Variance is the biggest killer in a random game as roulette or baccarat. Variance is momentary and a huge one can not last too long. Gradually RTM will bring in better patches and eventually in a very long stride, it will all look very close to the mathematically expected value.
           Take a case of an EC bet like Player in Baccarat. We get only 60 hits in 200 attempts. It is -5.27 SD and a kind of even below the virtual limits but as nothing is impossible and only remote, it happened while we played it. Later, in subsequent 400 more trials say we get 186 more hits of our bet Player. It is still at -3.76 SD in 600 trials and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow.

         Do we have any strategy that can win even in such cases after 600th trial even 1 unit Or we only have wishful thinking that such things could never happen to us. Even if we do not stand to win even after 600th trial here, how many will get bearable losses that could be recovered ahead easily?

Hey friends,
                I might not be posting anything anymore on this place or maybe on any other forum as well. The reason for the same is lack of sensible debates and testing. People are engulfed with ideas like gambling is unbeatable etc. ( I do not know which maths book told them so) most are rigid enough to even talk. A few feel that they can win a random negative expectation game with flat bet by making a very clever way to pick bet or betting at the best times only.
               I, sadly do not believe in all these. I started to believe that repeaters are worthy, in my early days as well but gradually knowledge of testing random data helped me ward off such misconceptions. In my recent research work, I came across something that looks like conclusive as to how one may expect to win in the long run. The key is One strategy that works across average, below average, worst and the best times of any bet. An MM approach that let's one sustain through the worst possible (5 SD below mean) with only that much harm that could be recovered easily with average hit rate thereafter in double the span of the worst phase max. That too without hypothetically expecting millions of chips to help you. Forgetting extraordinary losses helps a lot in not losing too huge.
I did understand that EC bets are the best suited bets for MM point of view too. Although straight up bets of roulette will continue to fascinate me the most.
                 Understanding Law of large numbers, RTM, Virtual limits of a bet and aboveall a long run all over MM strategy helped me get what I always aspired.
       The game itself is not beatable in absolute sense but it is very much possible to earn from it, in the long run, still.
Thanks.

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.

This is the worst any player can do. Remember, even if you have a million chips to stake, targetting only 1 unit of  net win, variance could drag you past that, believe me.
  Playing with any kind of trigger is no safeguard, except if you are attacking the virtual limits. Even the term "virtual" itself signifies that it can be breached too. For the simplest example, take a case of martingale with a trigger of say 10 consecutive losses. Firstly, getting such triggers will take you a few thousands trials waiting fingers crossed and even that does not guarantee that a 10 step martingale after such trigger can safeguard you, for sure.
         I have posted tonnes of horror sessions that I could find to ward this evil idea but still find many going for that. It is sad.
I would humbly advise to never let a single unfortunate day take away all that you have earned for long. Rather, make smaller and sensible stop losses and start thereafter with a higher base bet only, not targetting to get the exceptional loss back but win ahead faster. Remember, Regression toward Mean teaches us only that after a very skewed data in a purely random thing, further data will tend to go towards mean. It never says that you will get compensatory wins and that is why increasing bets crazily doesn't necessarily help. It may rather harm you to an irreparable levels.

It is 1000 simulated shoes of 8 decks each. I have removed Ties. It should help all of us in simulations.

Can any programmer see this : https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/1000-baccarat-shoes-8-deck.txt

and try to get me a compilation of BPT only extracted from it, without shoe numbers? I just need all shoes as running data of BPT.

Thanks in anticipation.

Since the forum got functional again, I see negligible discussions and debates here. Most of the members who were pretty active seem to got silenced at once. Why so?

Math wizards may not agree with me but it is no fallacy. Playing after a very bad patch which is touching the virtual limits ensure that another similar very bad patch may not be so easy immediately again and impossible in succession.

Do one thing, find an EC W/L to me wherein we see anything like:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW
5 wins in 50 trials
We do have millions of hands of baccarat data and even more roulette data available. With Ophis I worked upon over 10 million spins of roulette already, years back.

If I consider 30/100 to be a virtual limit of an EC bet and I have just seen 20 spins hitting only 2 Reds,I can assume that in rest of 80 spins, at least 28 more Reds are likely. 28/80 could be easier to handle than 30/100. Isn't it? Even if there are only 20 hits in the rest of 80 spins, we still escaped an absolutely unbeatable stretch by not betting during the first 20 spins giving us merely 2 wins. Please contradict me sensibly.

I scanned the entire zumma1600  having 114,074 hands (tie removed)and found the worst of the worst stretches for Player bets. See if you can beat them:

#1. Only 30 hits of Player in 100 hands to begin your fight.

Starting near 92000 hands:
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P

Pathological gamblers "see" patterns in things that are actually quite random and not really there, to such a degree that they are quite willing to impulsively bet good money on such illusory nonrandomness. This is confirmed by Wolfgang Gaissmaier of the University of Konstanz in Germany and Andreas Wilke of Clarkson University in the USA, leaders of a study in Springer's Journal of Gambling Studies that sheds light on why some people are gamblers and others not.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm

Well,
          I know that no amount of trigger changes/affects the future probabilities. However, we can avoid betting in the worst of the worst possible cases with a trick or trigger that I use for long.

For instance, my bet is an EC bet, I wait for a trigger of 5 or more successive losses followed by a win and a loss thereafter. like

LLLLLLLLWL

How does it help?
It gets me not bet for a very bad stretch of  successive no hit of an EC be it 5 losses or 25 losses. Secondly, my trigger makes me bet only two bets every time, irrespective of both being wins or losses or one each.

So, in a case like
LLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW

I get only LL as my effective bet and I will resume my betting on another trigger like that.
So, I can lose only in cases where one extreme bad stretch is immediately followed by another bad/very bad stretch. However, I will miss all chances like LLLLLLLLLWWWWWW. However, I can afford to miss such chances for the sake of avoiding extreme variance against my bet.
To be continued further...........................

Hey friends,
                I wasted almost a decade looking upon both bet selections, with and without a hell lot of triggers. Finally, it concluded that no bet selection is better or even stable in all times. It may not hit for long in succession or hit intermittently as to make you lose and lose.
Your wins in average or good times will not compensate for your losses in the worst times.

After simulating and playing millions of spins, I can conclude that, only that strategy is worth playing that can:
1) Survive the worst possible; and
2) win a net profit in a below average/average win rate thereafter, without looking for a clumping win or compensating wins.

Clumping wins and compensatory more wins are not always unlikely but expecting that to rescue is again going fallacious and having a wishful day only.

For example, in an EC bet if Losses and wins come like this:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW WWLWW LLWWW

Anybody playing +1 after winning while same after losses will win easily like

-1,-1,-1,-1,-1  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1  +1+2+3+4+5 +6+1,-1+1+2 -1,-1+1+2+1


but the same progression will become fools' gold in a W/L series like:

LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WLWLW LLWLW WLWLW LWWLW LLWWL WLLWL LWLWL LWWLW

Are any of you winning in the above noted scenario ? Or you think it is not likely with your very wise bet selection?

Let a session start and 25 unique numbers show. When 25th unique number shows, we bet the latest 24 unique numbers leaving the farthest number. Now either a new number hits to kill your bet or the oldest and farthest will hit instantly to make you lose. If we keep betting in this manner till 30th unique number shows, I expect a very good number of hits in most of the sessions as a perfect rotation of numbers is lesser likely than vice versa. What is your opinion on this?

Kurt Lewin developed a change model involving three steps: unfreezing, changing and refreezing. The model represents a very simple and practical model for understanding the change process. For Lewin, the process of change entails creating the perception that a change is needed, then moving toward the new, desired level of standard and finally, solidifying that new standard as the norm.

IF you think losing is the only fate for players, think again. While the game is not completely beatable mathematically but none says you can not win or gain in any manner. There are only two hurdles, house edge and variance. Blackjack had the same hurdles but yet one day Thorpe came up with card counting. If you say, Ok BJ is beatable but roulette is not, I would name a plethora of players who cloaked wheel and utilized the bias they had and earned millions. In like manner, come out of all sick, rotten ideas which are failure at their own face and which could be confirmed through simple simulations.

Remember, even Thorpe did not share his strategy in the beginning and milked casinos first. You need to make one yourself for you or learn from someone who has done it before you.

I made a deposit with betvoyager on Saturday 27th July which did not show credited with betvoyager. I made another small deposit again to understand what went bad. Both were confirmed by my skrill but no action have yet been taken by bv. Today is the third day and I m still waiting for my money. My prompt complain did not help. Any of you have the same problem?

Although it is true that every single spin is totally independent of the last ones but sequential probability is also as much true. It is true that due to the lack of interdependence of spins, even 10 or 20 reds could hit in a stretch but it is also true that 30 or more reds(or any other EC) have never been seen in an unbroken succession. This is due to degree of certainty of the counterpart EC hitting and breaking the unbroken chain of continuing hits of one particular EC till eternity.
                              Remember, I am cautiously using the term, "Virtual Limits" or assumed limits as I do not want to deny the maths that tells there can not be any actual limit. The smaller coverage a bet has, the higher is the risk to go across the virtual limits that I am going to suggest here.
In my researches, analysis, studies, plays, simulations, I can suggest the virtual limit to be 15x of the break even point of a bet.

So, the virtual limits for an Even Chances bet like Red in roulette or banker in baccarat is 30 spins/hands. It means, one EC(like red) may not hit till 29 consecutive spins.

The virtual limit of a double dozens/double columns/24 numbers is 23 spins

The virtual limit of a dozen/column is 45 spins.

The virtual limit of a linebet/double street/6 numbers is 90 spins

The virtual limit of a street/ 3 nbrs is 180 spins

The virtual limit of 2 nbrs played together for one hit is 270 spins

The virtual limit of a single number is 555 spins.


Again, I insist that there is no actual limits of any bet but these limits have never been crossed in any real data, to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Please correct me with citing as to where this limit was ever broken in a real casino, if possible, with proof.

I am no fan of a method that brute forces a net win in one good hit. I consider progressions like Martingale a failure too, considering the probabilities that could show in successive bets in roulette or any other game frustrating such ideas as fools' gold.
  However, such ideas could yield us with 99.999% accuracy(I leave 0.001% for exceptional cases that might creep in without asking for our permission even in our first attempt), if and only if we attack the virtual limits of a bet. What is the virtual limit of a non hitting dozen is debatable too but I consider 45 spins as the virtual limit.
                                                                      Now, waiting for a dozen numbers to not hit about 37 spins or more in a stretch will be insane but still doable, in a particular way, that I will explain later. How about brute forcing those 12 numbers for a single hit in first to 8th bet maximum?

Are you fan of inside betting in roulette? How many numbers do you like to bet? If you pick one number only, it could take 1 spin to 500 spins(or even more) to get just one hit. No progression will help.

How about two? Hmm. any random pick of two numbers may take you upto 200 spins for its maiden hit in worst days. Same goes for any set of numbers, irrespective of how you choose them.

Can we make it safer, slightly?

The rotten debate or whining over house edge are not my cup of tea. Those who feel that the game is not beatable or worth earning are only myopic in my humble knowledge. Pressing on old world ideas to earn from casino will get one nowhere, that is for sure.

To win, in a game of roulette or baccarat or anything alike you need to understand this fact:
   Anything is possible in short run but in long run, things will be closer to the average expectancy.

    IF we understand and agree over this, what we should do are:
a) do not try to predict for short run
b) do not try any silly progression meant for a short run of play as it is exactly what kills you and throws you out of casino.  Idiotic hyper
    progressions killed more gamblers than road accidents. avoid them to survive for long.
c) since short run is very volatile, you need to have ample chips to keep on playing.
d) since you can neither predict as to what will you get while playing and house edge and variance both can keep you behind the house,
    do not dream of winning flat either.

House edge doesn't kill by their own. If you know that a single number of say European roulette has to hit within 37 or even 39 spins, you can plan to beat that easily but even after knowing the same hit of 1000 times in say 37,000 or even 39,000 spins, you get confused. Uneven scatter of hits, fistful of chips, brain full of greed and silly progressions together kill you.

Just think over long run and make a plan to play their, nothing kills you and you can earn some money.

Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

      Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.

Dear Friends,
                 We are in this forum for years. I wonder that none ever cared to talk about crypto currencies. I remember that about two years back, I asked Victor to do a programming for me and he asked me to pay by bitcoins. I could not get local resource to find bitcoin so easily, in my country then. However, I used Liberty Reserve too much which was also a virtual currency bought by exchanging for cash. Till that time I heard of bitcoin several times but never knew it has multiplied thousands of times by then. In 2017 January I saw bitcoin value going over $1000 and then got shocked to know how far it has gone but got afraid to buy Bitcoin still as I thought it could saturate but it didn't and bitcoin reached almost $20k. Suddenly, it became a rage when prices were rising over 10% a day. Then it felt more than half its best value and even gone below $8k. Now, it again is going up albeit at a controlled pace and at USD10,580 by the time I am writing this topic.
             I invested a bit in it when it tanked to its lowest price in 2018 along with Ripple, another promising crypto asset. I believe this year will be very crucial for cryptos. They will either go vanished this year or multiply again. Many experts predict bitcoin prices to go over 30-40k by the end of 2018 and ripple to touch upto $20 but in my opinion, it is merely speculation based upon history. It is very volatile thing and putting too much money into cryptos is not wise. I expect 50-100% growth in prices within a year, specially in ripple.
Who else is into investing or trading crypto assests? Speak up buddies.

Hi Vic,
             First of all, good to see things back in shape. Ironically, there is no visible difference from where we left a few months back. I saw a lots of dates to come back and thought it is finally over but glad that you could revive at last. What took you so many months to reopen the site? Mind explaining in simple language?

Max(esoito) started a thread on brainstorming in general discussions. He offered many of the interesting ideas that may held getting closer to win. I made my point there which he chosen to delete being specially empowered to delete as a global moderator. I have no problem with that as he quoted what I said in another thread about same topic.
                   In my long haul fight with gambling and different aspects of gambling, I encountered hundreds of ideas as to how we can best chose our bet. I worked on all despite knowing that if it is random it has to be unpredictible and hence any attempt with any logic or magic won't help me get a bet that is "better than all" in long run. Forecasting a sports bet could be somewhat realistic and can help a bit in winning but trying to predict in a random game like roulette or baccarat is simply insane. I am sorry if I am harsh to anybody thinking opposite. Flat bet winning is out of question.
Trends, patterns, neighbours, sectors all are illusions merely. Numbers are merely different pockets totally unrelated to each other. A failed mind tries to see hope in these things knowing well that they are illusions alone. One noted author offered various imaginary figures on wheel like nuke, bowtie, pies and hell what not. I asked him how these numbers relate and even if they do how can we earn from this supreme knowledge. As expected, no justification ever offered.
           Now comes the money management part. Traditionally, all suggested money management ideas are simply disasters on their own in just a couple of tests or just by thinking rationally. One approach handles one type of variance and another type kills it instantly taking away more than it could earn being fortunate, so far.
For example, take martingale. Say, we take a 10 step marty, it can let us win in very extreme cases and fetch 1 unit profit again and again till a 10 step loss steps in and takes away 1023 units in one go. Irreparable loss. Same is true with other MMs like labby, fibo, D'alembert, Oscar Grind or anyone else you have heard of. Silly versions of these progressions made by laymen(remember, most oldschool progressions were suggested by mathematicians) made it even foolish. A classic case is HP Johnson progression that was boasted as a panacea in another forum while it is even bad an idea and a simple mix of flat betting, labouchere and martingale which is set to fail if losses come bulked up at a particular span. I demonstrated that and that forum got so angry that I spoiled their hard earned "fool's gold". Many "innovators" are merely ignorant of what their MMs will undergo in long run due to inability to simulate.
                                 I usually do not interrupt in these topics as I have no right to frustrate each and every idea even if it is meant to harm many believers. My point is I do not want to create many new line of losers by suggesting something even I am not sure of. Remember one very important thing regarding progressions. They seek specific spots or ratio or order to win. None of them can handle all variety that can come. If you keep getting wins in your sweet spots, you win the game otherwise the same havenly progression will kill your money.
              It doesn't mean there is no way to win. We can win a game with slight edge if we can counter the edge wisely with a very cautious progressive betting capable of handling the worst probabilities with bearable loss. I have worked on that aspect, got successful so far. Working to even better that. Playing EC bets on European roulette or "Player" in baccarat are my only choice of betselection. Although inside betting still gives me goosebumps and manageble, any EC bet with least house edge is the way to go.
              I am aghast with one or two members here who are taking a forum as their personal facebook. They are loading where they ate, moved, farted and everything except anything even slightly valuable to a gambling community. If members are OK with this or have no other option, none can help. Frankly speaking, 90% of discussions are not even worthy of being opened to read just from the subject line.

I can see only idiotic talks in last few months. It is pretty sad but may be many want only that. A bunch of jokers are talking stuff all over and serious debates days are over, it seems.

In my many years of research upon various sides of gambling, I found one conclusive thing:

Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.

             Ironically, all old school progressions and betselections(I do not think one can pick better bets with any methodology) are so much foolish that trying any of them is pretty childish. Every progression designed either fails easily or earn slowly till it loses all. I wonder that how come progression creators of Martingale, Labouchere, D'alembert etc  deserved to be called mathematicians.

If anybody is even slightly serious about gambling and earning from there or atleast not losing huge, working on handling all sorts of variance with least harm is the only prudent thing to be done.
 
   All talks of oldschool ideas are mere wastage of time.