+ Register

[Mike]

You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that..[/b][/color]

This simply isn't true. You haven't understood what an edge is : it's the difference between what you should get paid on a win if the game is fair, and what you actually get paid. It doesn't matter that the payouts are fixed by the casino, what you need to do is raise the probability of a win relative to the payout.

How does manipulating stakes improve the probability of a win? It can't. All it can do is attempt to recover losses after losing runs and/or increase profits on winning runs. But these attempts fail; all they do is to magnify both losses and wins, but on average you still lose because you haven't addressed the real problem and you still don't have an edge. Progressions work until they don't. 

All MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.

Can you give me an example of such a progression? Do you think this hasn't been thought of before?

[Albalaha]

Can you give me an example of such a progression? Do you think this hasn't been thought of before?

That is the sole problem. Everybody wants a ready reference/solution and not working in this area. Some progressions like Oscar Grind etc were done but they fail to address the issue in a realistic manner and also to fill in the gap created by the house edge in the long run.

Check as to how the harshest possible sessions could also be handled effectively with a well thought approach:
https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/harsh-sessions-won-by-positive-gambling-module/

[alrelax]

---Mike

Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.

Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?

Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?

Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.

Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.

Thing is, people who read too many forums have got more unrealistic and unscientific approaches towards gambling than a layman. We all assert our views without putting any evidence. Anybody getting influenced with our writings could get biased and thus harmed, inadvertently.

I feel ashamed to see approaches like "Pattern Breaker", which is one of the worst way of playing possible in our forums. Martingale is the nectar of obvious death. It is the worst thing that ever happened to gambling. Put all you have at risk to win 1 unit. Anyways, we are all adults here and thus responsible for whatever we learn.

I like Mike's posts and comments. They are very close to reality and mostly accurate. I like Xander's posts too. He has got his own set of experiences of the advantage play for decades and I got to see a bit of how he does that. Unfortunately, at times, he goes too far and people do not seem to like that.

Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.

We can still co-exist and behave in a mature manner.

An excellent 'open-minded' post about interpretation and application.  Which would be individualistic to each of us. 

Thanks Albalaha for the great expression and posting.

[Gizmotron]

Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.

Probability or not the Global effect continues for very long periods.


Something I just noticed reading my old threads regarding the Global Effect: You don't get the continuation of a repeating characteristic from grouping to grouping in Baccarat, Craps, and Blackjack even though you can play or only play these games as even chance bets. Only in Roulette do you have the options of playing 12 sets of dozens making up 4 groupings and 12 sets of even chance sets that make up 6 groupings as just an example of my own playing style. It is because of that the Global Effect can not be seen in other games other than Roulette.


So I'm getting requests to teach again in my PM's. Interesting. Nobody knows my newest method and why I went back to EC's. But what a few really want is to become experts at hunting the global effect. I don't blame them too. I sort of put a bull's-eye on myself to the math guys as a major challenge to refute the existence of it.


PM me if you want private tutoring. This could be the moment when trends become the fashion regardless of what the probability states what should happen. I'd like to focus just on the global effect and the skills needed to beat this game while hunting them. This time it will be private email and not a school for all to see. I will cut and paste questions and answers to this group. I have found that almost everyone has the same questions while learning. I hope that at least five students will sign up for this. I will share the cost among this limited group. If I get 5 students then all will get in for a reduced and shared price. It will take at least six weeks just to get to the point where each student can prove to me that they know how to do this. My goal is to turn out Roulette winners. It will be my success story. I have my reasons. The math crowd is starting to consider this after 12 years. Once they have it, the world will change. And i really enjoy opening peoples eyes.

[Albalaha]

How does manipulating stakes improve the probability of a win? It can't. All it can do is attempt to recover losses after losing runs and/or increase profits on winning runs. But these attempts fail; all they do is to magnify both losses and wins, but on average you still lose because you haven't addressed the real problem and you still don't have an edge. Progressions work until they don't. 

It doesn't change any probability but can get you a net win with lesser wins than mathematically required. See the cases of martingale and labouchere. They can mathematically beat any session. These basic MMs were but childishly made to not take into account larger variance and hence became fool's gold. Now those who lack skills to improve upon the blunders made in these, can only cry foul on all progressions. Problem is, there was not a single progression widely known that handles most types of variance and strive to win in the long run. Everybody wants to win in a hurry with an hour or two and a fistful of chips. No wonder there are losers in the casino, all over.

[Albalaha]

Tired minds of most gambling aspirants dream of only getting an edge, i.e. winning more than losing by any magical approach so that they can bet the max on the table and they get net wins at the last, that normally happens with a casino. They see all answer to their gambling aspiration in getting an edge somehow. They ask everyone, do u have an in built edge like casino? "No". Then you can not win. Period.

      I believe it never happened even with gambling legends in absolute sense. Even if someone gets 2% edge against casinos, he will make casinos go bankrupt in a few years, all of them. CASINO gambling will be then only remain in books of history.

[Mike]

Even if someone gets 2% edge against casinos, he will make casinos go bankrupt in a few years, all of them. CASINO gambling will be then only remain in books of history.

LOL, the casinos won't be going bankrupt even if someone has an edge, they'll simply ban you or take steps like they did when Thorp wrote Beat The Dealer.

First learn what an edge is before saying you don't need one.

The problem with progressions, no matter how cleverly constructed, is that they all amount to flat bets eventually. This is because they assume a particular ordering of the outcomes which must materialise in order for the progression to work. Something like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any  reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that  the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?

[Gizmotron]

LOL, the casinos won't be going bankrupt even if someone has an edge, they'll simply ban you or take steps like they did when Thorp wrote Beat The Dealer.

First learn what an edge is before saying you don't need one.

The problem with progressions, no matter how cleverly constructed, is that they all amount to flat bets eventually. This is because they assume a particular ordering of the outcomes which must materialise in order for the progression to work. Something like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any  reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that  the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?

Mike, you make an excellent and logical argument that to win with a progression you need a sequence that allows the progression to win. On the bad side of that there is the perfect killer sequence that makes the progression lose. That too is logical, and it happens just enough to render the progression method a pointless adventure, in my opinion. But if it is a sequence that makes it work or not work then why can't sequence hunting be a method? If that is doable then can't the skill of sequence hunting be an edge? You can see how a blind use of sequences tells the true story. But what about deliberately using sequences that appear to be continuing in the positive side of your strategy? What if you knew a sequence of extreme positive consequence was going to appear in the next 1200 to 2000 spins? That this was typical and that these sequences tend to last from 30 to 120 spins? Would you ignore such a phenomenon?

[Albalaha]

Something like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any  reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that  the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?

If you see the nature of martingale, it can win even in 10% hit rate but it is subject to a win sooner.

Labouchere  doesn't need very soon wins but it can only win if we get wins in a ratio that should exceed one third. It is a big deal in itself but Labouchere becomes foolish when it get a bit adverse case. It doesn't ask for more wins than losses nor any guess on when and how wins will scatter. just a ratio that shouldn't be so harsh. I believe we can better this too much and rather I have done exactly that.

I have accomplished a progression for long run that can sustain the harshest possible times and then can win after RTM. It is sensible enough to not get tricked easily. Since such things might look alien to you, it is easy to negate the same.

[Mike]

Since such things might look alien to you, it is easy to negate the same.

No, they don't look alien to me. I've seen lots of these supposedly foolproof money management schemes where you raise stakes gradually and "safely" until "regression to the mean" kicks in, and none of them work. Yes it's easy to negate but it's also easy to claim that you have a miracle system. But the math isn't on your side.

Glen has posted a link to a great article on Casino Math in another thread. I suggest you read it. Here's a small extract :

Some casino games are pure chance - no amount of skill or strategy can alter the odds. These games include roulette, craps, baccarat, keno, the big-six wheel of fortune, and slot machines.

[Mike]

What if you knew a sequence of extreme positive consequence was going to appear in the next 1200 to 2000 spins? That this was typical and that these sequences tend to last from 30 to 120 spins? Would you ignore such a phenomenon?

Gizmo,

What you always seem to miss is the fact that you don't know WHEN these winning sequences will occur. Sure, you can anticipate that the next spin will turn into one and raise your stake accordingly, but this is just like using a reverse martingale on the even chances. All the false starts will eat away at your bankroll and in the end you end up losing at a rate given by the HA, even though you get some big wins.

Take your pick : lots of small losses followed by a big win, or lots of small wins followed by a big loss. You seem to favour the former, and I agree it's a more sensible way to bet, but it doesn't give you long-term advantage.

[Gizmotron]

Some casino games are pure chance - no amount of skill or strategy can alter the odds. These games include roulette, craps, baccarat, keno, the big-six wheel of fortune, and slot machines.

Funny how this is supposed to be the final word. It's right there in the equations too. The implication is that the odds must change in order to win. That is no longer the truth. The odds stay the same and you can win. You do it by accepting the odds as is. The game is still pure chance. That does not change either. You just add coincidental situational  awareness to the math. This is the fun part. I could do it. You can't even imagine it.

[alrelax]

https://betselection.cc/math-statistics/situational-awareness/msg63604/?PHPSESSID=7cs392thf2v9bonuoooctfb381#msg63604

Situation Awareness.

And, yes variables do change within the course of gaming/gambling as well as changing within the course of a shoe, etc.  Most certainly

[Gizmotron]

Gizmo,

What you always seem to miss is the fact that you don't know WHEN these winning sequences will occur. Sure, you can anticipate that the next spin will turn into one and raise your stake accordingly, but this is just like using a reverse martingale on the even chances. All the false starts will eat away at your bankroll and in the end you end up losing at a rate given by the HA, even though you get some big wins.

Take your pick : lots of small losses followed by a big win, or lots of small wins followed by a big loss. You seem to favour the former, and I agree it's a more sensible way to bet, but it doesn't give you long-term advantage.

I don't agree. You always say that I can't know a thing that is essential for your position to hold true. I say I that I can know the thing that you say I can't know. I know when I'm in the middle of the Global Effect and I know how to exploit it. Not only that but I can program a computer to see that the algorithm is in the middle of a global effect too. You math guys think that I need to prove it. Why do that? Is that really logical? I mean you guys frequent these gambling forums just to regurgitate your math prowess, right? You get a little piece of the Fields Medal. You get to sniff it. It's so close and you are so great. Ha Ha Ha. You guys are the ones that don't know a thing.

[Albalaha]

                Handling all kinds of variance is the only key to win this game. IF someone can predict the future outcomes seeing current trend(if it is possible with any degree of certainty), it will be an advantage play again with a kind of edge playing at your side. I do not believe or expect any fixed edge coming to me by any divine knowledge to earn from this game.
               I have learnt the art of survival in extremes and winning thereafter without going too deep or expecting any corrective wins, that is a fallacy. It is both a science and art and I can compare it with breaking stones with empty hands. Inconceivable and un-achievable by most, even if the entire logic and techniques are explained.

      Remember, the house edge/house fee/unfair payout creates a kind of variance by itself, leave aside the other factors. In the long run we first need to fill in the gap created by 2.7% house edge edge first. Every bet will get this much variance for sure, in the long run. People seems to miss even a remedy for this.

If I say, there will be 500 wins of a number in 18500 spins and we can not get the scatter of the wins, most of the intelligent players around here will have a soar throat beating just that. If the number of win lessens to 450, they will lose thousands of chips and might be only losing all over. I have seen this clearly in my #3 challenge on zumma book.

Go and keep dreaming of getting more wins than losses to win easily and I believe that is not going to happen any time soon. Let me sharpen my skills in surviving the worst and winning in near average cases, thereafter. It seems the old failed progressions attempts had very bad impact on money management onlookers and they thought that the end.