Of course the goal on the W side progression will be to get a deviation instead of an equilibrium. Hence utilizing an opposite way of thinking (positive progression).
as.
as.
Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: TheLaw on May 12, 2016, 07:25:29 PM
Hey AsymBacGuy,
What if you looked at how often this method would lose.......and then created a progression around that W/L record?
Example :
If you lose all 66 units let's call it 1 total bank loss. Now, the next series is the same..........trying to win the 66 units back.
Then if that is a loss, then we multiply the total bank x 2. Basically we are using a Labouchere with the total bank instead of each bet.
You would need to lose many banks (66 units each) to lose your entire stake. In this example your total stake might be 10 banks or more.
I call this a nested progression.......and you can use as many as you like to create a method.
Quote from: 21 Aces on May 12, 2016, 05:18:12 PM
Even the best players can lose at times, but if you have skill then you exploit your strength in the game to win on a net basis. I would expect the bluest of blood with advanced degrees to have no better success than anyone else if they are not applying themselves correctly. That is the beauty of the game. It doesn't care whether you went to Harvard.
Some of you seem to get the idea that winning players go in with some cocky wreckless attitude when it is quite the opposite. AND they are subject to the same wild nature of play, the same errors, the same risks, the same pitfalls, and the same dynamics as everyone else.
Also, gambling is not the only arena where people go in ill-prepared. Try trading against Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, or Virtu Financial and central banks. Financial markets are on records as being fully rigged to the nth degree. This far surpasses anything a casino does who actually presents games of chance in a structured manner.
How many stories do you think islanders have of some tourist grabbing a surf board and trying to take on North Shore?
Quote from: alrelax on May 12, 2016, 04:12:56 PM
Just don't let me get too side tracked looking out for the black panthers, SoS Flags, dogs and cats on skateboards, Vanilla Ice, Black Horses running through the casino, Wizards, Gnomes, etc., etc.
Quote from: alrelax on May 12, 2016, 03:46:11 PM
Absolutely each of us has considerations, which IMO weigh more than the percentages of what can or cannot prevail according to 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million shoes or in fact, past shoes, etc.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2016, 02:59:33 AM
Asym,
You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.
Quote from: 21 Aces on May 12, 2016, 01:59:55 AM
Ok I now understand you are going for two consecutive wins after the losses. Then I don't understand the last column 'gain after the equilibrium will be reached'. you are just trying to find two wins after a possibly huge series of losses?
Quote from: 21 Aces on May 12, 2016, 01:06:04 AM
The gain after the equilibrium will be reached looks incorrect. If you bet $110 the 2nd bet and your total value it risk from the start with that bet is $210 and you win then you are at -$100 P&L (-$100 1st Bet + $110 2nd Bet = -$100).
Quote from: soxfan on May 12, 2016, 12:57:55 AM
There is an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with a progression style that is, imho, nearly unbreakable. That's cuz it covers the mathematical expectation of a certain event popping within so many toss of the cubes. So, if the action at the dices table always play out according to expectation then he would never bust a progression. But there are practical reasons it's hard to play in that you need a minimum 10 thousands unit bankroll, and they stones to make the max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. And ya gotta have access to a joint that gives you a nice fat spread between min-mx bets, hey hey.
Quote from: Tomla on May 12, 2016, 12:20:33 AM
are you saying bet 1 unit 10x then 2 units 20x?
Quote from: 21 Aces on May 10, 2016, 10:35:08 PM
how and why on earth so many of you believe that the more you do something, the worse you get is beyond me unless you belong to a select group of people that do differ from most everyone else.