Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 18, 2021, 09:53:55 PM
Thanks KFB for your comments!

Only a team could approach the 7-tier system in the original aggressive version having a "leader" instructing when to bet and sharing an enormous bankroll.
Such a team work very well at online sites where different result lines are put together in order to get supposedly "more likely" betting spots (by a pc software, of course).

Even tough bets can theorically (and practically) reach huge values, this system is mathematically sound as per every 7-tier played the math probability to win is 72.66%.

I do not use this system as I'm a strict flat betting aficionado and HS live player (and mentor), anyway the 7-tier concept is quite interesting as it doesn't take into account single results but successions of 7-hand outcomes attacked by the same bet amount.

We know that itlr among the 128 possible WL patterns, each of them will present sooner or later, besides a "general" math probability to succeed it's just the relative frequency of every single WL pattern that cares.

There are several steps to assess whether we're doing good for a reason or by luck.

Best example is to estimate the most deviated 2/128 WL patterns, that is WWWWWWW and LLLLLLL patterns.
If after a given amount of shoes tested the former number will overcome the latter, we got a sure sign that the probability to be right is more significant than otherwise.

The same about less deviated patterns as those containing 6 W or L and specular 1 L or W and so on.

Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation.
If we'd think to get a long term winning system we should put a lot of emphasis about this very first bet.

Now say that we do not want to set up or belong to a team but trying to get the best of it by not  risking a lot of money.

Whenever the 7-tier system will dictate to bet a progressive X amount, we'll reduce it by a 5:1 scale.
Therefore after the first 7-tier betting series, we'll get those scenarios:

-1 unit loss= next betting amount 1

-3 unit loss= next betting amount 1

- 5 unit loss= nerxt betting amount 1.1

- 7 unit loss = next betting amount 1.4

It's true that now a very first bet (and other profitable conditions) won't erase the deficit by just a +1 W step over a L counterpart at any degree considered, but it's altogether true that mathematically we'll need a way lesser amount of profitable patterns to get the same erasing deficit.

Say tonight we're not guessing a fkng nothing, thus getting 5 more losses at 1.4 betting amount level.
Overall we got 2 wins and 12 losses (7 L and 0 W at 1 unit level and 2 W and 5 L at 1.4 unit level).
Thus we are behind 7 units plus 1.4 x 3 units = 7 + 4.2 units = 11.2 units.

Next bet will be 11.2 : 0.5 = 2.24 unit.

We see that even after a very unlikely 2:12 WL ratio our next bet will be just set up at 2.24 unit.

Now we need just a lesser amount of WL patterns than math expected to erase the deficit (even adding up the vig impact to losses), actually a wise flat betting approach cannot reach strong LW deviations by any means.

Nonetheless, even a "I do not care about what the shoe is producing" strategy (not recommended) will get a proper math advnantage itlr.

as.

Hello, AsymBacGuy!

You said you are strict flat betting.  Give, please, an advice in which direction need to think to create a winning flat betting scheme.  You are long term winning flat bettor, yes?

Quote from: Albalaha on April 28, 2020, 01:22:04 PM
#4: This 1.5 sd case was beaten with 5 units max bet: 20 Wins vs 33 Losses
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W

There are endless possible bad session combinations. Do you want to test it all? Then you need 100 years and more. For sure, one of the baddest combinations will be this...can you beat it?  LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW LLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW .....its 100 percent that in all infinity combinations will be this...and you can't it beat.

Quote from: Albalaha on April 26, 2020, 05:21:13 PM

         
Maximum drawdown below 300

Its big enough to have a chance not to recover at all.

Quote from: Albalaha on April 26, 2020, 07:49:16 AM
Hmm. You are trying to do curve fitting upon a session. To get 5 successive losses to put your bet, at times, you might need to wait entire day and whenever you get an opportunity, still loose. I am talking of an all over playing idea where neither a 5 step martingale after 5 virtual losses nor a 10 or even 20 steps martingale will work. Had such basic things been sufficient to beat the humongous probabilities associated with the game, this would have ended 400 years ago.

Can you beat this?

LLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLW ?

Quote from: Albalaha on April 26, 2020, 03:55:37 AM


Hmm. Marty can beat anything with no limits. 10 step marty will bust in the 10th successive loss and we know we can even get a 25 step loss. No point in playing such rotten ideas. I told my bankroll is only 300 units and I have faced world's worst known cases so far.
                     I do not see any point in any other discussion where everybody is churning failed ideas. Even after decades of being on gambling forums, people still come up with 10 step martingale. How silly is that? Just think that I am making a repository of worst looking sessions of all sorts.

This is also beaten by 5 step martingale which start to work after 5 virtual losses.

Quote from: Albalaha on April 25, 2020, 09:48:40 AM
Just tested this dreaded session of EC and finally won a net profit. It has 141 Losses vs 94 wins i.e. -2.65 SD
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W

this is easy beaten by 10 steps marty

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 05, 2020, 11:06:58 PM
Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity. 

Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample.
Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.

We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.

Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%.
Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side.
Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.

Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already worn-out asymmetrical force (providing BB-B gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.

For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.

as.

In some baccarat forums i have read that gamblers with a very good success used such strategy - in random.org get a random number from 0 to 1 list and, using 0 as banker and 1 as player, were betting in baccarat. What you can say about such a  method where bets are pre-determined ?

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

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.

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...

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.