Because they were created on false premises and assumptions than realities of the game like virtual limit of variance, table limits that a casino will offer realistically and a realistic bankroll. Martingale, Fibonacci, Labouchere and all their cousines were created ignoring all. Needless to say, they are bound to do irreparable damage in just one failure and even two- three successive failures could be seen too.
These progressions can beat any probability that could come in the game provided we have trillions of chips to risk for winning 1 and no table limits too. Nice fantasy!!!!!
D'alembert: This classical comedy of +1/-1 were done assuming law of averages to be true and getting compensatory wins later. Further, it believes in equilibrium while in reality house edge makes it impossible to have equilibrium for any EC in the long run. Even without a house edge there may not be an equilibrium so long one can play.
Oscar's Grind: This assumes there will be cluster of wins after cluster of losses and hence increasing only in wins and same as last after losses considered safe while in reality, it doesn't hold. There may be a good cluster, there may be none.
HP Johnson: This absolute hilarious illusion made many buffoons jump with Eureka while it is merely Flat bet to begin, Labouchere when string gets shorter and an ugly martingale at last. If you are not lucky enough to get all the wins at last very organized way, it finishes too bad.
More later.........
aren't you selling a progression?
Quote from: Tomla on June 02, 2016, 03:36:49 PM
aren't you selling a progression?
I sold you some knowledge too that you kept paying for two years till you got my best, paid for that for a while and later you became smarta**.
Gladly, I am not giving anybody any chance to ditch me anymore swearing upon his kids. I believe you might not have forgotten me and my lessons, if you have even a bit of humanity still inside you.
Quote from: Tomla on June 02, 2016, 03:36:49 PM
aren't you selling a progression?
Increasing or decreasing bets alone, be it mild or harsh doesn't help winning an uncertain series of events. Money management could mean a lot than just increasing and decreasing bets and it should be able to explain reasons for whatever change and volume it suggests.
You have a lot to learn still, baldy.
So far, whatever progressions I have read or heard of is meant for short runs ignoring harsh possibilities and house edge disadvantage. None tried to make a feasible one for long run where things are far more balanced and closed to average expectancy.
If a player can't get through the short run he will never get to the long run.
Large and lengthy progressions at baccarat is the most absurd thing ever. The most patient players and those with large bankrolls will hit it extremely hard and quick in short blasts. Such as 1-3-2-6 or 1-5-10-20. At least the ones I am acquainted with and the more successful ones.
You can come up with these 25 or 28 or 32 hand progressions, but they will fail the upper, and I mean upper like 99% or more of the time.
This game can not be won playing long repetitive hours on a consistent basis. Not by you, not by me not by anyone.
Quote from: alrelax on June 21, 2016, 12:35:35 PM
If a player can't get through the short run he will never get to the long run.
Large and lengthy progressions at baccarat is the most absurd thing ever. The most patient players and those with large bankrolls will hit it extremely hard and quick in short blasts. Such as 1-3-2-6 or 1-5-10-20. At least the ones I am acquainted with and the more successful ones.
You can come up with these 25 or 28 or 32 hand progressions, but they will fail the upper, and I mean upper like 99% or more of the time.
This game can not be won playing long repetitive hours on a consistent basis. Not by you, not by me not by anyone.
Alrelax,
I respect you for your experience and humorous approach but applied gambling mathematics is not as simple as 1+1=2.
You have only gone through the old rhetoric of Einstein that only way to win is to steal chips from the the table when croupier isn't looking but there are much more better ways. If you look at my section you will find a thread called, "Holy Grail: randomness can be beaten....."
It is only about understanding why old progressions failed to perform in long run and you will have a new insight to look in other directions.
Until Aeroplane wasn't invented, think of regular air travel across continents were only a fairy tale but finally it was achieved. To do that you just do not need to change the maths or probability or pay out or the house edge, you just need to see them from different angles.
Old classic progressions and way to play are proven failures, hands down. Either one can innovate to make something better and more logical or just try your luck in a casino and have fun.
Gentlemen,
Albalaha, is one of the best expert in gambling theory and practicing pro.
What he tries to tell is,
Say, if in next 1000spins, there will be a streak of 100losses! Somewhere in between!
Then how are you going to, or rather not to lose HUGE! With whatever your so called holy progression?
How are you going to bet?
That the real millon dollar education, and knowledge.
It so simple, yet difficult for some to grasp!
@BTW,
I am not saying there can be a streak of 100 but there can be anything else upto the virtual limits, any moment.
Hi Albalaha,
That exactly what I mean!
Any moment, streak of long losses will hit, and any thought out progression ever, will doomed!
The real education, is how to tackle them, the long losing streak of losses, or variance.
It seems that people can't,or just refused, to understand.
Thanks for your superb blogs.
Progressions are dangerous. Yup. Unless. ...
That variance. .... does it have limits ? If it does then how would we attack?
Wait something to happen? Bet with 1unit bets. Lost? Wait some more and try again with 2unit bets ?
Hello P.A. :)
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on June 22, 2016, 02:35:34 AM
Gentlemen,
Albalaha, is one of the best expert in gambling theory and practicing pro.
Oooh really? :-\
Quote from: Denzie on June 22, 2016, 01:13:03 PM
Progressions are dangerous. Yup. Unless. ...
That variance. .... does it have limits ? If it does then how would we attack?
Wait something to happen? Bet with 1unit bets. Lost? Wait some more and try again with 2unit bets ?
Hello P.A. :)
Everything has a virtual limit. If you have never heard of them, you can refer to: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-dispersionvariance#.V2qRiPl97IU
and this too:
http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/if-roulette-has-no-memory-why-there-hasn't-been-succesive-36-hits-of-an-ec/
Quote from: Denzie on June 22, 2016, 01:16:40 PM
Oooh really? :-\
Oh no! It is you but unfortunately none says so. I am not an expert but merely a researcher or a student of randomness.
I know about those virtual limits. I'm actually using it. It sure is boring but hey....better boring then lose money.
If someone have a system that goes up and down all the time. And we know coz of testing huge amount of sessions what the average dd is b4 it rise again .... wouldn't it be easy to know when to attack ? I know it's not suitable in a B&M but it sure is on my sofa watching a movie with my hand on the trigger.
Hello Denzie,
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gentlemen,
With due respect,
What Albalaha mean, I think, is, you must tackle the variance, before you, bet with your progression.
And cut losses, if the worst ever variance hit!
What Denzie mean, is,
I think, he wait for, by play virtually, on paper, till huge losses, or average or near worst dd happened, and
then bet real money, when the chart show, upward movement toward the rtm.
Thanks.
This is the area that nearly every player avoids..........95% waiting for 5% action........everyone wants to play most spins.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually a practical way to beat the game.............not for the faint of heart.........but better than any mutual fund!!! 8)
Exactly Thelaw
Patience is the first trait of a positive gambler but merely waiting for something to happen before starting to bet doesn't help to win. That will be a fallacy then. No prior condition guarantees any better future. It is much more than that. If someone wants to play all over, that is doable too but with much more risk to lose 300 units, my way.