How would you recognize if you had a bet selection that produced lower variance than a random bet selection?

Which parameters would it have to beat? For example, would it need to be able to avoid an x losing streak? Or would it need to avoid an x drawdown from a highest point?

In the search for lower variance, I wonder how you could even be sure when you've got it? Which figures can quantify it?

Hull is going to be the UK's City of Culture in 2017 -


It's been voted the worst place to live in the UK in the recent past – it's listed as 1 of the UK's 'decaying towns', I'm not sure what effect 'City of Culture' type things have in the long term, but it can't do any harm I suppose. Londonderry was the last place (it's every 4 years) & they seem to have benefited with the extra investment it brought.

Anyway, just a bit of fun, 'Where the Hell is Hull'??
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/hull/



You just have to click to start, click where you live, then click where you think Hull is.


How close were you?


I was 15 miles away, and I was born there!

Progression after deviation:

I've used this combined progression on EC's after seeing a strong imbalance.
You would have to decide which correction triggers you are going to look for before using it.


The progression:
Try to get the 3 unit win-goal through mainly flatbetting first -
1-1-1-2, a win on any of these & re-start the progression.

If lose 4 in a row, ie. 1L-1L-1L-2L, I'll bet 2 again, if it wins, bet for another win at 2, then re-start (you'll be -1unit).

If it loses, this is what you will have: 1L-1L-1L-2L-2L [-7units]


At this point, I consider that I've just witnessed a strong imbalance, on top of which there is another losing sequence, so now I'm prepared to risk a limited positive progression to try & get back to zero or close.
I play a kind of Oscar's Grind, but with a regression built in.

Like Oscar's Grind I'll move up on a win, but after 2 losses in a row, I'll move down 2 units.
Max bet should be 5 or 6 units.


Once I hit those first 4 losses in a row, I'm only looking to get back close to zero.



There are 2 things that I've found useful - 

20 unit Stoploss. A lot of progressions, including Oscars Grind, will eventually pass the point of no return. The increase in stakes is not going to be big enough to allow you to recoup, or the wins will not come in big enough clusters. You can vary the % increase, but anything can happen, you can hit another deviation against you & you're done for.
Take the loss & move on.

The other thing - 
I'll begin to look for an exit point after about 20 placed bets if I still haven't reached 3 units profit. There may be no major correction, it may turn out to be a slow correction over many many spins, with further ups & downs. You might get the correction you're looking for too late.


Using imbalances is a risky, imprecise method of play – you can't just pile-on the other side. Plus, a lack of opportunities plays its part in unit levels, overall play.

When it comes to even chance betting, I switched from roulette to baccarat a little while ago. Changing to a lower HA game seem to make sense, plus there are more hands per hour than spins.
I've also come to appreciate the shoe-nature of baccarat, in that it offers a clear break in proceedings which can help psychologically if nothing else.


I didn't really expect to see any difference in the maths of the games, apart from a very slight advantage to Banker (Banker should win 51 out of every 100 hands due to the way the cards are dealt, but for this advantage you pay a 5% commission if it's a winning bet on Banker).


However, I've read a few mentions of the difference in results – roulette more streaky, baccarat choppier etc.. is this belief widely held? Or even provable?


Looking back over old shoes, I don't really see any difference in results between Banker/Player & Red/Black.. maybe in the long-term, the 50.7% edge for Banker shows itself clearly, but shoe to shoe, is there anything exploitable?

This is regarding imbalance, waiting for a trigger to show possible correction & then betting thereafter.
In that respect it's broadly based on Marigny, however I'm not really a purist when it comes to this – for instance, I don't always wait for the 3STD, & I'm prepared to use progressions if needed (though not if I can help it), both negative & positive.


So the idea below is just 1 where the application is quite simple really, but the idea behind it may be worth looking at & may provoke new ideas/improvements.

The basis: if we have a PnF cell 5 chops across, on average it takes approximately 7-10 spins to cross a cell.
We can interpret the results from reaching an STD3 (specifically in this example with singles contra series) visually more directly to a 'point & figure' chart.

If we have an STD3 of singles contra series, with streaks no longer than 2 or 3, we know that it is has been taking fewer than expected spins to cross a cell, therefore, we are betting, after a trigger, for a correction in the number of spins it takes to cross future cells.
This is where the idea of the PnF chart will differ from the normal Marigny notion where any streak is worth 1. If we are looking at spins to cross a cell, then the length of those streaks do matter. For our play here, we want streaks of a short length, because then the number of spins to cross a cell would still be under-represented. A streak of 5 or 6, although still keeping within the STD3 framework, would not fit in with this premise.

At best we can have a good correction in our favour; more probably, an evening out producing low variance.
The worst – the deviation increasing. In this instance, no wild chasing & a sufficient BR to ride it out is needed.
We can't know the outcome of the next spin, but we can be prepared to take a sufficient sample size after our triggers that will hopefully bring about the correction we are looking for (remembering that 'correction' can just mean the deviation not continuing to grow).

Trigger is 3 in a row.
Play FTL until 3 losses in a row – stop, wait for next trigger, continue until you have +2 or -6.
If I reach -6, I would start to use a positive progression (contra d'alembert) to break even or get close. Another couple of losses & increase the base bet to 2units.

That's it – like I said, a lot of words to describe a pretty simple way of play – it's the correlation between imbalances & thinking of them in terms of a PnF chart that I thought might be interesting.

Thanks to Drazen for providing the samples. I've tried to pick a couple that are tricky, many will be a more straightforward +2.

EG1:

314: b
315: r
316: r
317: b
318: r
319: b
320: r
321: b
322: r
323: b
324: b
325: b
326: b
327: r
328: b
329: r
330: b
331: r
332: b
333: r
334: b
Red & Black
Singles=14 | Series =2 | Ecart =3.0
Formations = B RR B R B R B R BBBB R B R B R B R
Sequence|-->35 1 36 11 5 17 18 29 23 17 8 11 8 21 24 7 20 7 15 23 (8 ) @ SPIN NR-334


335: r
336: b
337: b
338: r
339: r
340: b
341: b
342: b    <<<<trigger 'bbb'
343: b    +1
344: r     0
345: b    -1
346: r     -2
347: r
348: b
349: b
350: r
351: b
352: r
353: r
354: r     <<<<trigger 'rrr'
355: r     -1
356: b    -2
357: b    -1
358: b    0
359: r     -1
360: r     0
361: b    -1
362: r     -2
363: r     -1
364: r     0
365: b    -1
366: r     -2
367: r     -1
368: b    -2
369: b    -1
370: b    0
371: b    +1
372: b    +2           END +2
373: b   
374: r     
375: b   
376: b
377: r
378: b


EG2:

453: l
454: h
455: l
456: l
457: l
458: h
459: l
460: h
461: h
462: h
463: l
464: h
465: l
466: h
467: l
468: l
469: h
470: l
471: h
472: l
473: l
474: h
475: h
476: h
477: h
478: l
479: h
480: l
481: h
482: l
483: h
484: l
485: h
486: l
487: h

Low & High

Singles=20 | Series =5 | Ecart =3.0
Formations = L H LLL H L HHH L H L H LL H L H LL HHHH L H L H L H L H L
Sequence|-->14 27 4 7 2 35 16 24 23 21 12 29 12 23 5 12 28 11 31 9 18 36 20 22 31 9 33 5 25 5 27 9 33 16 (33) @ SPIN NR-487

488: h
489: l
490: h
491: h
492: h    <<<<trigger 'hhh'
493: l      -1
494: h    -2
495: l      -3
496: h
497: l
498: l
499: l      <<<<trigger 'lll'
500: h    -4
501: h    -3
502: h    -2
503: h    -1
504: l      -2
505: h    -3
506: l      -4
507: l
508: l      <<<<trigger 'lll'
509: l      -3
510: l      -2
511: l      -1
512: h    -2
513: h    -1
514: l      -2
515: h    -3
516: l      -4
517: h
518: h
519: h    <<<<trigger 'hhh'
520: l      -5
521: h    -6
522: h    -5 [start contra d'alembert]
523: h    -3
524: l      -6
525: l      -5
526: l      -3
527: l      0              END 0
528: l
529: l
530: h
531: l
532: h
533: h
534: h
535: l
536: l
537: l
538: l
539: l
540: l
541: h

In the example above, in real play, once I reached the second -4, & then got back to -1, I probably would've stopped after another loss taking me to -2.

I would be happy to read any ideas people have for improving this, whether it be the triggers in & out, MM, stop-wins/losses etc...