Hey friends,
                I wasted almost a decade looking upon both bet selections, with and without a hell lot of triggers. Finally, it concluded that no bet selection is better or even stable in all times. It may not hit for long in succession or hit intermittently as to make you lose and lose.
Your wins in average or good times will not compensate for your losses in the worst times.

After simulating and playing millions of spins, I can conclude that, only that strategy is worth playing that can:
1) Survive the worst possible; and
2) win a net profit in a below average/average win rate thereafter, without looking for a clumping win or compensating wins.

Clumping wins and compensatory more wins are not always unlikely but expecting that to rescue is again going fallacious and having a wishful day only.

For example, in an EC bet if Losses and wins come like this:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW WWLWW LLWWW

Anybody playing +1 after winning while same after losses will win easily like

-1,-1,-1,-1,-1  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1  +1+2+3+4+5 +6+1,-1+1+2 -1,-1+1+2+1


but the same progression will become fools' gold in a W/L series like:

LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WLWLW LLWLW WLWLW LWWLW LLWWL WLLWL LWLWL LWWLW

Are any of you winning in the above noted scenario ? Or you think it is not likely with your very wise bet selection?

Are you winning when a dozen behaves like this:
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W

Or you will be looking for lucky strikes to come and rescue you?

Note:  I was told by the OP that my comment was shocking. Since I disturbed his thread and discussion, I have removed my comment as he labeled my play both novice and bothersome.  I do apologize for responding with my post. 

You haven't seen 15 losses of an EC bet in a succession? It means you haven't played enough yet. It is not so frequent as it is probable once in 32000 hands/spins but it could come in the very first session one plays. I have written a post on extremes and their virtual limits but many of members here objected on that too and you are asserting 15 losses in a row followed by bad wins is not likely, I can only wonder. I play roulette in mostly betvoyager having a marquee of 20+ spins and many many times witnessed the entire marquee going black or red.

Hi Abalaha,
Let s say that we have Always this LWs as trigger...

LLWWLLWWLLWW
or
LWLWLWLWLWLW

Now we look at same LW but use groups 1 and 2 (or A and B)

112211221122
or
121212121212

Don t you think that the Change it s close ?
Random Vs Order .....random can t stay to much in order and
the change will come.

Now just  example how i try to create  that triggers:

Splits / group

7            1
12          1 
8            2
13          2
7            1
2            1
13          2
6            2
10          1
14          1
8            2
3            2 bet for change
-------------------------------------
2            1           L1
9            1new     L2
16          2new     L3
13          2           L4
8            2           W

the groups grows(and we lose) when new split hit,
also lose when splits repeat in same pattern, but
the change is very close most of the times.

Btw...i prefer streets, lines, quads

@Kattila,
              Good to see you in the debate. Buddy, it is not about what kind of bet or trigger you opt. You may still face the harsh outcomes whenever you opt to start or bet. My question is, are we destined to only lose in cases where we meet with a very bad stretch of consequent losses followed by average/below average wins. As I said earlier and all of us know, it is fallacious to think of compensatory more wins. Law of short run says, we may see any sort of wildness of randomness and law of long run says, results will only tend to get near mean value later. You may not get enough wins to compensate for your harsh moments but in a very long data, things will be closer to the average expectancy of the bet.

          Thus, in 10k spins, we are likely to see approx 4900 reds and blacks both but in a short span of 100 spins, we may get 68 reds,1 zero and 31 blacks easily. Any strategy set to doom and lose big in such cases will ensure that we can not win in the long run.

Quote from: alrelax on August 12, 2019, 04:48:15 PM
Note:  I was told by the OP that my comment was shocking. Since I disturbed his thread and discussion, I have removed my comment as he labeled my play both novice and bothersome.  I do apologize for responding with my post.

Hey admin,
            There is nothing personal here. You have got every right to speak your mind in whichever topic you want. As an experienced player it was shocking to me to hear from you that you never came across 15 successive losses. Anyways, your language was neither annoying nor disturbing. I do apologize if I did hurt you. Keep commenting. 

Quote from: Kattila on August 12, 2019, 10:51:41 PM
Btw...i prefer streets, lines, quads

Hello Kattila, thanks for posting your approach!

I agree; it seems to be a trend: the more you play the more payout you tend to seek! (Newcomers pay attention )

Quote from: Albalaha on August 11, 2019, 01:05:41 PM1) Survive the worst possible; and
2) win a net profit in a below average/average win rate thereafter, without looking for a clumping win or compensating wins.

Hello dear Sumit,

Congratulations on your realization.

I would like to comment on a possible way to face the game with a similar goal.

In my framework, accompanying the 75% Money Management methodology, we divide the game in three (3) states.

• Concentration of hits.
• Expected rate.
• Dispersion of hits.

We try to perform the best during the first two cases, having the intention of rising the MOST raw amount of starting units (initial value) during the expected + concentration times of the game.

As the game "bumps" between concentration / expected / dispersion states -as it's natural with it-, our aim extends toward increasing the unit organically on concentration / expected times while losing the very least on the extremely unwell times.

When the game goes as expected + better than expected, you make it ok, or great. Then you give back the least by regressing the unit to the minimum after a bankroll bust; staying there automatically should there be the proverbial storm... Regressing to the minimum during bad times is better than giving it all back in a short period of time as it's customary with some schemes, which serves the purpose of keeping you longer in game to increase the chance of being there for the time when the tide turns.

High potential to rise + enforced slow fall... with no limit on the wins as betting with increased units "explodes" the initial value & your own take as a player.

You do need a compounding MM to execute this framework, in order to create an EXPONENTIAL PROFIT, with the aim to offset the eventual losses.

The framework doesn't mandate which way to bet in order to create the high-rise conditions. Perhaps you use the "Boom" positive progression with no limit, or perhaps you re-invest most of your net gain toward increasing your session's unit value to make more on every win. That's up to the player.

The point being aiming at winning the inter-session averages rather than blindly trying to recoup immediately / in a rush, or -even worse- limiting your wins by "playing scared". See the mistake of people regressing on the WINS?  (i.e. stiff progressive players betting 1 unit per spin at the positive tram(s) when they're winning at a more-than-expected rate, instead of compounding at these very times for making a killing & helping their averages shine).

You have to create a significant "upward boost" when your time arrives!

This is -in my opinion- a conscious-enough way to have a shot at winning the averages by not "giving it back" all at once while giving yourself the chance of creating upward trends in your balance by compounding your unit value considerably.


Vic

@Vic,
           Can you illustrate how exactly you will bet on the EC case given above viz:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WLWLW LLWLW WLWLW LWWLW LLWWL WLLWL LWLWL LWWLW

I would love to see your approach in action. I read over your topic talking of 75% MM but failed to get its gist. It would be great to hear from you if you could offer something valuable in handling bad and tricky stretches.

Hello Sumit, I've quit trying to beat the low-paying location & focused on losing the least + winning more to "patch" the balance with positive schemes.

QuoteI read over your topic talking of 75% MM but failed to get its gist.

[attachimg=1]

The gist: having your "first" bankroll played to increase its unit value.

Creating more minimal/starting unit bankrolls with the enlarged wins.

After losing your first bank, regressing to the very least unit afterward to give back minimal-unit value in case of concatenated busts.

QuoteIt would be great to hear from you if you could offer something valuable in handling bad and tricky stretches.

In this framework you don't "handle the worst"; you pass through the worst with minimal unit value, losing the least in the hopes your positive trams offset them.

---

Looking for something 100% sure in gambling isn't the most optimal IMHO; there are no guarantees in these games. At one point you just have to let things go and assume a bankroll bust. The point being "does your positive tram(s) give you enough to overcome the negatives?"... such a thing can only be answered by your own betting, I'm afraid.

So Vic,
                Am I correct to assume that you are although passing through the worst but not beating it still till my given session as there are no clumps, correct?

Positive progression is a good dream way to earn where we attack casino with money won from it but it is easier said than done. In a game of house edge and variance, it is even tough to get break evens. We will surely get certain clumps at some point of time but will they be sufficient to make up for losses achieved so far? Frankly speaking, I do not think so.

Positive progressions like "Reverse Labouchere" stories of breaking bank makes nice fiction but once you try to do that in real world, it will fail you only.

That is why I asked you to showcase as to how your strategy work on the given case but you instead chose to copy+paste your fiction here. You could have said instead that I will lose only XYZ chips here but you rather kept the answer under wraps.

Anyways Vic, It was nice to hear your viewpoint. These days this forum has almost no debates and many active debaters ran out from here to other forums.

Hello dear Sumit. It's okay; everyone's entitled to an opinion.

If you think positive/compounding progressions' earnings on high-paying locations are fiction (or simply dreams) that's perfectly fine with me and I won't argue with you for a second. At all!

What I'm suggesting is simply losing the least during bad times + using clumping events for winning the most to offset misses in a natural/organic way instead of "chasing". That's simply one of unlimited possible personal ways to face the game; I certainly have nothing to prove at this time of my life so my only concern is with my bankroll, as I suppose is the same as yours

I'm not even motivated to post about low-paying betting schemes. It's been years since I post "cancellations" or similar schemes. I have gone through the big negative banks before with many variations and "tweaks" but at this time in my life I simply prefer to regress after a moderate-bankroll bust and recoup in the eventual clump.

For the sake of avoiding even a shadow of a conflict let me tell you are 100% right: Guarantees? NONE! 

...Yet I find it resounding better with me and my current framework for the last several years (see the dates on the posts; when you stick with something for years it may mean either you're a glutton for pain or there may be something to it )

---

Quite a pleasure discussing with you too; as I move to the Public Domain scene & devote myself full-time to helping mankind in several productive ways, these bet-related interactions are scheduled to become lesser and lesser, until most likely eventually becoming nonexistent, so let's enjoy them while they last!

Cheers!

Vic

QuoteIf you think positive/compounding progressions' earnings on high-paying locations are fiction (or simply dreams) that's perfectly fine with me and I won't argue with you for a second. At all!

What I'm suggesting is simply losing the least during bad times + using clumping events for winning the most to offset misses in a natural/organic way instead of "chasing". That's simply one of unlimited possible personal ways to face the game;

Dear Vic,
                 I m not saying clumps do not come ever. They may come, they may not as per your needs. The point towards this topic was not waiting for an extraordinary good run to be exploited through positive progressions but rather very opposite of that, surviving the worst possible stretch followed by average wins only.

I clearly illustrated in my first post that:

QuoteFor example, in an EC bet if Losses and wins come like this:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW WWLWW LLWWW

Anybody playing +1 after winning while same after losses will win easily like

-1,-1,-1,-1,-1  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1  +1+2+3+4+5 +6+1,-1+1+2 -1,-1+1+2+1

So, it helped a positive progression that way without much ado but realistically, a very nice stretch of wins is far from being under our control. We should rather expect the opposite.

Dear Sir,

With due respect.

I think" surviving the worst?" ,itself,
beg for a stable selection....stop bet strategy, variance avoidance
the keyword for the Hg.

If worst 15EC, then bet selection, bet against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, cut down losses to 7losses.
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR ...losses=7....if bet against the left, ...
If the worst ever =30, then using this selection, losses cut down to 15losses...

A STABLE selection, (a priority),
AND
Stop bet strategy,
Variance avoidance,....are greatest lesson of gambling I learned from your blog



The same applied for chops..
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB...losses 7, ?f follow the left, and it chopped..

Many members say/believe that they can use some trigger or LW strategy to avoid bad stretches but it is unrealistic. Whatever you do, you can still get a very bad stretch and in all over play, it may come any moment. So, instead of giving ideas that will eliminate the bad stretches altogether, get ready to face them and beat them too, within realistic limits of chips. I have done that gladly.