Since variance kills the br,
Thus we need a betselection, to beat random,
to produce an end result THAT HIT WITHIN MATH EXPECTATION!

If we choose to bet, say, only RED, for 100spins,
the worst would be 100BLACKS in row, with zero in between...
(well, the mathboys said that possible, then we don't argue with them, lest...)
And the best will 100 RED in row, (well...)

100reds, and 100blacks in row, are two possible PERMUTATION, out of millions of possible permutations,
And many permutation, if flatbet , will cause huge losses, losses, and little losses, if we flatbet all 100spin, red only...

Thus if 100blacks appeared, then we lose 100units , flatbet,
And if 100reds appeared, then plus100 units profit....
But we never know what permutation, will appeared, in next 100spins.
We need a betselection , that will always hit within math expectation, in every next100spins!

Math expectation=36/37 eu wheel...edge=negative1/37...
(See? The mathboys nodding their heads, can't shriek their lung out...)
Thus expect 3, 4, 5, 6 or more units loss, in every 100spins, flatbet...
(Mathboys nodding again...)


The trillion dollars question,
If we could found a bet selection, that always hit only a few units losses, in every 100spins,
and compounded them with mild progression, virtual losses,  variance avoidance, and simple stoplosss....
Boy oh boy...!!!

IMO, and that of experience, not anything else and I cannot engage in the mathematical reasoning of it. 

Picking anything for a consistent and repetitive bet wagering selection of any one thing, will the majority of the times, get the player into a loss situation.  Coupled with what most do, flat-betting, negative progression and as well, coupled with, 'scared to wager when winning time comes', (which Lungyeh) defined well sometime ago, will sink the bulk of the gamblers every time.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on June 18, 2018, 02:00:08 PM
Since variance kills the br,
Thus we need a betselection, to beat random,
to produce an end result THAT HIT WITHIN MATH EXPECTATION!

First off, I have done control group research on using random to beat random. It is not variance alone that kills the bankroll. It is what you do with variance that kills the bankroll. I have used blind randomness to select bets, irregardless of the condition of the variance at the time of the bets. This blind use of a random selection always under performs my selections based on conditional awareness of the state of the currently occurring variance.


The idea of a control study using the placebo (random bet selection) as opposed to the control study's bet selected for a reason (X) suggests that we need a bet selection to beat random.


I think it is unintelligent to want to reach the mathematical expectation. Currently that amount is losing. The math needs to change based on new knowledge. We need a math that beats the single spin payoff ratio of 37 chances to receive 35 units payed.


I'm thinking of producing a research study using Psychologists that have studied the misconceptions of what randomness is. These researchers, with the already well accepted baseline, can explain the effect that a skilled observer has on effectiveness because of situational awareness. I believe that I already know the result. But this research would be to open the eyes of the academics to new ground and new ideas. Of course such research would be published.

If we just, say , bet red, for next100spin,
We will also hit by permutations,
THAT have deadly and  marvelous STREAKS.

THUS, we must have a betselection, that seized the streaking to the hilt!

1) betselection that hit within math expectation.
2) betselection that seized the streaks to the hilt.

There are some permutations that won't RTM.
say after 100spins, the blacks will have more hit than thd red

Thus we must
3) have betselection that follow the leader.

The progression must mild, that take advantage of  STREAKY ...

Say, bet 1u for 50spins  ,then 2u for next 50spins...
Thus if the 100 spins has streaky, then will produce profit, if not the losses won't severe.


1u for 50spins,
2u for 50spins,
4u...
8u....martingale, stretcheeeed...


Trillion dollar question again,
Do you have a betselection, that always hit within the negative  mathexpectation, flatbet.

4) mild progression, to avoid huge losses.

I used my practice software to kick out 100 bets made on just betting 1 unit per number of reds only.

Here are the results.
| B  R |
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -36 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  21 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -36 )

BTW, the above column of blacks/reds is loaded with readable occurrences of opportunities. In fact it's a gold mine. If this happened in Baccarat it would be wonderful.

QuoteIt is not variance alone that kills the bankroll. It is what you do with variance that kills the bankroll.

Very true. Variance keeps pestering bets. You need to know what to do and how to handle the worst, the bad and the average times.

Thanks Alrelax,
Repetitive betting will stumbled upon deadly permutation, thus we need random to beat random, to produce hit within acceptable negative expectation.

Thanks Gizmotron,
Your idea of "awareness reading",
Filtering out the possible deadly permutation,  and take advantage of streaks.
And as you said earlier,  in another thread, non-streak, also a STREAK, (in its own right, and criss cross chopping alternate with another  visible Streak!)

Thanks Albalaha,
Albalaha's  idea, in his other threads,
Of stop betting when particular amount of variance hit is one of best strategy I ever learned.

Quote from: alrelax on June 18, 2018, 02:29:24 PM
... coupled with, 'scared to wager when winning time comes', (which Lungyeh) defined well sometime ago, will sink the bulk of the gamblers every time.

It sunk me. It does most of the time. That's why my tactic to go with just three net wins and the session is done is so important to me now. It will take me a long time to raise the capital to run a fearless gambling trip. I'm a realist. Life has given me this set of shoes to walk in. So if you wonder why I go on and on about randomness you could easily put two and two together and see why if my heart gives out I would have wanted my ideas credited to me. People need an explanation or they won't believe it. I'm a poor broke dick expert in many fields that has had to live on nearly nothing. Yet I save money so that I can get this right. And I probably will. My relatives hate that I keep pursuing this. But they are completely ignorant of this effort and are almost completely baseless in their assumptions regarding the effort. Maybe by Christmas time. I'm 350 miles from the nearest casino and it's against the law to gamble online. Such is real life.

Using random to beat random

Will using random, to select a bet produce hit within the negative math expectation(flatbet lose1/37)?

Say, if we bet only red, then the risk is streaks of tens Black in row, or the worst ever recorded 69hit/200spins.

By using random, we may say, bet after every five spin, thus if streaks of 30blacks hit,
We  only bet at 1st, 7th, 13th, 19th, 25th, 31st spins,
And lose five spins instead of 30spins,
And if we go on, betting after every  5spins,
Will we hit streaks of ten losses, or we hit within expectation, flatbet?

The major and only purpose, is to hit within the negative math expectation, (which the erudite  mathboys keep nodding approval nods)

say,  every 100bets taken, only lose a few chips flatbet.

What works in profitability for one player might not work for another.  Reason being, the 'other' player will attempt to extract whatever it was that won, but that will generally exclude all the other peripheral and ancillary 'reasonings'/protocols, etc., that allowed or assisted the original player to win.

Other people will come on and say, if 'XYZ' worked for 'so and so', then it has to work for anyone and if does not then it is gambler's fallacy, etc.  And, that is where the controversy starts and expands.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 18, 2018, 03:52:43 PM

.......if my heart gives out.........

Then we will just have to keep you alive! 

Quote from: alrelax on June 18, 2018, 04:33:32 PM
Then we will just have to keep you alive! 

I've been dying of the same aortic heart failure for ten years now. I have A-fib because of a reduced effectiveness heart valve. A special pill keeps me alive by slowing my heart down on purpose. Works great for Roulette. Cool, calm, and collected. But I can tell things are changing a little. I'm just a little bit less in my lungs. Who knows. Perhaps I can stretch it ten more years.

Hey Giz;

There is a New York Times best-selling book called "How Not To Die" that should be helpful.

"Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven To Prevent and Reverse Disease"
It is written by Michael Greger M.D. founder of nutritionfacts.org

PM me and and leave your email address. I have a copy in PDF format that I would be pleased to send to you.

Get healthier,

Garry