50 more spins. plus 13 units. I run this in shorter periods, as I think the method can be used on a land casino, trying to win about 100 units in an evening.


As always nothing is sure in the game, use only the money you can possible lose, or play fun.

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 10:11:40 AM
Ralph,
   I know you have contributed a lot here, specially by creating your bv bot and giving that to free. This is my last piece of research. I am working on handling the worst bet. It is but natural that if u can beat the worst performing betselections, u have won the game itself. I am telling one thing very frankly, whatever is being taken as "systems" on various forums are merely a different style of playing. None have any in-built advantage or any logic. If you can beat the worst, u can beat anything.

I am afraid there is ignorance and just lack of logic in your ambitions. Logic it is not possible. Ignorance you have such ambitions.
It can be fun to try to invent the impossible. Search Youtube for free energy, and similar. The problem is when claim you have done it, and try to market is as such.


In a way we all try to avoid losses, but we are aware we can't do it 100%, nobody can even with a research budget of billions, it is tried in all environment including NASA and universities. Still many think it can be done using a pen and paper and may be a PC.


I think the realistic target is to try to minimize the risks, they will never be zero.  If it were possible to find a loophole, the casino will defend it by other rules, so do not publish your findings

50 spins and plus 20.
This won more than the previous, it won not more  due to the method, rather the bet selection, which is follow the last. It happens to be fewer chops, that's the only reason.

A 50 long session, this got plus  9. Max four in a bet. Small drawndown.

This is just about 50 spins, but shows how slow it can be. The highest was 4 units, about 15 in drawdown.


Plus 2.

I have tried d'Alembert and Oscars Grind on Ec:s and none is very safe. I have had a session of d'Alembert running for weeks and was stopped at a astronomical down. Oscars grind has about the same problem on EC chances.


If we use that we can know of the EC, what we can expect as reasonable  outcome, is we will have streaks of the same. I have tested that here using reversed martingale, and it shows to be better than the previous.


It is anyhow not really good. Some players will feel uncomfortably to parlay a lot of times. If we look for a way which has very small chance to lose, and accept a low winning I think we can make a better method. It is probably tried before, very few things are left.


We can make a method which reset the bets as soon we are on plus, in order to avoid higher bets.


We can use the chops to cancel WL and then adjust the progressions to real losses, and so save on the bets size.


That's mean we should not increase the stakes after one loss, rather two, next spin can cancel the loss.


That's mean too, we should not reduce the bet on the first win.


We start with 1 unit and if we win we end this session.


If a loss, we bet one again, if win we end the session as break even.


If second too is a loss, we bet two units, If a win it's a break even.


If a loss on two it is a loss total of four.


We bet two again and if we win we have two minus so we bet two again and if win we are break even.




I short we add a chip after two losses in a row, and take away a chip after two win in a row, and reset the stakes
as soon we are not back.


We can not have a high win rate, but have very good chance to end up on plus. It may take time.


The easier way to follow the game is to use runs, and bet on the last outcome.


I have done some playing, using this, and I will try more, and publish the coming one, the old ones is history and a test should be done in play.


Some screenshots will come.

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 09:01:31 AM
21 is not a parameter, it is an example of worse session for a particular number. Oscar Grind doesn't work in such cases and you can check yourself in my open challenge. You have L/W to see that. Let other people try with newer ideas.

I do not play as you got it, I do not think you even read the postings. And I have never claimed as you do, a method will for sure win.
I do have some play which could stand your worse case, I say could, it is not sure. I have shared it to some here.
I have read a lot of what your post on the net recent years, so I do not think you have to look for more. 

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 07:19:18 AM
I am not here to talk of philosophy. Which progression can handle 21 Ws in 1000 spins in the best possible manner, upon one straight up number? Oscar Grind is in no way playable for such cases. Unless you are lucky enough to get hits at smaller intervals, it is suicidal.

21 in 1000 spins is a common outcome, but you can see zero, and you can see a lot more.  We can not handle them all in exactly 1000 spins, we have to finish the session, and that can be less or take 1000 or more spins.  I have had from zero to 55 in a 1000.  I have handled  sessions with various numbers of hits, and not even half are 21 hits. One foot in ice (0) and the other in boiling water(100) is an average of 50 isn't it!  There is variance. I am not sure you got the way I use to play it.  I passed 50000 spins so it is not more suicidal than other ways. It depends always of the stream of numbers, which we never know before, even if we test  billions of times.
RH has done a lot of tests using silly betselections (by purpose), and shown they can be profitable and passing 10000 of spins. The problem with testers is they judged after testing not after what we should know before.

I think it is possible to find a way to get  sure winnings if we had known there is 21 hits, in all the variants, but it is not the case in half the play.  If think I have never lost if I got at least that.

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 03:45:26 AM
Ralph,
Oscar Grind is not very good progression as you seem to be awestruck with that. Oscar Grind works on a presumption that if initial delays come in a betselection, later it will come in clusters. When gaps are big between one hit to another, it only fools up increasing bets.


MBB,
    check another thousand spins.

All progressions increase the bets, and you must assume something. There are still not any way to do it 100% safe, that's proving impossible. In roulette you win simple if your numbers hit, no rocket science at all. The assumption the hits will ofthen increase after a deviation is not anything which must happen, but tests shows it do  quite often.  We have very few ways except this to use.
It is actually not Oscars grind if you have a smaller progression on straight up, as it is not a target to grind. Oscars grind try to win just one chip, and is used at bets with lower pay outs.  They who looks for a system making sure winning will be looking forever.
Trying to do that with pen and paper, which supercomputers and sharper brains has failed to do. A computer can beat the best chess players, but never a random game.
We can win if we happen to avoid the bad runs, which can happen, but skill has a very low part of it. The statement roulette can not be beaten is in a way true, meaning if a lot of players use the best way any can find out, some will still lose. The bank will absolute make a profit. So however you play, you win buy luck, the stream of numbers suit the way you try. A better method will help to archive winnings, for a while, you move the risks from every spin to a longer series, and can be lucky to delay a loss until you won more.


The same rule as for the spins, can be  calculated for players in the longer run they lose in average of the HE, but the spread is like a bell curve, at one end heavy losers in the middle moderat losers and later smaller winners and at the other end a  few wins very much. We have very small messures with which we can change that.  Anybody can simulate players in a computer and find the result stands, the bank win always, and most of the money is distributed between players, and far from equal.

Quote from: ignatus on December 27, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
I tried some sportbetting . Betting only one game (all low odds,20  games). Lost almost all games. But I think the odds are manipulated. Better to bet AGAINST the lowest odds, against common sense. I will try that next time. I will bet against the odds. On all games. (only single 1 game/bet,20  games) Always betting on the highest odds gives more profit also.


I'm not sure it would work. Atleast I lost when betting according to the odds, so why should the opposite not work?

I have to agree favorits are very often at unfair odds, the bookmaker knows the punters will play it. They win most of the time, but betting second and third, gives better result at the end.  Then it depends on how much valid information you can gather.

Betvoager has a betting exchange, (There may be others as well) offer your  own odds and balance it, so you never lose. The charge some commission from the winner.
If you  deposit 1000 Euro, you can offer game for 10000 Euro, probably due to they want safe theire share.


Setting odds on all outcomes, and if all are taken, you can not lose.

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on February 21, 2013, 11:30:20 AM
 
That could get scary if the target number does a  few rip van winkles.

We must set the limit, I used 50.00 and 0.1, It is not scary as we never put any such money at risk. You can be 1000 back and a hit on

10 chips will make it more than a third back.   The play can cluster, and getting them in a short run, makes up from 1000 and more.
How ever we play, it is a risk everything goes terrible bad. It happen soon or later, if later we are winning.

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on February 21, 2013, 08:16:21 AM
Hi Pal.

Well it's not my best, but you might be right that it won't work. Not with  1/-1 over rounds of 36.

But I suppose I could spend a bit of time and figure out a more suitable  /- equation that gives this wL D'Alambert a fighting chance.

I have done rather well using one straight up.  Run one until it hit, and add  1. No reduction until la  plus. It is coded in the free bot as well.


Run  about 50000 spins before a loss of 50000, but had  got far more before. I even manage the worse sleeper of 1008 spins.

He has a downdrawn, and may sitting at the drawingboard, trying to do something about it. He will not give it up, let him after contacting you Superman go on and try to proof his claims.

Bv is on now!


578 new spins.



Total is now  1724 spins and Total plus is 8.45.  Not very slow, while it is the lowest chip value and EC.