This is how an EC bet normally behaves in 1000 spins, if we see the number of hits in last 20 spins.
[attachimg=1]
From this, we should learn how to best utilize the statistical concept of Regression towards mean to avoid the worst attack of variance.
These are the pre-requisites:
1. Let the number of hits in the last 20 spins go to 5 or lesser. It is an alert for you to bet further;
2. Let it improve to 7-8 in the next 20 spins or therafter without any clumping wins of more than 2 wins coming in a streak.
This is your trigger to start betting.
3. Pause in cases where again hit rate goes below 7 in the last 20 spins or in cases of three successive losses, in your bet.
In cases of pause, let the condition No.2 come again to resume, if successive wins streak pushes the hit rate above 7, abandon that
alert and look for another.
4. Still bet cautiously as nothing eliminates bad stretches fully.
5. Use a mild negative progression that can get a net win in lesser wins than losses.
6. If you still get 6 more losses than wins in your attempt, abandon the trigger.
You can see in the given graph that hit rate that goes down to upto 3/20, always corrects to 10/20 or even better. Now, it is upto you as to how you benefit from this statistical and universal truth to avoid the worst attacks of variance and play in a safer zone.
Thanks for sharing this Sumit,
Interesting synchronicity as I'm studying possible ways to do "dispersion mangling" efficiently. i.e. checking if something as simple as changing locations can help, as well as other techniques.
Some Spaniard players swear they can withstand great amounts of dispersion by "evolving" and "devolving" numerical coverage, according to the game's flow + bankroll movement(s).
The basic play being to widen the coverage on dispersion, then squeezing the most by reducing coverage (hence increasing the payout) "when it is your time" as they say.
Nice to see your approach for the even chances :thumbsup:
Thanks Victor,
We know that playing all over with any bet of choice could yield us unbeatable stretches. We do know that such stretches are temporary and gradually we have to get average/better than average hit rates. Expecting compensating wins is a fallacy and we need to distinguish between fallacious thinking and statistical truth. No betselections makes us immune from such bad stretches and no MM beats all probabilities that dispersion could offer us. We need to have an approach that doesn't lose huge till the worst moments last, so that recovery could be achieved with playable chips.
I am not saying playing all over can not be done profitably but then for recovery we may need to bear painful losses that could even necessiate a stop loss.
Ok, yet we know that the more we bet even money propositions, larger will be the gap between W and L, of course nothing prevent us to be in the positive side coincidentally.
Moreover at least at the time I'm writing, no one financial plan has ever demonstrated to control a 50/50 probability model, unless a very diluted multilayered progression plan is conceived.
Let alone whether a taxed coin flip propositon is in order.
I mean that stop loss or stop winning plans have demonstrated no advantages to any other random betting plan, unless we have reasons to think that random walks are limited in some way.
What I'm asking is if you are always confident to bet into a possible perfect random model, in the sense that not knowing the actual conditions I'd be more prone to wager toward a "deviated" world than hoping to get a kind of balancement.
Thanks.
as.
@Asymbacguy,
QuoteOk, yet we know that the more we bet even money propositions, larger will be the gap between W and L, of course nothing prevent us to be in the positive side coincidentally.
The largest Gap will be only near expected house edge, in the long run. I have defined the long run too.
QuoteMoreover at least at the time I'm writing, no one financial plan has ever demonstrated to control a 50/50 probability model, unless a very diluted multilayered progression plan is conceived.
Let alone whether a taxed coin flip propositon is in order.
True. I can control it to a very large extent with an indigenous multilayered progression.
QuoteI mean that stop loss or stop winning plans have demonstrated no advantages to any other random betting plan, unless we have reasons to think that random walks are limited in some way.
Even I used to think like that but after studying the sequential probability, I got to know how stop loss could help us from losing all. Indeed, we all have our stop losses for the day, whether one admits that or not.
QuoteWhat I'm asking is if you are always confident to bet into a possible perfect random model, in the sense that not knowing the actual conditions I'd be more prone to wager toward a "deviated" world than hoping to get a kind of balancement.
That is fallacious. I neither wait for any kind of balancement nor do I think that betting after a bad phase will yield me very good phase ahead. As I said repeatedly, A very bad patch touching the virtual limits
is lesser likely to repeat immediately and impossible to repeat multiple times. For records, I can play all over, can go across the worst possible without being damaged hugely and then recover too, most likely when the curve comes out of valley and reaches plains(I do not need or expect reaching top).
Playing all over is the most feasible way to play but people use wrong type of progressions and stop losses that causes irreparable damages in bad times.
Glad to hear your comments.
I've got many of the same conclusions you've posted.
Just yesterday I've finished my multiple years study directed to reach the ambitious task of winning by flat betting and by utilizing a strict mechanical betting plan.
Now I'm wondering what we can do by using progressions knowing that you are the Master in that field.
as.
QuoteJust yesterday I've finished my multiple years study directed to reach the ambitious task of winning by flat betting and by utilizing a strict mechanical betting plan.
Now I'm wondering what we can do by using progressions knowing that you are the Master in that field.
Winning by flat betting is something that I reached somewhere closer but could never conclude as final and playable. If you have a bet that even doesn't win flat but lessens the house edge by half or more, in the long run by clear simulations, it can be the best HG possible with my inputs.
You give me a better bet than all, I give you the best MM approach possible for the long run.
Right now, my MM is almost immune from 99.9% cases and I have even beaten the worst recorded in roulette and baccarat with it, although after a long fight, which is obvious. I do stress upon playing within a reasonable table limit and chips limit too. I believe that merely increasing or decreasing bet is not a way to a correct money management.
Quote from: Albalaha on October 21, 2019, 05:57:10 AM
Winning by flat betting is something that I reached somewhere closer but could never conclude as final and playable. If you have a bet that even doesn't win flat but lessens the house edge by half or more, in the long run by clear simulations, it can be the best HG possible with my inputs.
You give me a better bet than all, I give you the best MM approach possible for the long run.
Right now, my MM is almost immune from 99.9% cases and I have even beaten the worst recorded in roulette and baccarat with it, although after a long fight, which is obvious. I do stress upon playing within a reasonable table limit and chips limit too. I believe that merely increasing or decreasing bet is not a way to a correct money management.
Interesting.
Actually in order to minimize the risk of crossing long fights, I think I'm losing some profitable opportunities.
as.
QuoteActually in order to minimize the risk of crossing long fights, I think I'm losing some profitable opportunities.
That is the dilemma. You can not win without huge risk if you play all over and triggers suck good opportunities. Rather make a framework for all over play with strategic stop losses.
Quote from: Albalaha on October 22, 2019, 05:17:44 AM
That is the dilemma. You can not win without huge risk if you play all over and triggers suck good opportunities. Rather make a framework for all over play with strategic stop losses.
Exactly.
as.
For several days, I have been testing your method of bet selection using Labby.
Despite the use of safebreakes, I still have high drowdawns.
QuoteFor several days, I have been testing your method of bet selection using Labby.
Despite the use of safebreakes, I still have high drowdawns.
Basic laboucher tries to win back extreme losses that may go dangerous at times. Even after filtering out the worst, we may get bad phases and basic labouchere may fail badly in those cases with huge drawdowns.
In a different topic written recently on my board I have elaborated as to why any brute force or force to win progression fails.