Thanks weddings, and my reply was modified while you were in reply, so the detail needs to be discussed once the principle is agreed to. Looking forward to what unfolds and I will P/M in due course.

I will be in support of this and will be prepared to invest +200 units say in this prototype venture but I recommend that a percentage of profits or turnover/churn go to the Forum, much as the Host for a Baccarat or Poker game might demand.
This could be a fantastic commercial application as independent and objective host by the BetSelection.cc Forum. There may be some contractual or legal issues to consider however.


In fact I would participate only on the basis that the Forum benefited. I like the commercial application, and the potential to expand this intellectual property base within the Forum amongst the members so they that choose may benefit. It is a win-win.


Very interesting.

It is a tired old fallacy that someone investing in this has no self ability to earn from roulette or to earn at such a rate. Quite the reverse, as my own earnings can quickly cover this higher level of risk*. I support expansion. Also I would recommend a philosophical stance of being open to change, as there are several examples in current world investment strategies that relate to new paradigms through electronic currency and use of computers for research and development.


We shall see how this prototype fares.

It is an exciting and refreshing idea. Yes there is risk of which I am keenly aware but I am prepared to support and contribute to a direction that 'expands' the current self limited view of things.

It is a very demanding challenge that has been set by the project initiators and will be fascinating to see unfold. I wish all well. You will of course issue a Universal Disclaimer.

Best
XXVV


*rate of earning


This is a term that can vary wildly over the event horizon monitored. In a recent live testing my SF Theory bet application earned +270 units in 35 spins. Does this mean that I always earn at that rate? - Of course not in fact the big picture rate averages around +0.5 units per spin, being a +50% edge flat staking. However despite that I have encountered variance where I have encountered 5 losing sessions among 7 sessions, quickly followed I should add by 7 consecutive winning sessions. Of course those who have no ability to think about the inter-connectedness of spins or experience will ignore this.

Quote from: Albalaha on January 09, 2014, 07:40:24 PM

          Better focus on an MM that can let u survive in the worst phases and extract best in a little favorable ones.

Indeed that is shrewd advice in one sentence.
XXVV

Thank you for the various opinions and positions stated. Fascinating.
R
XXVV

@Albalaha


Thanks for your quick reply.  You have not noted what I detailed.

On the basis that the Player plays a simple 'neutral' method, experimental evidence indicates that in over 50% of the time, perhaps often much more, the Player will be in profit ( by luck/ skill/ serendipity/blunder) and as the Player is now a smart and shrewd Player, the profit will be banked, and the Player will happily leave the Casino.


On the next visit the same outcome, or variations therefrom will unfold and profit made will be held, not given back.


Yes occasionally, perhaps 30-50% of the time there will be loss, but loss will be stopped at precisely -2.75% of churn. Loss of this type will be from the outset of the game, ie the Player was never in profit.


There will be a net gain to the Player ongoing over time ( in theory) given consistent rules are applied.


To add a little more spice, the Player, encouraged by early success now contrives to leverage the profit on an up and pull strategy, and immediately goes into cessation upon the first hint of resistance or erosion of more than 30% of the gains made as profit.


My innocent question is, even without a method with proven edge, applying smart money management and self discipline, can the Player become a more consistent winner. The winning can be measured. This measurement can determine the edge provided by the Player's freedom to stop and start at will. Has anyone ever calculated or acknowledged this power of freedom for the Player?


Best
XXVV

Mmmm thanks Albalaha.


Your answer may well be anticipated, and may be the view of many. You may be right. However I would like to add some spice to this question.


I think you should give the Player some credit for good judgment and shrewd experience gained from reading the writings of Albalaha,  John Patrick et al.; ie some intelligence based on observation within casino play. So many players ( anecdotal evidence is +66%) at some stage of their 'casino experience' are in profit. What if, (however remote the prospect)  they have seen the light, and take their profit, and it averages say +30% of their capital/ RB per session. In other words they exercise 'discretion' and 'judgment' in money management. Or if more prudent ( far fetched I know in casino experience with mass markets), they are 'content' with +10% gain.


When I test methods I apply 'braindead' discretion, ie none. This is a conservative way of seeing things, and assumes and adopts a 'bulldozer' approach, which is actually not the real experience of Players.


What if, given some training and experience, the Player chooses to ALWAYS exit when a 10% profit has been made, or say 50% of 'winners' decide to take a +10% profit on their session capital. Their next casino experience is a fresh event in their experience universe, or personal screen of outcomes. Intervening or observed events where they do not actually play become a montage that is irrelevant. However, step by step, they apply shrewd and cool smart judgment. Next time playing live they adopt the same discipline, and with growing confidence based on a medium to longer term view as opposed to short term poor judgment.


The newly 'educated' Player becomes a 'Smart Player', and consistently, when offered the opportunity seizes the profit. The Player may also lose from time to time  ( say 30-50%) but refuses to 'chase loss' and quits when 30% of the session RB has gone. In theory this may be/ equate to say 3% of the Player gross turnover/ churn in the session but the Player is intelligent enough to recognize  that this is an adverse session and gracefully exits at this point. The Player has monitored outgoings and reads the -2.75% level being the negative expectation level on a single zero wheel. We understand that in roulette, many naive players covering large areas of the table with bets offer the casino far better odds. However in this case we have a Smart Player. Such spreads are not the way to win in the long term.


Perhaps you could comment given the 'intelligence' of this Player. All Players can be trained to do this, even if they are playing with a method without proven edge. Surely this more disciplined approach, even if applied to a 'neutral' method ( ie neither win nor loss beyond -2.75%)  is a measurable edge in their favour, that is the ability to join or leave a session at will.


Best
XXVV

Open for discussion - please let me have your views on the subject :  As a Player you have the freedom to join and/ or quit the game at your will. In other words you choose when to join a game - perhaps you have seen an opportunity arising and you want to seize that opportunity. Perhaps also you have made a suitable profit, whether on one spin or a hundred or more spins.  Or you have made a loss but you wish to cut that loss and stop loss immediately as you read the current phase of the game as hostile. As the Player you have additional degrees of freedom.


You have degrees of freedom not available to the Casino Bank.


What, if any, is the percentage positive edge thus gained by the Player, over the House, being able to choose point of entry/ exit?


Or is this concept already factored into existing negative expectation percentage?


Or is this an imaginary construct?


Please advise.
XXVV

 


Multiple Success to all who venture forth this New Year and to all who wisely apply the sum of knowledge represented and expanded through this wonderful Forum. Cheers !


Very Best
XXVV
R,

@Kimo Li


Thank you. These are wonderful and helpful answers. A 20% return is highly desirable and would even recommend 10% but exactly as you say - determine what you want and work to that.
R.

Thanks for reviewing this book. Most seem to written about his 'flaky' method which one can quickly see has little merit and the edge claim based on such a small sample is inappropriate but probably the publisher ( who is/ was a baccarat champion) needed to pull in some publicity with the claim.


What has interested me about the book was the professional gambling psychology which is referred to through a series of short and sharp very readable chapters. It is written in that sometimes squirm -making, over- familiar US style ( sorry to my American friends - it maybe a cultural thing) that John Patrick applies albeit in his case with a New Jersey style and with huge and very worthwhile experience.


A good Editor might have cut the attempted humour and the alien passage but it aims at the Las Vegas market.


Nevertheless it is on my bookshelf because of the compressed wisdom therein in spite of its shortcomings.


Also because of the bizarre real life experiences of the Author - not referred to in the book - and the fact that Mr Ellison did reply to my email although he wondered how I got his address - I wish him well.
XXVV

For the sceptics among us this book is a landmark because Martin obtained his PhD  ( doctorate) in applied mathematics through the text of this book. The thesis being that he had achieved and now describes a ( consistent)  'winning strategy' in roulette and here is the hard evidence, clearly audited by his peers.


So it is Dr Martin Blakey. In my view a classic text and yes it does take a lot of work to apply. But the writing style is easy conversational although the early statement of the writer's personal belief system is irrelevant. Over the years I have applied several of his suggested techniques into my own repertoire and his section on awakening sleepers is very useful.

This was one of the smartest bits of advice from CEH - "fit your bets to the weakest part of your bet".

Study of the bet characteristics, ie the results spread and outcome distribution criteria, is the way forward. The weakest parts can be identified as for example whether to a bell curve or a decay curve, and to trap the bet results over the spread of bets so as to be most effective.


This has to do with efficient bets.


Flat staking applied to a decay curve for example is ideal where the initial bets can have maximum impact.


A stop loss needs to be arranged to determine the extent of practical efficiency and thus determine the worst case loss.


Or even worse the multiple losses that could result unless key rules are established.


Once that worst case loss is established over large sample tests, the degree to which the bet size is handled can show how quickly a loss can be recovered.


The rate of recovery from loss is key to progress, as is the frequency of most effective hits as early as possible.


Hope that fits into this mix.
XXVV

Hello Sputnik


Well in reply to your sweeping statement I can reply with my own.


I bet only flat staking on two bets I use professionally.


First the WF3* which I have openly shared on this Forum. Please refer 'Total Roulette'. Rate of earning moves between +0.10 up to +0.50 units per spin.


Second the SSF* bet which is private but can be played up to 5 sets live and earns at a rate 5 to 7 times faster than *WF3*.
That is also and essentially fundamentally played flat. By playing progression it is way too volatile but by flat staking, the overlay rules and stops are such that the bet is a CWB variety, as is WF3*. Then by applying 'smart controls' such as taking suitable profit when offered ( knowing the bet characteristics you know when you are 'ahead of expectations'), or stopping at suitable loss limit, or pausing, or finding suitable triggers to start.


All this is fact, based on hard work and many many years of work, and yes even indirectly, or by default with help from CEH.


There is a wonderful excitement in treasure hunting and think the swiss scammers thrived on our gullible natures over a ten year period. I am sure there are dozens of bets to be explored but I do recommend flat staking, or as Bayes has so eloquently stated 'beating variance' by use of a well modeled short stop progression.


Hope that helps. XXVV

With due respect to all concerned on this thread, why make life hard for yourself so as to have to cope with 'extreme variance'.


Playing every spin, and by perverse hindsight selecting only to play the 'runt' number that random distribution offers, is indeed masochistic, if not insane.


Why would you bother? To find a supposed strategy that could handle anything? Well in this small sample it is like a puddle compared to the oceans of opportunity out there for really nasty outcomes.
In other words this quest with a paper sword is futile in the real world.


Instead, find a bet that has specific characteristics that demonstrate, for at least some or even most of the time it is a winning bet, then apply measures of the variance that unfolds with this more benign skew.


There will still be unplayable passages but a simple stop loss can deal with it.


Most of the time the variance will be within known parameters and a money management that combines flat staking with short stopped progressions will give you the most consistent winning outcomes you could wish for ( with occasional small setbacks in reality).


Pay homage to Mr Keynes in your thanks.
Best XXVV

Glad to see this is back to life - will reply soon after my current break.
XXVV