Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2013, 06:04:57 AM
              Adulay,
                  Check Kattila's excels. What he is doing is very fine example of "extreme variance control".
           

Hmm, yes I do see what you're looking at.   Slowing the "rate of loss" is working there for sure.

It's also worth taking a closer look at for reference.

AD

Quote from: Nickmsi on March 19, 2013, 07:32:20 PM
Attached another Excel Tracker testing Dozen #2.

Marty still holds sway with a profit of 3,403 units.

We know you will get burned in long run, but nice profit anyway.

Enjoy . . .

Nick

Nick,

  Uh, not very realistic, wouldn't you say?

  AD

Al,

  Do we have to play strictly the "dozens" or can we play this in our normal style?

  AD

I would think there should be a valid "definition" of what a "Professional" player is before attempting to determine who is and who isn't one!

If you define a Pro as one who make their living, literally, from the game, that's one thing.

If you define a Pro as one who plays "correctly" and with reason and logic, producing a decent rate of return for the game being played, on a consistent basis, then that's another thing.

We may have several of the latter here on this board, but I'm thinking we have NONE of the former.

I think I would be safe in stating that less than 1/2 of 1% of this board makes a living playing roulette.  The rest of us are merely recreational players who use the game to supplement our normal incomes.  We may be serious recreational players and very professional in our approach, but in the end, we are still hobbyists at these games as our normal daily expenses are generally paid by another income source.

I'm not saying that there aren't people here who bring in a lot of money from the casinos, but using the true definition of the word, they are not professional roulette players but merely roulette players who use a professional approach to the game.

AD

Quote from: Albalaha on February 28, 2013, 02:23:31 AM
Captain Adulay,
          I know you are skilled and experienced both but non-sharing is something I can't afford to have in my elite group. You could not share even a single method which you play yourself in your entire membership tenure.

Well, I did share.  Even stated EXACTLY what method I was playing.

Nobody believed me. 

This is not my problem.

Thanks for the original offer though.

AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 27, 2013, 06:56:19 AM
            I will reorganize the exclusive club of mine with handpicked people who can contribute with fresh ideas or who can help me in further researches.

I believe what you're looking for is a "focus group" and not a forum for discussion.

Good luck and here's hoping you'll be able to pull it off.   As you've seen, attempting to run a weak forum with uncommitted people is a struggle, at best.

AD

Is it just me or has the Newsbot blown a gasket?

AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 23, 2013, 07:45:18 AM
Ad,
       refer to my "exclusive section" at our private forum. There is a topic called" how to fight the worst enemy of gambling-variance".

Just went over and checked.  Seems I'm no longer a member of the "exclusive section".

Oh well.

AD

Hmm, if you can "see" the singles with that clarity, you can obviously just play the singles.

If not, you can stay on one side for 2 or 3 plays and still make the profit.

It's basic stuff for sure but a lot of players don't see it that way.

The basic premise is:  "Solve for the 3's" and you've got it made!

AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
It seems you are not aware of my "extreme variance control technique" which can take care of monster side of variances.

Al,

  It seems I'm also not aware of your "extreme variance control technique" either.

  Where might one find this link or thread so I can bring myself up to speed on it?

  AD

Will you guys please quit horsing around.

This is serious stuff!

AD

Quote from: Ralph on February 16, 2013, 06:31:55 AM

The result will differ every time we play, if it is fun or real does not matter.

Actually, it does matter, depending on where you might be playing.
I'll just assume that this test is not going on with a real table but an RNG game.
Manipulation of the data is certainly possible in that case.
AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 06, 2013, 02:30:25 AM
Anybody with any suggestions?

What will the person with the "correct" answer get for all this work?

AD

All,

   Well, there's not much action around the baccarat section but seeing as how it's my primary game, I figure I'd post up this shoe from yesterday with the results.  This is a classic example of playing what you see.  Nothing fancy, just see the "trend" and attack it.   I elected to attack on Player and wound up with a nice profit for a short amount of work.

    Why was I in an actual casino instead of my usual venue of an online table?   The wife had to use up a lot of slots free play so I tagged along for the free dinner and saw this table in play.   It was a no brainer.  Playing the "strong" side with this type of betting is part of an overall strategy involving several types of play, depending on what the shoe it showing you.

    There was a lone Asian guy trying like mad to  "make" the Banker side work for him, but he was playing way out on the edge and paid a price for it.  He has some pretty large wagers out while my largest was a single, three unit bet late in the shoe.

    Now granted, this type of shoe is VERY unusual as it is Player dominated AND the Banker never had a run of more than two!   Good for me, bad for the typical Banker chase player.

    Anyway, here's the play card from yesterday.  I didn't actually start betting until Hand 29 on my card as I had to quickly copy the results from the other player at the table to see what I wanted to do.

    AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
John,
          You claim to win 925 sessions, without a loss, with this. It is indigestible in itself and an exaggeration.

This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".

Interesting.

AD