Fellow members,
               I have done a hell lot of experiments on various styles of playing. Be it betselection (specially on inside bets of roulette) or money management or extreme variance management techniques. Studied whatever I could find online for over one and half decades. Got help of mathematicians and programmers.
          Recently, I was working on a trigger based approach but I finally got the gist of being successful in gambling. It is only about thinking about the long run. Once you are prepared for that with all possible good, bad, great, worst, average patches coming randomly, you are unbeatable. Playing to conclude a small session is doable too but not necessary. Even if we get half of the edge that casinos has, we are done with being profitable.
            I believe I have accomplished something like that but only time (and my future regular earnings) will tell how correct I was in this conclusion.
       I wish all of you the same.

It is pretty painful to never see any debate over how an MM for long run could be created. We all know that variance could be horrible only temporarily. If we see 20 trials, getting minimum 9 wins persistently is a trouble, while in 200 trials minimum 90 wins are more likely, if we take 2000 trials, getting minimum 900 wins are almost certain. If we see 20,000 trials, anything below 9300 wins is almost impossible.
          Why can't we do something to get a good net income that is assured after even 20k trials? Isn't it better than losing always, at last?
Isn't casino also striving for only 1% profit of all our bets placed?
          Anybody who has seen, experienced, read or tried anything that can work in long run? Let me know.

Can you share with us how to design a good MM? The thinking processes behind your design, so that it can start us thinking as well.

Quote from: sean on May 04, 2021, 01:22:42 PM
Can you share with us how to design a good MM? The thinking processes behind your design, so that it can start us thinking as well.

I provided enough hints in this regard. How about a labouchere configured to win in 45% win rate instead of 35%? How about a tweaked Oscar's Grind/Pluscoup MM? You just need to control the acceleration in a manner that even the worst probability could be accommodated easily.
            I know, innovation is not so easy. I have spent thousands of hours in trying to get something that could be perfectly balanced.

For what I know, in the history of gambling the only MM capable to get the best of it is the craps method to progressively multilayered wagering "don't' pass" bet against four shooters making 4 or more passes in a row.
Mathematically it means that itlr shooters will make more zero passes, one pass, two passes or three passes than 4+ passes than expected.

The reason is quite easy to understand.
When betting don't pass line and knowing the 1/36 possibility to form a tie for don't pass bettors, the first roll gets a 8/35 to lose and 3/35 to win all of a sudden, the remaining 24 possibilities make the do not pass bettor mathematically favorite to win.

Itlr, we'll surely face the very distant probability to get four or more consecutive shooters making each 4 or more passes, the important thing is that this probability can overcome the -1.41% negative edge applied to every single roll.

as.

AsymBacGuy,
                       I have no experience of craps and bets, probabilities and payouts associated with it. I worked on an MM for long run since long as short run is full of uncertainties. Merely wishing a good session or fooling ourselves with, "I won't get this many losses, I will rather play inverse" etc are meant for newbies. In reality, it is negative variance that kills a session otherwise even basic players would come up smiling from a casino using basic silly progressions. Indeed, the same silly progressions kick him out of casino faster, empty handed.
             Expecting flat bet wins in the long run is the silliest of all. Although it harms you the least, so the best choice for those frustrated minds who are addicted to gambling and understand that loss is the fate.
             Understanding flaws of any MM and its capability to withstand hugest variance alongwith additional capacity of winning in lesser wins than losses, in a pre determined manner, without seeking compensatory or clumping wins is the HG.
             Ironically and unfortunately, In my two decades of reading hundreds of books and sites, dozens of forums with thousands of topics, I barely could find 3-4 ideas trying for an MM for long run. Self proclaimed Advantage players insist that their way is the only way. They get advantage in their betselection, get more wins than losses and thus win for sure.
           I am working on the side that was presumed to be impossible. Getting a definitive edge with Money management and Extreme Variance Management techniques. I think I am pretty successful. I saw no session so far that can beat me down, including the worst recorded ones. I always win in the long run with my latest way. Still testing and tweaking to make it better, if possible.
                 Any person who has understanding of the logic behind making an MM and goals as I mentioned ut supra , can create a long runner winner. There are hundreds of way, it could be achieved.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2021, 01:07:54 PM
It is pretty painful to never see any debate over how an MM for long run could be created. We all know that variance could be horrible only temporarily. If we see 20 trials, getting minimum 9 wins persistently is a trouble, while in 200 trials minimum 90 wins are more likely, if we take 2000 trials, getting minimum 900 wins are almost certain. If we see 20,000 trials, anything below 9300 wins is almost impossible.
          Why can't we do something to get a good net income that is assured after even 20k trials? Isn't it better than losing always, at last?
Isn't casino also striving for only 1% profit of all our bets placed?
          Anybody who has seen, experienced, read or tried anything that can work in long run? Let me know.

I think, of in20000 trials,
9300 is certain, .
Thus 10700 losses will closed by 9300hit 9300 certain hit will close the

thus 10700 long of "one" labby will closed before 9300th win hit.

QuoteI think, of in20000 trials,
9300 is certain, .
Thus 10700 losses will closed by 9300hit 9300 certain hit will close the

thus 10700 long of "one" labby will closed before 9300th win hit.

Labby, marty and fibonacci are not feasible ways to play. I wasted years fine tuning them but while failing they give us such huge losses that suck all the wins, so far. They are mathematically winner but practically not. HP Johnson is the worst form of labby. Accepting losses in extremes are always wiser than dragging them. Mark my word today.

Sir,
thus 20000/100bet =200 sessions.
10700losses/200=53.5 losses average.
10 sessions probably negative/positive extreme variance.

But as you say, 900, hit, /2000
almost certain, then
"1100 of one "
labby, should be the winning when the 900th win hit...with 1100unit profit, not one unit....
and not try to win 1100, but few tens unit will not superfluous...

Gentlemen,
There no law stipulates, that in labby,
one must start from a single digit,
or must closed the long string og million digits string...
If you start a labby with a single digit,
say,
"1",
then 33.34%hit ,no matter how many bets,...needed to closed the labby.

If we start with two digit,
say,
(0)(1), then 33.34% +1more hit .
needed to closed.

say, three,
0,0,1.
then 33.34+ 2more hit,
and so on.
Thus in 2000bets, 900 hit almost certain...
2000x33.4~=667..-900=233long string

Wong,
         Labby is good to be played on paper only. My ratio of 90 wins: 10 losses will not work as +50/-100 in labby. One single failure in labby can cost you even 100s of wins. I hope you understand this and do not ask what labby can do or not again. If you are happy with theoretical aspects, I said numerous times that labby, marty, fibo will beat any session at last but once you fail on them due to table limit or your bankroll, you will wet your pants and will never try them ever in your life Please try to understand that the power of marty or laby or fibo lies in their big bets compensating many of the losses at once but not doable practically, in any form possible. You have asked about labby and HP johnson so many times and I m tired of answering them. Better forget them or play them on paper only.

Hi PatternAnalys

Good Point: There no law stipulates, that in labby,
one must start from a single digit,
or must closed the long string og million digits string.


There no law stipulates, that in labby,
one must start from a single digit,
or must closed the long string og million digits string...
If you start a labby with a single digit,
say,
"1",
then 33.34%hit ,no matter how many bets,...needed to closed the labby.

If we start with two digit,
say,
(0)(1), then 33.34% +1more hit .
needed to closed.

say, three,
0,0,1.
then 33.34+ 2more hit,
and so on.
Thus in 2000bets, 900 hit almost certain...
2000x33.4~=667..-900=233long string


* I like your name: PatternAnalys


Continued Success,

In revaluating the long run variance/dispersion trouble, I saw that at worst, an EC might get 400 Wins vs 600 losses in 1000 trials but that could have all sorts of ugly patches. If someone passes through such troublesome times, patience and mini stop losses will make someone surpass that. One might not play long enough to face such extremes but one should be ready for that.