I scanned the entire zumma1600  having 114,074 hands (tie removed)and found the worst of the worst stretches for Player bets. See if you can beat them:

#1. Only 30 hits of Player in 100 hands to begin your fight.

Starting near 92000 hands:
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P

Perfect timing!   I was sitting at the desk today and saw your message.  Grabbed a copy of the results, dropped them into a spreadsheet and ran a few plays.

Applied two simple plays to it and came up with.....

A plain FTL with a two stop loss, flat betting = +26.

A simple "follow the last two trend" with a two stop loss, flat betting = +10.

I believe the longest string of losing wagers was 5.


On the two stop loss, you'll wait for a win before starting back in wagering.

I'll run a few others on it and see how they look later.

AD

Captain,
         It was not about I play FTL or OTL. I have entire zumma with FTL and OTL too. Do you want to see similar bad stretches with that?
The given hands indicate that howsoever smartly you pick a bet, you can still get this much variance. I want to only know that do you know anything that can sustain through such rough patches and win back too till the finish of this series.
                        Strangely whenever I put anything like this, smarties start telling that they would have not played it as if they knew before hand as to when bad bets will start to ruin them or if they can pick the bet in any particular manner that bad stretches can not come. Unfortunately, even veterans like Captain whom I have been seeing myself for more than a decade on forums think and speak like this, making me feel very bad.

Do you have a money management plan to take care of such adverse runs?

Yes.

I can face such stretches and come out winner too with my MM within 100-200 chips max. Sadly, I can't reveal that but that has to do with Regression towards mean.

Worst session #2:
I scanned through Zumma 1600 with 114,074 hands of BP without ties(ties removed as push) and found this as one of the worst stretch of Player(starting with only 4 wins in the first 30 hands):

B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P

Quote from: Albalaha on August 24, 2019, 02:57:44 AM
Captain,
                        Strangely whenever I put anything like this, smarties start telling that they would have not played it as if they knew before hand as to when bad bets will start to ruin them or if they can pick the bet in any particular manner that bad stretches can not come. Unfortunately, even veterans like Captain whom I have been seeing myself for more than a decade on forums think and speak like this, making me feel very bad.

Al,

   I'm not trying to make you feel bad.  We've been around here long enough to respect each other's ideas.

   You posted up a sequence of events and I responded to them with my results and how they came about.

   If you were asking to find a way to wager on PLAYER for that session, then that's a different problem for sure.

   As well, you know, ANY session with a huge imbalance on one side should always produce a profit.   Well, unless you're attempting to play the short side instead of what the shoe is presenting.

   I see another shoe you've posted with a huge imbalance to one side.   I see no reason that beating that sequence, starting anywhere in or around it, won't produce a profit.

  Perhaps I've not read the problem correctly but any lopsided shoes like you've posted should never be a problem.

  AD

Sir.
if we regard P..30hit in 100bets as a worst..
then with this simple scale..

AFTER...
10B..there 30p/90hand.
11B..29p/89hand...and so on..

or..if..
only 1p&29b..there may 29p in next 70hands.
only 2p&28b...28p in next 70hands...and so on..

or..if in first 50hands..
only ..say 5p..then..25p in next 50hands...and so on

it just impossible to bet with thousand of chips in casino.
And naive to think you could be rich gambling...
Go do honest jobs....don't ruin your family life...

Harshness ensures fools to lose for sure. To be a professional, you need to know how to win in the long run where such harsh sessions are possible too. This is put up here to make you aware of the harshest times possible for any bet. For records, I say that I can beat this stretch too, being within a reasonable bet limit.

Sir.
every known tested progression will blown out snowballing to horrible with 30hit/100hand..you simply hot air.

I am not trying to beat cases like 30/100 but a strategy that keeps us at least harm during such spans and you can win thereafter when regression towards mean start to show.

May you please show us....the FTL  baccarat with only 30hit/100hands.

thanks.

Al,

I see now that I had misunderstood the original challenge you posted.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

AD

@Adulay,

                Nevermind Captain. Actually, no way to select bet is better than other, we have to agree to it. Simulations prove the same. If we create a trigger like LLL in an EC, we need to wait averagely 8 spins to get one opportunity to bet. We do not change or step out of probabilities by doing anything. If we make one bet after every LLL, we still would get similar set of Ls and Ws as expected without that.

                As I said earlier, only exception of this rule lies in regarding virtual limits. If say, we see 15 Reds in a row and start to bet thereafter for black, we are not likely to get 15 more reds. That reaches beyond virtual limits and kind of impossible. I have defined virtual limits in another topic. Virtual limits signify only an expected limit and in no manner it guarantees absolute restraint.

It is very easy to see past spins/hands and say i would have not got this many Ls which is a foolish statement. Sorry for being rude. IF anybody can eliminate long series of losses by doing anything, he will play a brute force progression(like martingale) and keep winning without any issue.