignorant of the mathematical details, because if that weren't the case, the casinos would not exist.

All systems, no matter how complex or ingenious, when you work through the maths, come out negative. It cannot be otherwise.

If you assume such-and-such an event won't happen, then you can back up your system with mathematical "facts", but the problem is, you can never make such an assumption.

@Bayes,
                I mostly agree with whatever you say but I won't agree over this:

QuoteAll systems, no matter how complex or ingenious, when you work through the maths, come out negative. It cannot be otherwise.

Before beating all zumma books, 10 million spins of roulette and the worst number of zumma I used to think like you but the game ( say randomness) is not as wild as we imagine. If we try to play all over, nothing in the world will let us win but same is not true with playing with taking care of sequential probability and virtual limit of variance in mind.

Quote from: Bayes on December 10, 2014, 05:54:00 PM
All systems, no matter how complex or ingenious, when you work through the maths, come out negative. It cannot be otherwise.

Hello, Bayes, I trust all is well with you.

You are absolutely correct.  All systems (geez, I detest that label), "when you work through the maths", will come up short.  No argument there.  The house edge is what it is, and leaves each bet with a negative expectancy.

But you might notice that I put into quotes the "when you work through the maths"....I did so, Bayes, for a reason.  I am of the opinion that the "math" can be altered or changed, if you will, or, at the very least, neutralized.  No, not in any "physical" sense, for I cannot rewrite the times tables.

But I believe that there are certain things that an astute player can do that can put the odds of long-term success into their favor.

I believe that our "Player's Edges", when utilized absolutely to their fullest potential and followed religiously, can serve as a conduit to that success.

Look....the casino measures their success over the long term.  It is only when the player looks at their play the very same way will they ever have any chance at their own long term success.

Only a long term bet selection (read: consistent); only a long term money management (read: session progression); only a long term unrelenting goal to survive the negativity (read: discipline); only a long term plan can ever hope to match or even exceed their (read: the casino's) long term plan.

It takes a lot, and most players simply haven't the gumption for it.  But I seek not to be a part of that majority, much preferring to quietly assume my minority position.  I work hard for it.

Stay well.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 10, 2014, 04:05:00 PMA few write "daily systems" without even testing them enough. Will we ever see serious and worthwhile debates with serious simulations, tweaking and finalizing?

Friend, in order to have a serious discussion and draw conclusions we would have to pay programmers. The downside is that nobody wants to pay for programming losers systems because we know the conclusion beforehand. The few systems that can have a chance are scheduled in private by the interested parties and the resulting program is rarely made public.

It is a world of privacy and selfishness but what else can be done with normal thinking. I myself have commanded systems to be programmed I do not make public. Now that I want to learn to program is that I can share freely because it did not cost me money. The truth is that the first thing one thinks after paying out of pocket for programming a method is that it is not fair for the others to benefit having paid nothing, just like that.

Well, let's see if the new website changes things. Not all developers are ready to spend their days programming to give away. In that case Bayes, Esoito, Victor, Nickmsi and the others are special characters in consequence to have them assembled in one place is appreciated but for now they are the exception and not the rule in these forums.

Hopefully we are ready for a year of serious long-term simulations to draw any conclusions of the best systems made public. The programmers deserve their compensation even if the system is a loser. The other option is that we all learn to be programmers to make building a system tester become as common as posting the system but I doubt it. However the attempt can be made.

Hi Gr8player,

Thanks for your input. I'm actually in broad agreement with you, although I have to add that consistent winning at any negative expectation game lies on a knife edge, and the devil is in the detail.

@ Al,

The title of this thread is "but why?".  The fact that you've "beaten" several million spins/hands doesn't constitute a proof in the mathematical sense, unless you can answer your own question - why?

A mathematical proof, once proved, cannot be "unproved". So a theorem such as Pythagoras' theorem, which states that in a right-angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides, is true for every right-angled triangle, for eternity. The proof of negative expectation is similarly true for every system, for eternity. So what grail seekers are looking for is a right-angled triangle in which the square on the hypotenuse is not equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides - a fruitless and illogical task.

On the other hand, it is not fruitless and illogical to search for triangles in which the square on the hypotenuse is not equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides and which are not right-angled (analogous to advantage play).

I'm not saying this to be "negative" or a naysayer, but only because I think many forum members really do believe that if only they search hard enough and long enough, they will find some chink in the armor of roulette or baccarat, some asymmetry or "limit" of randomness which they can exploit.

It might seem paradoxical, but I truly believe that the reason I've been able to stay ahead of the game as long as I have is that I know - and I mean really know - that outcomes are completely unpredictable. Maybe it's necessary to search for a  long time looking for the system in order to realize this, so perhaps the effort is worthwhile after all.

Computer simulation is another way of getting to the mathematical proof that no system can win, without the actual maths (which may well be too complex). So although your systems may have "done well" over a few million spins, they will not continue that way. And besides, I've seen a few million-spin winners in my time, and they are all pretty much unplayable, even with a bot.

Without a logical reason why your system has won, the millions of spins don't count for much, I'm afraid. Do you have one?

QuoteAnd besides, I've seen a few million-spin winners in my time, and they are all pretty much unplayable, even with a bot.

Oh, really? I haven't seen even one in public domain like mine. If you have witnessed many, why not show me at least one?
           

Quotesome asymmetry or "limit" of randomness which they can exploit.

Once you told me that there is a virtual limit of it and now denying it. randomness is not like a dream that travels with the speed of light. It can merely speed up like a supersonic plane, that too, only momentarily. There is, always a virtual limit. It has a finite strength that can be measured too.
            If you believe that randomness can deliver any kind of variance and till any stretch, you are mistaken.
       

QuoteSo although your systems may have "done well" over a few million spins, they will not continue that way.

Now, this is not a comment of your standards. Millions of spins are large enough to ward off  any temporary bias in my favor that can show in my results.

QuoteWithout a logical reason why your system has won, the millions of spins don't count for much, I'm afraid. Do you have one?

Haha. So you really think over 10 millions spins got beaten without even a logic? Is it merely a co-incidence? Such co-incidence is rarer than you go to walk your dog and end up at Jupiter. Logic was simple: taking care of the virtual limit of every possible bet of roulette and using a reasonable push.

Quote from: Bayes on December 11, 2014, 04:11:58 PM
Hi Gr8player,

Thanks for your input. I'm actually in broad agreement with you, although I have to add that consistent winning at any negative expectation game lies on a knife edge, and the devil is in the detail.

That's why my game is built both carefully and subjectively.  I've learned to trust myself at the Baccarat table, as I know that my goal...ALWAYS...is to put myself in the very best possible position to succeed.

I've learned to accept a win...any win...and I've learned to accept a loss.  I've learned to both acknowledge and accept exactly what I can and what I cannot control.

"Lies on a knife edge", Bayes?  Sure does.  So I'm ever-vigilant, and I never forget the fact that I am always just one bad bet away from losing more than I ever should at any time.

So you learn to survive and then you learn to adjust and, voila...you've actually learned to win.  Long term.  Success.

You learn that what you always thought and/or assumed was simply a "minor detail" is, frankly, anything but, and rather vital.  Case in point:  I've never made more money, calculated over the long term, than when I actually LOWERED my base units sizes.  Loosely translated:  The LESS that I bet (size-wise) the MORE dollars I'm able to procure over the long term of my play. 

Finally, Bayes, suffice to say that it all took a lot of trial and error and a vast amount of real table experience.  Most players, I'm rather certain, wouldn't or couldn't be bothered with even a fraction of what I ultimately went through to get my Bac game to where it is today.

But, in the end, I am convinced that that is true mainly because not everyone is seeking the same thing within their Bac games.  Everyone has their own approach, based, generally, on their own personal agendas and/or goals.  Just as the saying goes:  to each his own.

Stay well.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 11, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
Once you told me that there is a virtual limit of it and now denying it. If you believe that randomness can deliver any kind of variance and till any stretch, you are mistaken.

I'm not sure what you mean by virtual limit. There are limits but they cannot effectively be exploited because they are unpredictable. Keep in mind that I'm talking about a mathematical proof here, not empirical results. It may seem academic to you, but there is a big difference - the casinos rely on it.

Turbogenius posted more than one million-spin system on Gambler's Glen years ago, and I've produced a couple myself, but they are unplayable and generate so little profit that they're not worth the trouble.

Yes, believe it or not the win over millions of spins was a coincidence. Post the rules of your system; I'll write a simulation and prove it to you. 

Quote from: gr8player on December 11, 2014, 05:44:14 PM

I've never made more money, calculated over the long term, than when I actually LOWERED my base units sizes.  Loosely translated:  The LESS that I bet (size-wise) the MORE dollars I'm able to procure over the long term of my play. 


Stay well.

To a certain point if we are talking about the same thing.

I used to play larger and a bit more haphazardly, but the wins when they came were always larger and longer.  Now I play a slight bit smaller than before and less haphazardly, but the wins when they come are not quite as large or as long. 

There's an old adage, Alrelax, and it reads something like this:

Protect the downside, and the upside will take care of itself.

Well, that is an axiom that I live by in my mode of play at Baccarat.

"Protect the downside"....the inevitable downturns will forever be lurking.  The question is:  How can I have those inevitabilities cause me the LEAST amount of harm, both to my bankroll and my psyche.

So I lowered my base unit sizes.

And, lo and behold, I have a much better, quicker, and more efficient RECOUP methodology in place.

And it costs me LESS to put it into play.  And so my recoup is, virtually, just as inevitable as that downturn was.

And so I am effectively able to eradicate those downturns in due time.

So, what does that leave me with, assuming I can effectively eradicate losses over time?

WINS, my friends, WINS.  The winning sessions, regardless of size, are PURE PROFIT.

"Protect the downside, and the upside SURELY WILL take care of itself"

Stay well.

QuoteYes, believe it or not the win over millions of spins was a coincidence. Post the rules of your system; I'll write a simulation and prove it to you.

Lol. Do you think that Ophis can't code it properly or I hand tested more than 10 millions spins? It was coded by the best bot coder that we ever got on Victor's forum.

QuoteTurbogenius posted more than one million-spin system on Gambler's Glen years ago, and I've produced a couple myself, but they are unplayable and generate so little profit that they're not worth the trouble.

Here, you admit yourself that they were worthless. That makes all the sense.

          I still have the bot with me and I can still simulate any data, even millions in a few minutes. I do not need any help of yours to see that clearly. I tested 3 million spins given by you and a few million other spins from all over internet. I even got a few hundred thousands spins by a member Magoo. If winning all these is merely coincidence, you may, by coincidence, become Obama.
                        Is winning 32 no deposit bonus playing mostly slots with wagering conditions ranging from 30x to 120x on bonus money, is a co-incidence too?
                                        If randomness looks like ocean to you, it is only because lack of knowledge regarding how to handle it. To me, it is merely a 20 meter swimming pool that I can swim across, a few times, daily. If you can't break stone by hands, do not say, it is not doable. Just say, I can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zStzttOP-2U
                   

Al, you just don't get it. We only have your word for it. Where is the mathematical proof or the rules of the system so that it can be independently verified?

You say "I have done it, now your turn". and in your signature EARNsumit@gmail.com.

But you say you no longer sell systems.

Sorry, it doesn't add up.

@ Bayes,
                 Do you think I need your certification to prove my point? When we did beat over 10 million spins, we openly invited Victor himself to see the bot but he failed to turn up.
             Regarding my email, it is 6 years old now and I do not change my username or email like you did from Bayes to Slacker and back to Bayes.
            No jokes and chitchats in my debates.

Gentlemen,
Lets see what Albalaha points,
to ponder...

1]what to play
2]when to play
3]why play that way

 
I try to read almost all of Albalaha posting in the net, and could see that he always stressed that...

1]Virtual limit.
2]RTM
3]Exploiting the two above to the fullest, to win.

He seldom talk about progression as he stressed the utmost importance of "when" and "why" to play...

as he view progression is just a simple tool, but "over emphasized" factor by most,

as no progression could win in the worst possible random.

and  that progression, by itself, never could be a HG!

He says HG is understand RTM and Virtual Limit, to win more than u would lose cutting lose
[ cutting loss, as random will become untamed once in a while...][?]

He always says  that VIRTUAL LIMIT, as a RANDOM behavior that has a LIMIT to extreme...[thus u ONLY see 69red/200spins as official record, but will never see 0 red/200spins in your entire lifetime!]

He hinted that if one could understand Virtual Limit and RTM,
and exploit them, then he will ....win most of the session,
and if,... if everyone knows how to exploit RTM and Virtual LIMIT, world's casinos will bankrupt.


Well, what say U???

Lets DEBATE gentlemantly...