How can I go about figuring out how many losses in a row on average anyone should have over X amount of placed bets. If someone can give me the formula and an example it would be much help.


ex....in 1k PLACED BETS (not spins) how many times should I experience 1,2,3,4,5 etc losses in a row?



Thanks in advance

What if........

You were able to find a 12 number bet that does not lose more then 15 times in a row, and only 1 time did it reach 15 in 100k spins. Lets say most of the time it does not go into double digit for LIAR


Buttt 

There is a trigger and it is based off of those 100k spins, around 75/80k placed bets, and it's a trigger within those bets


If you had a bankroll that covered a 30 step progression would you feel like you have an invincible method/a consistent winning method, or possibly even a HG? Or would you feel like the sequence that can beat you is going to get you before you get ahead?

Interested to know opinions..........[smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley]

Let me ask these questions and see where this takes us....

Does variance really matter?

For example. Lets say your current way of playing, you think it is impossible through all your testing that you can't lose 10/15/20 times in a row.

Now, is that not controlling your variance? 

If that is not controlling your variance how is that any different from saying someone can control their variance by only seeing 3/4 losses in a row max?

Does the longer you go without a win make a difference if you know its coming before a certain point?

Bears vs Packers


GB -3.5  2q         ......i like this one the most
GB-7      1st half
Under 51 game

Just as a general rule of thumb....


What kind of bankroll would you feel very comfortable with assuming that we are only talking in units....

1000 unit br?
5000 unit br?
10000 unit br?

Or would you want/need more?

This is something that has always made me wonder.

The Van Keelen Test says that you need 55% wins flat betting over 1k placed bets.

What if you were able to hit 52-53% wins flat betting over 1k placed bets consistently? And by consistently I mean if you are able to accomplish this with at least a 60% session strike rate, 6/10 times. Would you consider that an advantage?

Although I think that it helps being at or more then 50% strike ratio, the key for me is in variance of the W/L distribution.

Now comes my next question...

How many placed bets does it take to consider the variance of your bet selection? If you have 5k placed bets and you have never seen more then 10 losses in row and it has only happened once do you consider that a good thing?

I would like some opinions on this. And I also to think it would be interesting to see what others set their bench marks at when it comes to testing requirements.