It passed through the worst thousand of zumma baccarat i.e. 442/1000 and finally won a nice net profit. I think it is working as intended. Does anybody have a worse data?

If we play both sides , we still need to take care of each side wager, stoploss, triggers etc etc. Not practically possible my way. Further when a side has more hits and other side pushes to balance, we keep losing overall. Managing both sides together is not easy. Remember one most vital rule of betselection: You can not choose a bet(be it playing both sides or anything else on the planet in a random game) that can give you advantage by itself. One can play all 37 roulette numbers too simultaneously with your logic but still problems do not short a bit.

I am coding it on excel to feel it better. Might need to tweak it a bit. Let us see. I will keep updating of its progress.

It is for all EC wagers. Let me see how far it goes..

It is my most inner desire to beat the game mathematically in a manner which does not seek millions chips and which could handle the hugest variance. It would be a very aggressive approach unlike my last project, "millionaire's plan" which was a cold headed slow earner. Millionaire's plan has too many rules to take care of too which this method won't have. I have started my initial tests and it looks promising but whether it would end the uncertainty is a matter yet to be evaluated. I m pretty excited with my preliminary tests. Wish me luck.

Hey Friends,
    Since my first stint of trying roulette online to my casino trips, there has been occasions where I made huge bets on 1 number to EC bets and also in baccarat. No, I was not playing Martingale. It was a hybrid progression that pushed in little tricky times of below average hits, betting least in the worst of times and pushing bets when it appears to be doing great. Many times, it rose to the table limits and it was pretty exciting in a real casino. I have once won max pay allowed on a single number and win was huge. I did it many times on dozens and EC bets too. Have you ever done this?

XXVV,
            What is your prediction for these crypto by the end of this year, pricewise average rates:
1. BTC
2. LTC
3. Binance
4. Ripple
5. Doge

             Will Doge touch USD 1 or it will sink to lower level?
Thanx

Quotebetting "both side", would at least,
"minimise losses",
and
"maximise profit",
and after long run, still profitable...

          Whatever you think is due to your desire to win small sessions which is tough to manage. I think for the long run where I have to win with my bet so why bother betting both sides together. It will look weird and also calculating both together would be tougher than you can imagine.

Quoteneed to do some long simulation, to see what happen ...(eagerly waiting for your finding...or am I too naive...hahaha...

You are not naive but you lack simulation skills so have wild dreams that this should work without evaluating. To get something benefit you first of all the basic logic should be flawless then simulations help. If you lack the logic or simulation, you will stay confused and naive forever. Either you do it yourself or get help from someone.

QuoteI think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme.

     Wong, whether you play "Player only" or "Banker only", or alternate them every hand or Play the dominant one, all will face variance of same strength still. Come out of this naïve thinking. Playing the better one doesn't help in the long run by an iota.
Your problem for such misbeliefs is due to inability to simulate. You can not get a better bet by doing anything. Every bet is as good as its probability to win.

QuoteWhat the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.

     558 and 548. You should get the MAX seeing the Least of its counterpart when Ties are already removed from counting.

Quote I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials.

It doesn't win average shoes as well. It needs better than average times to win. I do not say, streaks do not come but if we see the overall impact of any of your favorite positive progression, it won't win a net profit, most likely after any 10 random shoes. Let us all have your favorite positive progression here to be evaluated.

QuoteI also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino.

They do not ask us to gamble at all. We do that and lose our money too apart from any coincidental win that we got from casino. This is true for 99% gamblers. We lose money in the endeavour of winning more and not for any guilt of winning money from casino.

Quotenegative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   

     that's impressive--Im guessing it was a same-side wager(e.g., black or red?)

         I did this 8 years back with one of the finest programmers on any forum, Ophis. We surpassed all data that we could put our hands over. Over 10 millions spins of roulette were beaten, mercilessly. We bet all sorts of bets from EC to single number. It was a controlled negative progressions, kind of brute force attack on all bets possible in roulette. You can feel it here:
https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=808.0

Quote*Side Note: I have only played one shoe in my lifetime across thousands of shoes that neither P or B showed 3 in a row same-side wins(ppp or bbb). That particular shoe only had one 3-consec chop(near the end).

Well, probability to get a ppp or bbb is 1/8 roughly so in 72 hands of a shoe, one should get it 9 times averagely. You said you saw only one shoe of such kind where no PPP or BBB occurred, well it is actually rare and remote to happen frequently but if you get one or two such wins in a shoe, it should not be enough to get you a net profit.[/size]

Well, I m not into writing pages long posts but this debate is one of the hottest debates for gamblers. Many assert that as the name suggests itself a positive progression like Parlay is the way to play. It ensures big wins and loses least in the worst times. Looks impressive, isn't it?
            Problem area with a positive progression is twofold:
1. It either requires more wins than losses or clumping wins or both
2. You can't guess when more wins than losses or clumping wins will occur.

Normally, with every game having house edge, getting more wins than losses or getting clumping wins when you are betting for it could be as much difficult as trying to win with a ten steps martingale. You might win till you lose.
  Rather, negative progressions are based upon more realistic premise. Even Martingale or Labouchere are mathematically guaranteed to win(irrespective of how many chips they might need) but there is not even a single positive progression known to win in the long run simulations.
Mostly believers of trends or patterns believe in positive progressions too. They have a gut feeling(however they can't illustrate them ever) that they can identify patches where they can ride on winning streaks and come home winner daily.
     Being real,  in an EC bet, at worst times, getting a WW(two consecutive wins) could drag upto 60 trials. In no manner, you can predict anything in a random game and daydreaming of being safe and keep winning with any positive progression alone is childish.
       Negative progression might not be as sharp or dangerous as a martingale or labouchere. There could be many variants which could safely work to win avoiding big losses and winning despite lesser wins than losses both.
      Positive progressions will help only if someone can ensure more wins than losses which is impossible in a random game.

More later...........

Negative progressions might not be as negative or imprudent as a martingale or labouchere. Rather, negative progressions are based on more realistic premise, i.e. expecting lesser wins than losses while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins. If you simulate any so called positive progression in the long run, it can't win there while negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.
         A hybrid progression meant to cater all types of variance and average results is the most prudent way to play, in my humble opinion and experience.

Hmm. The board looks modern and classy both.

In revaluating the long run variance/dispersion trouble, I saw that at worst, an EC might get 400 Wins vs 600 losses in 1000 trials but that could have all sorts of ugly patches. If someone passes through such troublesome times, patience and mini stop losses will make someone surpass that. One might not play long enough to face such extremes but one should be ready for that.

In an EC bet, including baccarat, roulette, craps or any other game, we can not get benefit by picking any bet (although we can opt more harm by choosing some bets with more house edge like "Tie" bet in baccarat) but with a statistical point of view, 


Probability to win in
1st Attempt= 50%
2nd attempt=25%
3rd Attempt=12.25%
and so on.
               If you utilize this long run probability, you can decide when should you bet and what should you expect statistically. If you think of short run session play, you might see variance but this is set in stone in the long run. This also helps in configuring your own "extreme variance management".

More later>>>>>>>>