Sequential probability is the probability of happening or non happening of a sequence/series of result. Probability of getting an  LL and an LLLLLLL can not be same. However, it should not be confused with gamblers' fallacy. If we bet only after LLLLL, we still can get LLLLLLL as easily as anybody can get LL but still probability to have a series of LLLLLLL will be roughly 1/128 and an LLLLLLL can not compete with LL in numbers of occurrence.

               How can we use it in gambling WITHOUT BEING FALLACIOUS?
There can be many ways including two techniques that I use:

1)IF WE TARGET EVERY LLL TO NOT TO BECOME LLL LL IN AN EC BET.
     For example, if we see BBB in baccarat, we can try Player upto two times to get a win, we are most likely to get good number of wins; or

2) we can use it in inverse form betting only first two attempts and not in subsequent losses.

Both ways will help us in Extreme Variance management. Both carry their drawbacks too but if we see the probable horror sessions, this can help a lot.

Remember: No way of picking way will get you an edge in a random game. You can't win flat with it.

More later..........

Negative variance, I insist is the biggest enemy of gambling. Had there been no negative variance everybody will win with any negative progression. However, it is also true that variance has a virtual limit and if one plays to win in the long run with patience of a stone, he can win for sure.
         I was referring to the writings of Dr. Ion Saliu, a noted mathematician and found the golden words,
"The degree of certainty DC rises exponentially with the increase in the number of trials N while the probability p is always the same or constant.
DC = 1 – (1 – p) ^ N
Simultaneously, the opposite event, the losing chance, decreases exponentially with an increase in the number of trials.".
  We only strive to win in the short run, thereby making gambling a game of chance than a game of skill/logic/math. In the long run, it is always very smooth road.
     Playing for long run doesn't mean we need to play 24x7x365. We can add all our sessions and consider them as playing in the long run.

Sir,
Readers always wondering,
How long, is "long run"...

1000 is ok,
as for bacc. it only few hours in bm.

10000 is little too long.

Now, the million dollar
question...
What the worst ever
in 1000???
Since worstever for 200=69/200...

I assume..
69x5=345/1000

win 655
lose 345.

lose 310u
flatbet..

Thus we assume
only 345hit in next 1000,
how to mm to win at least 1u?

Wong,
           I recently checked Zumma 1600, 117k+ hands of baccarat without Ties. In Player, 442 was the least hit in 1000 consecutive trials and 452 for Banker. I believe it could be 400/100 as the worst being 5SD. As I said repeatedly, it could be even 300/1000 at a point of time and we need not win that span but stay least harmed. Winning in the long run can not include winning 5SD variance. Bear reasonable losses in such one in millions case and get a net win gradually thereafter. If you can do that, you have got an HG.

If the probability of getting at least 40 Wins of Player in 100 consecutive hands is nearly 95%, it means that averagely 5 out of every 100 sessions(OF 100 HANDS EACH) could have harsher(lesser than 40 wins) outcomes. This average is only an average and layers of probability could even bring 20 such harsher sessions in a span of 100. That is what we call variance.
              Problem is, can you win in 40/100 case with any strategy that does not kill you when you do not get even that?

Quote from: Albalaha on May 26, 2021, 05:27:51 AM
In Player, 442 was the least hit in 1000 consecutive trials and 452 for Banker. I believe it could be 400/100 as the worst being 5SD. As I said repeatedly, it could be even 300/1000 ...

Sir,
As we can't foresee future, and then only three outcomes for next 100 or 1000 hand...

after 100 or 1000hand..the end result
may...

1)within math 50% expectation.

2) hit extreme negative...

3)hit extreme positive...

thus
I think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme...

As I see it, after every 1000spins, or hands, the end result always quite  harsh, always around +-10 to +-30units, (and of course, with streaks of positive and negative And chops...too).

I think, we must think hard to , how to devise a system, to take advantage of positive extreme, by not betting fixed color or player only...

say, for next 1000, one side will positive extreme, and the opposite, will negative extreme ...then we need a way to place our bet, to lean our BET the positive side.

Let say, I had a data of 1000, (which you not yet see ),which in the end result "player" win +20units.
Then how to BET, this data, so that we stay at the player side eventually...Not to win the daid +20, but at least we have hit within mat expectation, and to avoid
trapped in extreme negative...

don't brush off this as fallacy or naive, before we think very hard about this.
we need to do extreme brain raking.

Most of you already know, but post this anyway...

how much losses?
(If flatbet.)

in next 100spins.

win 50/lose50=0
win 49/lose 51=-2 losses
48/52=-4
47/53=-6
46/54=-8
45/55=-10
44/56=-12
43/57=-14
42/58=-16
41/59=-18
40/60=-20
..
30/70=-40losses!

as you see, in only 49hit vs 51losses, we lose -2.
it always 2,4,6,8...losses...
and no 1,2,3,4 ,5,6,7...losses..

We lose fast, if we use progression, and hit the losing side.

Good post and comments PatternAnalys and Albalaha

PatternAnalys
"...I think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme..."

IMO it is the "fixed" or what I call predetermined bet selection that contributes to our expected harsh negative extreme.  Variance will always be our number one nemesis. 

Albalaha

re: "...I recently checked Zumma 1600, 117k+ hands of baccarat without Ties. In Player, 442 was the least hit in 1000 consecutive trials and 452 for Banker. I believe it could be 400/100 as the worst being 5SD. As I said repeatedly, it could be even 300/1000 at a point of time and we need not win that span but stay least harmed. Winning in the long run can not include winning 5SD variance. .."

Q: What the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.



Continued Success,

QuoteI think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme.

     Wong, whether you play "Player only" or "Banker only", or alternate them every hand or Play the dominant one, all will face variance of same strength still. Come out of this naïve thinking. Playing the better one doesn't help in the long run by an iota.
Your problem for such misbeliefs is due to inability to simulate. You can not get a better bet by doing anything. Every bet is as good as its probability to win.

QuoteWhat the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.

     558 and 548. You should get the MAX seeing the Least of its counterpart when Ties are already removed from counting.

Sir,
Since no betselection, avoid harsh negative extreme, then I THINK,
betting "both side", would at least,
"minimise losses",
and
"maximise profit",
and after long run, still profitable...

IMAGINE this,

Tom and Harry,
play as a TEAM,
(and using Albalaha's hg mm method).

Tom will bet
"Player",
and Harry will bet "Banker"...

both bet with same X units capital.

When
"within expectation hit ", as always,
both will win around some % of X " ,
and when
the EXPECTED unexpected
"harsh extreme ",
hit...

say BANKER,
hit only 30/100,

then Harry will lose all the X,
but Tom,
will hit jackpot,
but when "factoring in",
Harry's HUGE losses, resulting in minimal losses,
that will easily, neutralised,
with next one or two round of bet...

What you think?

We
need to do some long simulation, to see what happen ...(eagerly waiting for your finding...or am I too naive...hahaha...

Hi Alb
Thx for reply to my Q

What was the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.

    "...558 and 548. You should get the MAX seeing the Least of its counterpart when Ties are already removed from counting...."

I concur


Continued Success,

Hi PatternAnalys

Thx for post.

Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q.



Continued Success,

Quotebetting "both side", would at least,
"minimise losses",
and
"maximise profit",
and after long run, still profitable...

          Whatever you think is due to your desire to win small sessions which is tough to manage. I think for the long run where I have to win with my bet so why bother betting both sides together. It will look weird and also calculating both together would be tougher than you can imagine.

Quoteneed to do some long simulation, to see what happen ...(eagerly waiting for your finding...or am I too naive...hahaha...

You are not naive but you lack simulation skills so have wild dreams that this should work without evaluating. To get something benefit you first of all the basic logic should be flawless then simulations help. If you lack the logic or simulation, you will stay confused and naive forever. Either you do it yourself or get help from someone.

Hi PatternAnalys

re: Your post above.

"...IMAGINE this,

Tom and Harry,
play as a TEAM,
(and using Albalaha's hg mm method).

Tom will bet
"Player",
and Harry will bet "Banker"...

both bet with same X units capital.

When
"within expectation hit ", as always,
both will win around some % of X " ,
and when
the EXPECTED unexpected
"harsh extreme ",
hit...

say BANKER,
hit only 30/100,

then Harry will lose all the X,
but Tom,
will hit jackpot,
but when "factoring in",
Harry's HUGE losses, resulting in minimal losses,
that will easily, neutralised,
with next one or two round of bet...

What you think?
   ..."


My earlier comment:  "...Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q   ..."



     If Im understanding your idea my thinking is that (although it would indeed restrict the -effects of Variance on our buyin ), it would also restrict our potential to win (when we are in sync with the results). All the while exposing double(both players' wagers), to the H.E., with only 50% of the possible potential.

     *I play almost daily with a couple older gentleman that play something similar to what you mention. One day per week(typically Fri), they will spend the whole day going to several dif casinos to play their free play, food vouchers, match play,submit entries for weekend drawings, ....etc as they don't play weekends/ so they either use them or lose them. So their main objective is to get rated higher for comps with less $ at risk, while accomplishing the above.

Somewhat similar to what u mention above (at a $50min cas), they each start out with $50 each as opposing sides' wagers(p/b). Depending on which wins, one then wagers $55/the other player always stays at $50. They do a very diluted /slow neg pro in $5 increments.
Their main objective is to get higher comps at the $50+ level while only risking approx $5(2.50 each) or slightly more if they have to extend the negpro, and they attempt to make a few +dollars Net between them.
Though it wouldn't be my "cup-o-tea"  as it would be like watching paint dry. However, it does indeed appear to satisfy their objective.

Maybe there are other ways of viewing it that I haven't considered.


Thx again for posting/continued success,

Hi KFB,
Thanks for yr comment,
As you already noticed,
money management,
is the key to win when betting both sides,
as a ...
TEAM.

As you see,

Albalaha said,
he must win when "hit within math expectation",
and could take manageable losses, and minimise cut losses to acceptable level and definitely,

will "recoup"
the losses,
with further 2 or three winning session...

Thus I suggest him to take a ...
partner,

to play as a team, playing both side.

The logic very obvious to you...

since,
when P hit expectation,
B also hit expectation...

And when P hit horrible negative extreme,

B must hit godsend positive variance, thus MINIMISE the losses of P...

thus, when within expectation ,

both side must win,

the team must win a sizeable profit,
and when 1 side hit

landmine of extreme negative,

the other side make sizeable profit...

and
minimise the
team's losses,

and recover with next 2 or three winning session.

You see, its boil down to mm.
I think Albalaha apply short term labby,
( he won't tell his secret , hahaha)..

only bet up to ,say,


eg.
target win 1u at a time,
if win, restart.

bet10 hand,
if lose ,say,

streak of 5losses,
or, say,

only 2hit in 8hand,

Then stop bet,

see how next ten hand behave,
to avoid long streak of losses,
and when next ten hand produce "within expectation",
resume betting.