+ Register

[Mike]

Albalaha,

You criticise every system as being fallacious and urge us to focus on a money management system which is able to withstand the worst drawdowns. Perhaps you don't realize it but no staking scheme or manipulation of stakes can CREATE an edge. All progressions can do is amplify the edge you already have. If you have no edge, the result of using a progression will worse than if you had just flat bet.

Bet selection should take priority. It IS the name of this forum after all.

[esoito]

     Trying to find a built in edge in a betselection is only a futile step leading nowhere near success.

Look again at the title of this forum.

As for "...a futile step leading nowhere..." then based on some results after several years of development of what some would regard an "unorthodox approaches" [which, by the way, are nothing whatsoever to do with voodoo] I can only disagree.

So let's both agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I have no wish to get into an argument with you or anyone else, come to that. Life is too short.

[esoito]

I couldn´t help but notice how you displayed a mindset in Esoito´s recent thread that was very closed to anything beyond the purview of your own knowledge, which I have assessed as exceedingly limited. I am surprised that anyone suffering from such close-mindedness is allowed to be a moderator at betselection.cc 

Just to clarify, Thomas:   Victor has NOT appointed him as a Global Moderator.

But -- like all other thread starters -- he is simply Moderator of his own thread.

As for the closed mindset...sadly, not much can be done about that. 

[Albalaha]

Albalaha,

You criticise every system as being fallacious and urge us to focus on a money management system which is able to withstand the worst drawdowns. Perhaps you don't realize it but no staking scheme or manipulation of stakes can CREATE an edge. All progressions can do is amplify the edge you already have. If you have no edge, the result of using a progression will worse than if you had just flat bet.

Bet selection should take priority. It IS the name of this forum after all.

We do not need edge to win. Edge is mathematically impossible. We can still win.
Let me get you brainstorm a bit. Martingale and labouchere can beat any session in the long run mathematically. The problem is, they will seek countless chips in very harsh moments. That is not doable practically and hence we need to innovate around those lines to make a sustainable way to bet. A wise money management can extract from the game while being sensible enough to not lose much even in the harshest times. my harsh sessions kind of showcase that capability which are unbeatable to any old school progression idea ever.

@magician
        I am not a global moderator and being one doesn't make you much more informed or say smarter. I moderate my blog only and quite happy with that.

@all
         please do not recall me the name of this forum. If betselection is the only thing we need to talk of, why do we have other sections?

[TheMagician]

Just to clarify, Thomas:   Victor has NOT appointed him as a Global Moderator.

But -- like all other thread starters -- he is simply Moderator of his own thread.

Thank God for that.

Beyond the fact, that he seems to suffer from a milder form of receptive aphasia, that mind of his really dwells in a very dark bubble of self-loathing. A bubble that forces him to see everything "outside" as a potential threat to its self-chosen isolation and not an opportunity to collate data, strategies and good stories with what essentially are "comrades in arms" in the same game.

[greenguy]

Thank God for that.

Beyond the fact, that he seems to suffer from a milder form of receptive aphasia, that mind of his really dwells in a very dark bubble of self-loathing. A bubble that forces him to see everything "outside" as a potential threat to its self-chosen isolation and not an opportunity to collate data, strategies and good stories with what essentially are "comrades in arms" in the same game.

Translation.

He's a real piece of work, that guy.

[Albalaha]

@the magician,
            you better be in your Hogwart school of magic than talking or debating about any logic. The way you are bragging about yourself proves your immaturity and lack of knowledge relating to various issues of gambling.

[Babu]

Albalaha,

You criticise every system as being fallacious and urge us to focus on a money management system which is able to withstand the worst drawdowns. Perhaps you don't realize it but no staking scheme or manipulation of stakes can CREATE an edge. All progressions can do is amplify the edge you already have. If you have no edge, the result of using a progression will worse than if you had just flat bet.

Bet selection should take priority. It IS the name of this forum after all.

You are right Mike.  Bet selection is key.  I have never came across a betting system that has an edge.  I tried to overcome it with progression.  I play a subjective game for years and tried to come up with a mechanical system at the same time.  Several months ago, I thought I found one.  The progression didn't go very deep so I felt that I could live with it.  Still I wasn't comfortable using it.  After a few months of success, I finally saw how ugly it can get in the last two days of testing.  I still can tweak it to make it a winner but it just isn't practical standing next to a table to record the results for 8hrs just to play around 10-20 hands.

[Albalaha]

In a purely random game no prediction is ever possible. House edge will teach a lesson to every bet, sooner or later. A game is either not random or unpredictible. Both can not be possible together. it is not more than a joke that one wishes to win by his magical picks alone. Those who can not simulate or love to live in a wishful dream world can think of doing that. Simulate your bet on random set of data and know the reality.

[Mike]

In a purely random game no prediction is ever possible.

And what does "random" mean? If it means "unpredictable" then the sentence reduces to a mere tautology. A more useful definition of "random" is "lack of information". So an event isn't INHERENTLY random but is a function of the perceiver's ignorance regarding the causes of the event. Total ignorance means total randomness. Obviously if you have data concerning some apparently "random" phenomena which someone else isn't isn't privy to then the phenomena may be random to them but not to you. Therefore randomness is ultimately subjective.

[esoito]

I think this is a good place to lock this thread.

Then we can all run off for a cool shower!