You have proven this HOW? Please submit the valid formulae, or mathematical theorem, that proves your claim.

Yes you were correct 2^70 is not the same as 70^2. I do hold up my hand, I should have checked Excel for the exact syntax of the formula, I didn't expect to come under such banal scrutiny over the format, next time, I'll make allowances for the habitual casino nit-picker losers that live with chips on their shoulders.

You can apply any bet selection you desire, any methodology, one-side only, betting or not betting every hand, trending, coin tossing any other form of tossing if feel the urge. You can apply any form of bamboozlement, include any sales pitch mumbo-jumbo, heck you don't even have to apply it to any 4 hand sequence, however I choose 4 hands for simplicity.

**1 B B B B**

2 B B B P

3 B B P B

4 B B P P

5 B P B B

6 B P B P

7 B P P B

8 B P P P

9 P B B B

10 P B B P

11 P B P B

12 P B P P

13 P P B B

14 P P B P

15 P P P B

16 P P P PWinning v's Losing bets will always resolve to a 50-50 state, period, no matter what. No other possible exception exists (even worst for roulette EC bets, as there is a zero to contend with). Doesn't matter how many hands you use as your sample, 5, 6, 10, 12, 20!! Even if you apply mathematical based bet options such as Imbalance v's Equilibrium, Birthday Paradox, Bet Banker only, WD, everything and anything without exception resolves to a 50-50 state, PERIOD

Which is why testing is in reality

a complete waste of time, because if your test sample is big enough, it will always resolve to a 50-50 state. System sellers and other attention seeking posters (pay for view forums?), will skirt around, ignoring difficult and probing questions, avoiding the undeniable, resorting to ridicule, abuse to mask the obvious.

However in my opinion there exists small sliver lining and certain aspects you can control.

Firstly money management. You can control all aspects of this, whether you decide to bet positive or negative, as well as controlling the amount you bet.

Secondly, you can control what sequence \ pattern will result in you losing consecutive hands, therefore applying some expected frequency against whatever your decision is. Or you could simply decided to bet according to what you see on the score board, if you lose too many hands, then I guess you didn't choose correctly, which can become mentally draining very quickly.

Let me present an example using the 4 hand combination table above.

Take the sequence XOXO or OXOX v's XXXX or OOOO (basically 4 chops v's streak of 4).

Despite the maths of winning v's losing bets resolving to a 50/50 state as well as the odds of losing 4 bets in a row being the exact same. If you had to make a choice of which sequence was to be your nemesis pattern, I personally would choose a streak of 4 over 4 chops, based purely on chops consist of 50% of all results, a 4 streak should occur 6.25% of the time. My decision takes nothing away from the fact the odds of losing 4 bets in a row is 0.5^4 = 1/16 (I'm treating B and P bets equally, before anybody nit-picks).