All of us know that aggressive progressions that are theoretically winner of any session like martingale, labouchere and fibbonacci can get us close to infinite in their "run from hell" sessions. This reality makes them "practically failure" and they can cause so much losses in one bad session to ruin your bankroll completely.
            If there can be a progression that takes care of variance and can generate profit in long run without ever getting at table limits, how many would like to bet 1 to 100 unit progressions for assured profit?

Who wouldn't like that?

Mind showing us an example?

For example, if it beats the harshest example of variance available to all, i.e. #3 of zumma book of american roulette that has only 329 hits in 15000 spins. Say max bet goes to 200 units. Acceptable?

When the win is "assured" within the table limits, the risk is 0%, regardless of how much you splurge on the progression. That is absolute perfection. In the real world how do you know a level of variance is the worst? In your Zuma example the SD is little over 3.0 for a 00 wheel. That is rare but by no means the worst you'll encounter. And it can take a different form every time. In your theory the longer you play the more you win. In reality the longer you play the closer you get to ruin.

Quote from: Number Six on November 13, 2013, 12:10:46 PM
When the win is "assured" within the table limits, the risk is 0%, regardless of how much you splurge on the progression. That is absolute perfection. In the real world how do you know a level of variance is the worst? In your Zuma example the SD is little over 3.0 for a 00 wheel. That is rare but by no means the worst you'll encounter. And it can take a different form every time. In your theory the longer you play the more you win. In reality the longer you play the closer you get to ruin.

What could be worse than 329 hits in 15000 spins? It means one hit in 45.6 spins on an average. That too for entire 15k spins. I have thrown my open challenge around this worst case which none could dare to handle, so far. 

Everyone knows that variance may momentarily come on any bet but such persistent variance surely kills the bankroll even with too much of chips with you.
     

If anybody is not aware of progression mystery of betting one number to earn only one unit, have a look here:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/18734189/makes-casino-absolutely-unbeatable-long-run-observations#.UoQdYdJkNY8

What could be worse? Let's say, 328 hits in 15000 spins?

The fluctuation to which you are referring is the worst you have encountered in one sample. And you have only quantified it, or it can only be quantified, as -3.35 SDs after all 15000 spins have been recorded. You can't brute force your way through that fluctation for many reasons, mainly because the sample is too large. But you also can't expect one progression to work for all variance of the same degree. It happens over a few spins or many spins, and the variance is exclusive to your system. To someone else it may be entirely normal. When you are losing, others are winning. Everything you observe is within the parameters of the game, therefore nothing can be defined as being unusual or even normal, until after it has been observed (at least), and even then perception is always due to personal bias where the outcomes are random.

Where there is no real edge, the more you play the closer you get to ruin. It is blatantly the exact reverse of having a positive egde. So, we could beat your 15,000 spins where the SD has a limit of -3.35, but we could play another 15,000 spin sample where the SD has the same limit, but lose. Plus, there is always something worse around the corner, always, and you are always getting closer to it.

But to answer your original question, again, where the risk is 0%, any expenditure is acceptable, factoring in time and required bankroll of course.

Number Six,
            It is easier said than done. Number 3 is not what I encountered as worst but that is a public compilation of american roulette available openly. I have crossed more than 10 millions spins with ophis bot and it must be having much more permutation and combinations than 15k spins of zumma.
                     Can you or anybody else beat #3 challenge within any reasonable bankroll and table limits with any unambiguous manner that is not reverse engineering the specific odds of number 3? If there can be any sensible way to beat such variance, it will help to beat the second worst and third worst numbers too.
            All that we have learnt so far is to handle "comfortable sessions" that luckily come to us. No bet selection ensures smooth hit rates. All can have same fate in sessions as of number 3

QuoteWhat could be worse? Let's say, 328 hits in 15000 spins?

                  There can be even no hit in 15000 spins, if we talk of probability.

Quote It happens over a few spins or many spins, and the variance is exclusive to your system. To someone else it may be entirely normal. When you are losing, others are winning.

           I am talking of a specific bet and who is winning while I am losing? The problem is same for all. There can be different approaches to play it, though and I am asking for that only.

I see what your challenge is but for me, that would be a fruitless exercise. It wouldn't achieve anything because as you say there are billions of permutations, one progression will not beat all of them.

I have replied to you on the assumption that you're betting one number, maybe the same number, I could be wrong, it doesn't really matter, if the bet selection is capable of reaching beyond -3 SDs, I don't think it really warrants further review. That type of fluctuation is too wild, and spread over many hundreds or thousands of spins it will lead to financial ruin. Time would be better spent find a way to play in a consistent state of lower variance.