Variance is the biggest killer in a random game as roulette or baccarat. Variance is momentary and a huge one can not last too long. Gradually RTM will bring in better patches and eventually in a very long stride, it will all look very close to the mathematically expected value.
Take a case of an EC bet like Player in Baccarat. We get only 60 hits in 200 attempts. It is -5.27 SD and a kind of even below the virtual limits but as nothing is impossible and only remote, it happened while we played it. Later, in subsequent 400 more trials say we get 186 more hits of our bet Player. It is still at -3.76 SD in 600 trials and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow.
Do we have any strategy that can win even in such cases after 600th trial even 1 unit Or we only have wishful thinking that such things could never happen to us. Even if we do not stand to win even after 600th trial here, how many will get bearable losses that could be recovered ahead easily?
......"and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow"......
That is absolutely correct. No better said.
I have created a virtual session incorporating the absolute variance as we discussed in the beginning of this topic. It has 246 Wins vs 354 losses. First 200 trials has merely 60 wins. IF anybody has any all over money management strategy that beats the given case without going deep in thousands of chips and that should be meant for playing all kind of sessions, i.e. good, average and bad ones, that would end the quest for beating the game of chance. The game of chance will then become a game of skill.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
[attachurl=3]
@Tapolov1,
Your results look impressive with very nice finish and no scary dropdown. I can see you are winning and losing in one trial too. Are you playing both ways? Please explain your methodology in detail.
The methodology is not exactly how it should be played, what if it happens is that permanence favors the results by having enough dispersion of an equiprobable coverage, say that it could be called a modification of a planning or balance management, in which to be enough Balls will meet some odds.
my 1cent.
But since all my previous view, being
laughed as naive and fallacy,
I will just argue,
as *academic theory* only.
for the record, worst ever recorded EC,
is still 69hit/200,
that beatable with labby,
as labby only need
33%+1win to win 1unit.
now (with due respect)
Albalaha, try to push the limit ,
to 60/200...
that's,
unbeatable with conventional labby, but
beatable with modified labby.
Albalaha also found that,
(but only few hundreds thousands zumma's hands)
that the worst WAS 30hit/100.
but he argued that the
worst may less than 30/100,
lurking somewhere in the
zumma's, not yet found by anyone.
but 30hit/100 can
easily beaten with modified labby, albeit, hundreds of chips, which impossible in bm.
Now, if Albalaha could search the millions of zumma's, and (very sure, 100% confirm)
if there never less than 15player/50hands,..30%...
then could easily won with modified labby,( though less then needed 33%). and need less chips compare to 100 or 200 hands...that run into thousands of chips!
few people already know how to beat with modified labby, but,
of course keep their mouths tightly shut, else casino change rules!
@Tapolov1,
Curve fitting or saying that I will win by playing other side is not the challenge in this thread. This topic is all about sustaining through the worst and winning thereafter in below average times for an EC bet( not betting on the counterpart EC together) that could be played in normal sessions too. You failed to explain what you propose to do in such scenario hence your way is out of topic here.
@PatternAnalysis,
Since we observed 30/100 as worst, it doesn't guarantee that even worse can not happen. It is only an estimated/observed limit. We need to prepare ourselves for even 20/100. Actually, we should not focus upon winning the worst itself but rather losing least in such cases and winning back all losses without expecting compensatory or clumping wins thereafter. If you think you can sustain 30/100 by pushing the hardest but not 28/100, it is as bad an idea as basic martingale.
Regarding Modified labby, yes I have incorporated mini stop losses and several other safeguards to avoid losing all, even if it goes 10/100. Recovery is not that difficult if you lose least in the worst phases. Losing huge in bad phases is what kills most progression players. That is the biggest blunder one can do.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 11, 2020, 03:06:42 AM
@Tapolov1,
Curve fitting or saying that I will win by playing other side is not the challenge in this thread. This topic is all about sustaining through the worst and winning thereafter in below average times for an EC bet( not betting on the counterpart EC together) that could be played in normal sessions too. You failed to explain what you propose to do in such scenario hence your way is out of topic here.
ok
@PatternAnalysis,
Since we observed 30/100 as worst, it doesn't guarantee that even worse can not happen. It is only an estimated/observed limit. We need to prepare ourselves for even 20/100. Actually, we should not focus upon winning the worst itself but rather losing least in such cases and winning back all losses without expecting compensatory or clumping wins thereafter. If you think you can sustain 30/100 by pushing the hardest but not 28/100, it is as bad an idea as basic martingale.
Regarding Modified labby, yes I have incorporated mini stop losses and several other safeguards to avoid losing all, even if it goes 10/100. Recovery is not that difficult if you lose least in the worst phases. Losing huge in bad phases is what kills most progression players. That is the biggest blunder one can do.
Tried first 139 decisions so far (in the horrible 60/200 session) and at -75 now. I think it is easily recoverable. Will post full session sometime soon. With lots of rules to follow and manually calculating what to bet, it will take a week to conclude entire 600 decisions.
Remember, I m playing every bet and has set of rules applicable for all over game. No triggers, no pauses and the methodology meant for good and average sessions too. No curve fitting, no cherry picking.
[attachimg=1]
I firmly believe that anybody who has a firm approach to beat this case that beats normal sessions much easier will be a true Holy Grail and albeit slow but only mathematical approach to beat randomness of casino gambling forever. Even if someone doesn't beat this till 600th bet but loses less than 54 units in an all over play (since there are 108 extra losses than wins) is a very nice player. Remember, curve fitting experts may advise a progression that runs too slow in the beginning and gets accelerated after 200 bets. I would ask the same gentleman to beat the later 400 spins the same way. Something capable of handling -3.5 SD should beat -1.5 SD cases even easily. Many smart fellow would come and argue that they won't play such bad bet but its counterpart. I would like to tell all of them that any bet of yours could suffer from negative variance, any moment. There is absolutely no safeguard against that, whatever you do. I did put a similar challenge like this earlier but did not hear even a single sane approach. It seems that people have already surrendered before the randomness and can't even think of beating a virtually worst case.
Tested upto 232 hands/spins. It went as bad as -141 and recovering a bit after first 200 hands. Max bet used so far is 5 units, I think.
Check graph.
[attachimg=1]
I did 600 spins. Losses recovered by and large and graph turned upward but at 600th spin, it did not finish in a net win yet. Then I generated a random 200 more spins from random.org with 99 wins and 101 losses and no large string of wins/compensatory wins. I added the same to the previous 600 and it yielded a nice net profit finally. Max bet applied was 17 units. Max drawdown was -141. Total 345 Wins against 455 losses. Net profit at 800th trial=42 units. Last bet=2 units. Graph will tell the rest of story.
[attachimg=1]
After this gigantic test, I am 100% sure that I can play and sustain through even the worst possible and win too, thereafter without ever requiring compensatory or clumping wins within a reasonable table limit and bankroll. This is the biggest feat of mine, so far. I am attaching the entire 800 W/L for all to see and try their methodologies here. It will be kind of litmus test for all system testers. 345/800 is still -3.15 SD for european roulette. Gladly it was done with logic and mathematics and by a purely mechanical process. Please understand that my methodology sustains in the worst possible with bearable loss and wins thereafter in below average hit rate which is considered impossible, so far. It is an all over play approach.
I'm wondering what we can do working together. :thumbsup:
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 16, 2020, 10:59:34 PM
I'm wondering what we can do working together. :thumbsup:
as.
Only if we complement each other. I was working day and night for years to have a mechanical winner MM for long run that can handle the worst and win thereafter too, even if it is still below average. It should be good enough for playing average/a little below average sessions as well. No curve fitting into a session. Rather a masterkey that can unlock most locks if not all.
All known progressions handle a particular kind of variance very aptly while seriously lack the capacity to survive bad patches and win thereafter. All ends by losing huge. With my RTM approach, one can play very safe and avoid the worst but I wanted an all over approach with playable bankroll. I think I have done it. Still will test more. Let me have any such horrible real game data. Only condition is I need at least twice spins/hands after the worst stretch. I mean, if someone sends me the worst 100, say 29/100 and if the next 200 hands have say 94 wins, I should be able to come out of loss or recover half of the lost sum in that very time.
I wish you all same degree of success. Just think out of box. No maths book tell us that a negative expectations game can not be won, in any manner. Your knowledge is your edge that no casino can take away.
@Lungyeh,
Although you are talking of the game but your last post looks a bit off topic to me.
Noted. Sorry to intrude. 🤦🏻♀️ Not good at moving around here. Pls forgive
@Lungyeh,
Nevermind. I removed the off topic post of yours. Are you into baccarat daily?
Nah not daily. Just a keen student of the game. But play regularly wherever I am where there are casinos nearby. Have been to Singapore regularly recently
since we want to avoid extreme variance,
and take advantage of rtm,
then we need to bet very long spin,
(as in Albalaha research)..of zumma,
lets ASSUME that worst ever EC,
is only 387hit/1000,
then we need a progression to squeeze,
at least 1u, in only 387hit/1000.
in theory, apart from
horrible staking, and table limit, labby must close,
in 33%,+1win
thus 387-330=57surlpus....
in hp.johnson,
we need 387*2=773zero and a single 1.
when the 387th win hit,
we have +1profit.
but of course, people will screams FOOL,
to bet labby and hp.johnny.
another Albalaha's zumma,
American roulette, worst ever found,no3.
hit only 329/15000spins.
then hp.johnny will bet,
329*35payout=11514zero plus a single 1,
when 329th win hit, will produce some profit, I think...
but i think i already heard someone shouting..
FOOLLLLL.
I just glance and one reply and know the whole topic - you don't need to win every bet to win - read that again - just one simple comparison if you trading tennis you would be an unintelligent to think you could predict each game correct and win them all - same apply to EC - the biggest and most silly mistake from most members - my opinion ...
For example, let's say you use a simple count system and flat betting 1 unit - then 87% of all sessions and attacks (hit and run) will win +1 unit or break even (if you stop).
It has been proven for 60.000 placed bets and is statistically significant.
Now let's say you make six placement for each sequential attack and lose -6 units and staking 2 units for the next six attempts (attack).
Now you only need to make +1 unit three times to break even with 2 units stake (simple)
That is 2,5 STDV if you lose again and now you can be realistic and start accepting loses.
Repeat and do the same thing with 4 units and win three times (the most common small regression sequence you will find) my experience.
That is 12 units if you win and are now -6 units, there is no reason to chase or try to win or break even because you are fighthing against a sequence worse then 3,0 STDV and should be happy with a three step regression during that sequence from hell.
Now assume you lose again, then you will face above 4,0 STDV sequence and should be more then happy if you find and catch a three step regression - that is Jackpot.
Lets say you staking 6 units and that would be +18 units with a three step regression.
You have lost 42 units and reduce that to 24 units - almost half the stake facing a 4 STDV sequence or worse - that is clever gambling to HEDGE a situation with realsitic expecataions.
But lets say you reach the 5 STDV territorum once in lifetime or maybe twice, then you staking 8 units.
My point is that you will lose but not bust - that is a hudge difference - and even if you bust you hade made some heavy and clever ways to minimize loses and try to hedge every given situation with realistic expectations.
Now the secret lies in that you only need to win twice within six attempts during any given sequence and start over until break even or reaching a three step regression.
All the situations you win your first bet or second bet you take the win or tie and start over with next table.
This way you can play BJ - Baccarat - Roulette - Sic Bo - Craps or any other game that offers 50% probability ....
Cheers Patrik
Quote from: PatternAnalys on February 19, 2020, 03:06:03 PM
since we want to avoid extreme variance,
and take advantage of rtm,
then we need to bet very long spin,
(as in Albalaha research)..of zumma,
lets ASSUME that worst ever EC,
is only 387hit/1000,
then we need a progression to squeeze,
at least 1u, in only 387hit/1000.
in theory, apart from
horrible staking, and table limit, labby must close,
in 33%,+1win
thus 387-330=57surlpus....
in hp.johnson,
we need 387*2=773zero and a single 1.
when the 387th win hit,
we have +1profit.
but of course, people will screams FOOL,
to bet labby and hp.johnny.
Why do u come to HP Johnson while I explained and illustrated already that HP Johnson will turn into a horrible Martingale at wrong times whichever way you play it? It may need millions of chips to finish with +1. If you can't comprehend that still I wonder what could be done for you. Basic labby is lesser horrible than HP Johnson or martingale but still could seek thousands of chips. These are only fool's gold and meant for frustrated player. I faced the given horror session that is not even likely to happen with 17 units bet as max bet and still won it. Just increasing or decreasing bet won't work as you never know what kind of variance will strike you.
@Sputnik,
I agree with your first statement.
Quoteyou don't need to win every bet to win
But not so convinced with this:
QuoteNow let's say you make six placement for each sequential attack and lose -6 units and staking 2 units for the next six attempts (attack).
Now you only need to make +1 unit three times to break even with 2 units stake (simple)
Try this on the given 800 decisions and let us know your max bet and net win the way you offered to play. No regular MM can beat this that is meant for all over play. Winning in cases of clumping wins with a positive Parlay like progression is altogether different story. Playing the same all over doesn't work. We all know that.
Variance is not under our control and its length and shape can not be predicted. That is why every known progression fails to handle long run probabilities.
Have no time to argue, but I will make a short note about the topic, there are different styles of playing tactics and is combined with a players personality.
My trading personality is to win many times with small amounts on a regular basis with very hight strike ratio and take occasional loses.
The small wins add up over time and overcome the occasional loses, even if they hurt, but are part of the game.
That is one way to tackle the game and is based upon players personality, where some players want to win occasional but big and then we talking about other tactics.
I don't need to convince people how to play because I don't care if others lose or win - does who know - know.
Have a great day.
Cheers Patrik
Player's personality? Does it help too? I believe that a well defined and logical way of playing could be played mechanically without any personality traits.
QuoteMy trading personality is to win many times with small amounts on a regular basis with very hight strike ratio and take occasional loses.
Hmm. What will happen if you encounter losses as given in the session here? I am not discussing about psychological aspects of the game but a harsh truth that is called variance. My point is, can you overcome this and if not how much losses will you get by the end of this session? Variance management is a topic that irritates most here. When I raised the #3 zumma challenge, I did not get even one sane answer in years of the open challenge. It shows the hollowness of the so called gambling experts. Everybody jumps and states that he won't play such a bad bet as if he can control randomness.
One who is not prepared enough to face the worst, is destined to lose.
By the way, I will wait for your short notes.
Albalaha, as a matter of curiosity, where are you based? Where do you game?
Thanks
Quote from: Lungyeh on February 21, 2020, 11:22:59 AM
Albalaha, as a matter of curiosity, where are you based? Where do you game?
Thanks
I m in India and although we do have casinos in a few states in India and neighbour Nepal and Srilanka, I mostly play online.
Cool. I went to one of the casinos in Sri Lanka and they had all kinds of dancing right in the centre of the gambling floor including pole dancing by Eastern European ladies amidst shouts of banker! Player!
Do you normally play baccarat? Or also roulette and black jack?
We're ready to literally destroy some bac premises.
as.
Quote from: Lungyeh on February 21, 2020, 06:59:40 PM
Cool. I went to one of the casinos in Sri Lanka and they had all kinds of dancing right in the centre of the gambling floor including pole dancing by Eastern European ladies amidst shouts of banker! Player!
Do you normally play baccarat? Or also roulette and black jack?
Roulette is my first love and I still love to earn on inside bets but house edge and super variance in inside numbers and higher chip requirement are pushing me towards baccarat and my favorite bet is Player and not Banker and I have my reasoning for picking Player instead of Banker.
QuoteWe're ready to literally destroy some bac premises.
as.
Yeah. More or less preparations are done and its time to start hammering. Being able to beat the worst gave me confidence of Thor level. Lol. I still have to see some other aspects of my money management before being cent percent confident.
That's what I want to hear! :thumbsup:
as.
if you 100%sure,
bac's player ,
never less then 29/100,
then , the simple modified labby ,
could close everytime.
what you waiting ,
and searching for then?
Quote from: PatternAnalys on February 23, 2020, 01:07:23 AM
if you 100%sure,
bac's player ,
never less then 29/100,
then , the simple modified labby ,
could close everytime.
what you waiting ,
and searching for then?
What is modified labby? How will it always close at 29/100 or even better? My method sustains the worst, doesn't beat that. I win a net after the horror passes and thereafter I get average/below average sessions. Since you do not know how did I modified it, wild guesses won't work. It has many mini and absolute stop losses too that stops bets going sky high, in any eventuality that I could witness.
I never claimed that I can beat a 29/100 or even 35/100 case. It all depends on how things work after the worst. However, my approach is all over and I can beat below average normal sessions very easily.
I am waiting for other similar sessions where my methodology shows some trouble that I m not aware of right now.
Hi,
I had another approach to beat this horror session with a large bet of only 327 and a drawdown of -528 and ending Profit of 145. I am tweaking it further so that bet never goes over 50 units max. I think I have achieved my HG finally but yet think that it can be bettered. It is winning even the worst possible, mathematically.
[attachimg=1]
Sir,
I not asking how your method.
I only want to argue with the chart point of view.
Your chart show promising slow upward line
with two very horrible drawdown.
If we study the chart, and draw a line parallelism
to the upward line, like the stock tracking method,
then, with your whatever approach, if you stop real betting when the profit line cross below the parallel line, and resume betting when the profit line cross above the parallel line, then you could avoid horrible drawdown....( i assumed that you bet every spin, of course) ...but even if you applied many mini stop,
that charting strategy will be your hg...i think
About the modified labby, i can't believe, you yet understand how , only30hit/100, won with labby...
if you show me any permutation with only 30hit/100spins, i can show you how math could close, even its not 33%+1hit, think hard, and you find the answer, only sadly the staking will too high for bm casino.
What you are speaking of is my RTM rules that I wrote at length about. Extreme variance could be managed to a large extent by playing trigger based game like if we play after a WLLL for only 1 or 2 bets(to get a win and move to next trigger), we do not need to worry for super horrible variance ever but it can still not be warded off fully. I mean playing with any trigger can not safeguard us completely hence I worked on an all over strategy. I formed a 60/200 case which is unseen, yet possible. You need to understand that I do not win 60/200 case but survive that and win later. No progression in the world can beat 60/200 in all the ways it could come.
QuoteAbout the modified labby, i can't believe, you yet understand how , only30hit/100, won with labby...
If you know how to make such modified labby, I can provide you a 30/100 case to showcase your expertise.
Sir,
labby is just another marthy, which instead of one hit, disperse to as many win preset.
and sadly needs hundreds of chips to win only one unit. thus unplayable in in bm.
and outrageously,
me,
like you and
others who claims having hg,
simply
just can't post our hg here...
lest casino close shop!
for those interested,
just keep thinking hard,
labby could only win with 33%+1win...
then the eureka, aha!..moment will knock.
Hey!
In another methodology of mine, this 800 gets beaten a bit differently with 52 units net profit. Max bet=18 units.
[attachimg=1]
Sir,
With due respect.
I try to make some
interesting
analysis.
The 345/800 is within math
rtm expectation.
With your method,
you bet 749attempt
out of 800,
waiting out 51spins,
hit 338winning out of 345/800.
that's waiting 7win as trigger..../345win.
the first 200 extreme variance,
caused
-119u losses,/200
=60losses per 100round.
then the next 600 make +119+52=171u/600=28u (per 100increment).
Thus, the reward risk ratios 60/28=2x.
great as long as extreme not hit.... frequently.
now if you could look at billions spins, how the 30/100,or,60/200,visavis, expectation/200
Trigger based games are not feasible to be used in real life and they can still have extreme variance. Better think of playing all over.
but I see that you must have ,stop bet ,after certain x losses, to avoid extreme variance and resume when a virtual won hit.
I guess, your progression,
must be labby, with string of , thirty '1',
since every within expectation, could land you ,30 units, but less than 33.34%, causing severe losses.
Nope. HP Johnson is the worst form of labby. Tweaking the original labby with additional safeguards is my way. You need to consider all probabilities the game can offer you ranging from great to average to the worst.
no, I didn't mean hp.Jhonny
but normal labby
but another assumption,
I guessed, you bet with labby ,
sort of starting with ( 0-1), or (0-0-1),(0,xx,1)
and bet only, say, 10spins only, then
cutloss, restart, stop at first 1u profit, restart.
thus when only 60/200, you sustain -+120u losses,
and ,if within expectation, you win -+30u./100
I have created and tested a hundreds of money management systems.
All standart systems with fixed rules like Martingale, D'alembert, Labouchere, Oscar Grind and others - in a long run are losing and have big bet size and drawdown.
There are several solutions how to increase stability of MM -
1) Every new losing session recover with different MM. Need a list of 20 standart MM, and let a random number generator to choose what MM to use to recover losing session.
2) In a standart MM create a dynamically changing system rules.
Of course, much depends of betting winrate. If winrate is stable and bigger than 48 percents then standart MM behave quit good in long term. If winrate is less 48 percents there is no way to stay alive in long run with standart MM. Need to think out of box.
Argalim247,
Albalaha, main purpose,
is to control losses to
manageable minimum,
when the worst 30%/100 hit.
and the winning will take care of itself
when expectation hit.
Many still can't GRASP this concept.!!!
Its FUNNY,
I start to think hard how to
LOSE 60u when 30/100 hit ...
INSTEAD of
how to WIN when 30% hit.
30/100 will hit anytime, but FORTUNATELY,
the ratio of (30%)versus ( within expectation)
is very good!
Quote from: PatternAnalys on March 19, 2020, 12:40:37 PM
no, I didn't mean hp.Jhonny
but normal labby
but another assumption,
I guessed, you bet with labby ,
sort of starting with ( 0-1), or (0-0-1),(0,xx,1)
and bet only, say, 10spins only, then
cutloss, restart, stop at first 1u profit, restart.
thus when only 60/200, you sustain -+120u losses,
and ,if within expectation, you win -+30u./100
This is really close to what I do.
@Argalim247,
Wow ! Your first post straight to my topic. You must be some old member with different username. Anyways,
The money managements you named are all seriously flawed mathematically and are meant to plunder players only and help casinos win bigger and faster. I analysed each of them very minutely and found what is lacking. Martingale is meant for super losers who is looking for the easiest way to run out of casino. Labouchere caught my attention but basic labby could drag you to dangerous levels in bad times. I worked upon bettering that. I assessed thousands of ways variance could strike. I sorted worst of the worst sessions. Tried my tweaks on them. Improved them further and so on. Now, I am capable of handling the worst sessions upto their virtual limits even if the remain below average after being too harsh. The same money management does great in good sessions and below average sessions too.
I don't need any advantage play or identifying trends/patters or precognition or bias analysis or roulette computers. My mathematical and logical approach is a kind of mathematical advantage play.
I think, I starting to
see/think about betting
from your pov.!!
1)Accept losses, but,
sustain the least but manageable
losses...
when worst extreme hit,
even when (the impossible)
'0/100' hit!!! thus "X"losses.
2)win when "within-expectation", rtm hit, till that winning larger than "X".
now, very interesting time, to do hard thinking, of explore & researching,
"how to bet in small batches", that lose ,say, only 50u in 30/100...
now 100/30=3.3, doesn't mean a hit every 3.3spin.
thus there will be STREAKS of long losses and hits.
If we start with labby of single 1,then,
( ten losses in row",
will be -55u,
if (0,1), then -10u.
and needs =>33.34%hit to close.
thus the winning will be less than and you need toake sure <30u plus the losses, shouldn't larger than you could sustain...
(just my 2cents)
Not pushing bets too much in any case, is the key. If you try to win the worst with only increasing bets, it will never work.
0,1 labby is my starting point, you are right upto this point but there are lots of other safeguards including mini stop losses and increase in base labby on specific conditions, so that even 0/100 case comes, it won't take away huge money.
Wow!
Sir,
thanks for the clues,
Very challenging,
and
exciting time,
to solve this strategy!!!
Thanks again.
I will start (0,1),
stop bet
after four losses, to avoid unnecessary,
extreme variance losses,
bet again when
a virtual win hit,
restart when +1 profit, regardless previous cutloss,
and ,maybe, for progression,
start again with (0,2)???
@Wong,
You are getting closer. Do you read my mind?
Hey Guys,
After beating a virtually "worst possible session" for an EC bet that I created, I m up for real bad sessions. Can someone provide me with real bad data for an EC bet where super bad ratio persists for 100 or more continuous bets followed by average wins thereafter( no clumping or compensatory wins). Try to provide me with at least 500 hands, in succession after the worst one.
I want to prove that even the worst patches could be recovered and finally won without betting or losing huge and nothing really is unbeatable in the random world. Hope to get such data soon. Thanks in anticipation.
Albalaha,
Sir,
Imho, betting
"follow the last",
and /or "f-t-2nd-last",
with your unique-progression-method, ("modified labby",
or 'r-labby', scheme...)
may better, because,
simply taking advantage,
of the streaky nature of baccarat.
Whether, you agreed/disagreed,
believe or not,
the streaky, advantage, can't be overlook!
Every EC bet will get same streaks good and bet. Do not waste your time on finding the best betselection. Rather learn to beat it, even if it goes the worst momentarily.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 29, 2020, 03:17:02 PM
Hey Guys,
Try to provide me with at least 500 hands, in succession after the worst one.
I want to prove that even the worst patches could be
Sir,
Why not you test the yet to broken world bm record of worst 69/200, that I believe will rtm after 800spins.
Quote from: Albalaha on March 29, 2020, 03:17:02 PM
Hey Guys,
After beating a virtually "worst possible session" for an EC bet that I created, I m up for real bad sessions. Can someone provide me with real bad data for an EC bet where super bad ratio persists for 100 or more continuous bets followed by average wins thereafter( no clumping or compensatory wins). Try to provide me with at least 500 hands, in succession after the worst one.
I want to prove that even the worst patches could be recovered and finally won without betting or losing huge and nothing really is unbeatable in the random world. Hope to get such data soon. Thanks in anticipation.
You don't need bad datas for an EC because you can be 100 percents for sure that in every long term game with every system you will meet such sequence -
WLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLW If you can survive this without big drawdown you have a grail. I have no grail but if i met 10 times such a sequence, for a 5 times i can survive easily...5 times not...
Quote from: Albalaha on March 30, 2020, 02:59:08 PM
Every EC bet will get same streaks good and bet. Do not waste your time on finding the best betselection. Rather learn to beat it, even if it goes the worst momentarily.
Super!! I agree for a 100 percents!!! There are no problem in betselections at all, because in long term all bet selection will give bad sequences.
QuoteSir,
Why not you test the yet to broken world bm record of worst 69/200, that I believe will rtm after 800spins.
Do you have the real data after 69/200 too for at least 400 more spins? If yes, send me up. I have already tested the worst from zumma books of baccarat that I could spot so far. All got beaten without ever going below -250 or worse.
QuoteYou don't need bad data for an EC because you can be 100 percents for sure that in every long term game with every system you will meet such sequence -
WLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLW If you can survive this without big drawdown you have a grail. I have no grail but if i met 10 times such a sequence, for a 5 times i can survive easily...5 times not...
Real data gives confidence that I am not subtly fixing it to win somehow. The worst 800 that I created had superbad stretches but even if it goes 2x worse i,e. either it gets only 30 wins in 200(9.5 SD below mean) hands or 120 wins till 400 trials(7.4 SD below the mean), which is so remote that we may take it next to impossible, it still can be won, in the long run. Remember, do not try to beat the worst itself but only sustain that with bearable loss and win thereafter as you can not beat the worst possible itself with any money management in the world otherwise it won't be gambling, at all. I know my findings could excite many and many may take it as outrageous claim or even lie but it is doable. What is you loss in the worst case, decides whether you can recoup it or not.
Sir,
I don't have the data,
but I remember,
many months ago,
you had visited the casino website,
and download the data...
maybe you kept somewhere,
in your computer.
Your concept,
of maintain minimum,
acceptable
losses, before recouping,
is really, think out of box,
and an essential to hg!
Quote from: Albalaha on April 01, 2020, 06:09:17 AM
Real data gives confidence that I am not subtly fixing it to win somehow. The worst 800 that I created had superbad stretches but even if it goes 2x worse i,e. either it gets only 30 wins in 200(9.5 SD below mean) hands or 120 wins till 400 trials(7.4 SD below the mean), which is so remote that we may take it next to impossible, it still can be won, in the long run. Remember, do not try to beat the worst itself but only sustain that with bearable loss and win thereafter as you can not beat the worst possible itself with any money management in the world otherwise it won't be gambling, at all. I know my findings could excite many and many may take it as outrageous claim or even lie but it is doable. What is you loss in the worst case, decides whether you can recoup it or not.
Can you survive safely that situation? WLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLW
Yes,
Swiftly. Even a data double bad than this could be sustained with minimal loss and a recovery is easy thereafter.
interesting topic
Friends,
Let me try to explain Albalaha's Way, or concept.
I THINK,
Albalaha's way...
1)He can't predict, and won't forecast...
He says,
in long run, say 1000spins,
RTM, may always kick in, (Albalaha had found "only 387/1000" in Zumma, thou...).
2)in next 100spins, rtm always kicks in, but once in while,
extreme variance, also presents itself, now the pertinent question, is, in increments of 100spins, WHAT THE RATIO,
of RTM/EXTREME?
I, think Albalaha, regard, 6/2...
6rtm/2extreme,
as the ratio.
3)Extreme variance,
He regards , short term,6/20 as extreme, since labby can't close in 20spins.
And I think, any lesser than 40/100,
being extreme,( though labby could close, horrible staking causing br depleted).
4)Extreme avoidance...He apply 20spins, as stop loss parameter, anything less than 7/20, will alert stop, and see if next 20spins, has 7/20 or more, before resume betting.
5)I don't know about his progression,
I think he start small, (labby0,1,maybe),
to avoid hitting huge losses, if extreme hit...losing between 20 to 50u losses per 100spins...
and make hay, when hot!
Thus, in long term bet, he may encounter one or two extreme losing, seasons of 100 bet, but OFFSET, with few more winning seasons.
what you think?
I elaborated my techniques time and again:
1. play a progression that can get u a win in lesser wins than average
2. have mini stop losses points (I use 5 more losses than wins as a mini stop loss). Do not push bet to get back mini stop losses, it
should come gradually. Do remember that even 10 mini losses could come one after another.
3. Have an absolute stop loss point: 4x to 8x of mini stop loss, as per your comfort
4. Do not push to win absolute loss and take that as losses accepted or surrender point.
5. When things look to cool down after long haul variance, you may push your base bet upward.
6. RTM will be guiding principle. Nothing could be more unwise than pushing bet in worst times.
7. Remember that law of long run will kick in and things will gradually get smoother but they might not compensate for earlier superbad
losses..
With these guiding principals, you may form your own strategies. I have played with as many as 3 ways to beat the superbad session, ever without getting too deep in losses.
Would the Paroli method be combined with the modified Labby?
Quote from: 6th-sense on April 03, 2020, 10:08:06 AM
Would the Paroli method be combined with the modified Labby?
could you show example how the combined. ...method win with only 7hit in next 20spins?
in the other hand,
any method, must keep losses low, when hit with, say ,
only 30hit/100spins,
preferably under 100u,
(starting bet=1u),
and then next 200spins,
which has hit within expectation,
the winning could offset the losses...
Quote from: 6th-sense on April 03, 2020, 10:08:06 AM
Would the Paroli method be combined with the modified Labby?
By Paroli, do you mean reverse martingale of may be 3 steps?
We need negative progression while Paroli is positive one and it requires successive wins to get a net profit. I do not see it working well with labouchere of any sort. Can you put any example as to how you propose to use it?
Sir,
May you please test this...
imho...
Since your concept
is to minimise losses when extreme hit, especially 30/100 hit, and making hay when within expectation.
Hypothetically,
Say,
two person betting at same table,
applying your strategy and method to the book.
one person bet RED, and the other bet BLACK.
Thus if next 100 spins, within expectation, then both person will win within expected profit.
Then ,if say, RED, hit by extreme, then RED will suffer "x losses", but then BLACK will going through POSITIVE variance, and should make a huge killing, to OFFSET the RED's x-losses.
But then again RED&BLACK, respectively, will have offsetting extreme variance too,
thus, if RED goes through extreme, and suffer losses, the other side, BLACK, must gain positive offsetting value.
Then, no matter, extreme positive or negative variance, constant profit, albeit smaller, profit could be make.
Playing both sides(RED/BLACK) is like playing chess from both sides. No outcome can be ensured that way, unless both are played separately from each other. In that case, when one side might be winning, other will be losing. Again do not find any advantage.
Of course, I mean playing separate ly.
Since I can't do programming,
I hope, some long testing done,
with YOUR applicable strategy.
Without testing, we could only guessing.
The logic, if one person bet RED only and in next 1000spins,
he will encounter,
a hundred or two that hit with extreme variance, and come out with some profit,
thus another person playing separately, BLACK,
at the same table and same 1000spins, will also encounter,
same risk, and end with positive result.
I know two people that do that quite frequently, the only way they do not profit is if there is zeros or double zeros hit or if it is pure red black red black red black consistently. But when one of them wins, he will full parlay it for the second time only and then they go back to the original unit and then if they win again they parlay it.
While the other one that is losing only covers the original bet, he stays at the one unit so if there is lots of repeats (RRRR and BBBBB, etc.), they win a few units or if there's doubles they win a few units because they're winning on the parlay as well while the loser only covers the original bet.
Majority of the time they do win a few units but they are very conservative and they are larger bettors.
Alrelax,
thanks for
your interesting
anecdote,
appreaciat them.
As you see,
mathwise,
if we bet, flatbet,
for every-single bet,
we can't win, thus,
I think, we need
to bet where the
math won't applied.
Something,
like the futures bet...
where you bet, from
three angles,
whether the market,
down, up, or stagnant,
you make money,
if the bet$ are right!
53 losses vs 37 wins: (how does such sessions go with your MM)?
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
w
With my current Millionaire's plan, I can beat this 600 hands/spins challenge with 22 units bet max. Net win=246 units.
[attachimg=1]
AND THIS ONE:
Quote53 losses vs 37 wins: (how does such sessions go with your MM)?
I win 13 units net profit betting 4 units max.[/size]