Hi respected friends,
Anyone has any EC roulette or baccarat data that is worst than ,or around 69/200, or 70/200,or 71/200???
Please post them here, for testing purpose.
THANKS IN ADVANCE.[smiley]aes/pizza.png[/smiley]
I attach here the "Worst ever recorded 69red/200spin",
Hamburg, 25_10_1999, Francese 1 ,
Only 69RED hit in 200 spins... which u can test your betselection, to see if u could win betting them.[smiley]aes/beer.png[/smiley]
Here you go. Worst of the worst. Famous horror sequences provided by mr. Bayes some time ago. 11 sets of 400 spins in total. You will find first 200 spins horror sequence and then next 200 spins , so you can try to play it out after that.
don't bother with trying to invent any mechanical bet selection in order to avoid things like this, because no matter which you choose if you play EC-s you will stumble onto one of those... [smiley]cps/suicide.gif[/smiley]
So is it possible to "invent" MM and progression which can eat this and not get diarrhea? [smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley]
Cheers
Thanks Drazen,
that's great, appreciate them :nod:.
BTW, begin to think that progression will bring more harm!!!
IMHO...Avoid&manage variance and flatbet 1u will be the most appropriate scheme to win. :nod:
Quote from: Drazen on November 11, 2014, 07:58:03 PM
Here you go. Worst of the worst. Famous horror sequences provided by mr. Bayes some time ago. 11 sets of 400 spins in total. You will find first 200 spins horror sequence and then next 200 spins , so you can try to play it out after that.
Is that file in any particular "order" or format?
I'd like to at least take a look at it, for grins.
AD
I don't think 69/200 is the worst possible. It can mathematically go as low as 55/200 to reach its virtual limit.
There can be no money management that can handle such rare cases. If someone can beat such probabilities with a money management, there will be no gambling. It isn't possible, so better do not waste your time and efforts. In roulette30.com and in rouletteforum.cc, there were talks of "HP Johnson" or "belgian labby" that were considered as a way to beat such odds while in reality, you can beat some particular probabilities that all these progressions can handle. If 69/200 has no stretch of more than 10 losses,in a row, even martingale would win it. Theoretically, 69/200 is beatable with labouchere and fibonacci but in an unfavorable session with unfavorable scatters, they will have drawdowns none can afford.
Better focus on winning average and a little below average sessions than the worst. 69/200 is a once in million spins probability. It is better we surrender in such cases.
Quote from: Albalaha on November 12, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
I don't think 69/200 is the worst possible. It can mathematically go as low as 55/200 to reach its virtual limit.
Al,
I believe you're correct as that 69/200 sounds almost "low" as it were.
I do remember somebody posting up that declaration once before, possibly on your own board, and several of the members beat that particular sequence using their normal play with no problems.
Perhaps I've missed the significance of the 69/200 as it didn't seem like a bad run at all. I think I even commented at the time that I would love to see that type of sequence show up every time I played!!
AD
Captain,
69/200 is not something that can occur so easily, in every session. It is truly "rare"but worse is technically possible.
As I said, even worst possible, 55/200 can easily be beaten by martingale, if there is no very big losing stretch in it. Therefore, planning to beat this thinking, "if I do that, I win the randomness" is faulty thinking. Understand probability and permutations and combinations. They can be innumerable, for 200 spins having 69 hits. No MM can beat all of them, even with 10k chips.
Indeed, tendency to win in all situations, is the worst gambling hope that leads to Martingale type suicidal MMs.
Quote from: Albalaha on November 13, 2014, 03:53:00 AM
Captain,
69/200 is not something that can occur so easily, in every session. It is truly "rare"but worse is technically possible.
As I said, even worst possible, 55/200
Too simplistic, your overlooking something here, Win 200 lose 69 can be just as devastating as win 65 lose 200 decisions!! It depends on how you get hit with the sequence of losses (assuming one is not flat betting).
Quote from: ADulay on November 12, 2014, 01:24:30 AM
Is that file in any particular "order" or format?
I'd like to at least take a look at it, for grins.
AD
You should try to open it with WordPad if you are using Windows.
Hope this helps
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on November 13, 2014, 03:53:26 PM
You should try to open it with WordPad if you are using Windows.
Hope this helps
Drazen
Drazen,
Thanks. Never thought to use Wordpad. Notepad didn't format out correctly but it came up nicely with Wordpad.
Now I can take a look at it and do some FrankenTesting on it.
AD
@DRAZEN OR ANYBODY ELSE
The horror session given looks quite messy even in wordpad. Can it be synchronized, so that it fits in a single column of excel?
You mean like this?