SYSTEM TESTER SESSION

[Whatswhats]

Came away with +19 units.
Total decisions= 290
Total wins= 97
Total Losses= 123

I made 123 bets with 53 wins and 70 losses
Used Labby (0,1) biggest bet=7units largest drawdown =11units
Paused betting after 3 losses in a row and resumed betting only after a W or WLW had come out.(at times 30 or more decisions had passed before a W or WLW had come out)

L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L

With your MM / Rules, go down to -700 ammazza drawdown with this sequence of W/L, real sequence I got.

[AsymBacGuy]

Yep.
 
It's 1 billion % certain that itlr any progression in the world can't overcome a negative edge, otherwise the claimer would be hired by MIT or by NASA and getting payed millions of bucks without betting (so risking) any dime at bac tables.

The only way to verify a possible advantage at a negative edge proposition is to show a strategy capable to provide an ascending profits line by flat betting and the only way to do that is by theorizing a possible unrandomness of the production and/or to demonstrate that card distributions are affected by "limits" shifting at some points the results by values overcoming the HE.

If a given flat betting strategy sucks, the same strategy applied by any kind of progression sucks even more.

as.

[Bac2Bac]

Whatswhat, that is a very difficult sequence of W/L.I would have lost 19 Units after making 8 bets and would have not made anymore bets until further virtual bets had better results.
Anyway, thanks for posting real W/L outcomes.

P.S. I haven't fully disclosed my exact MM/Rules. The simple modified Labby with pause and resume is only a small part of the strategy.

[alrelax]

Yep.
 
It's 1 billion % certain that itlr any progression in the world can't overcome a negative edge, otherwise the claimer would be hired by MIT or by NASA and getting payed millions of bucks without betting (so risking) any dime at bac tables.

The only way to verify a possible advantage at a negative edge proposition is to show a strategy capable to provide an ascending profits line by flat betting and the only way to do that is by theorizing a possible unrandomness of the production and/or to demonstrate that card distributions are affected by "limits" shifting at some points the results by values overcoming the HE.

If a given flat betting strategy sucks, the same strategy applied by any kind of progression sucks even more.

as.

Everything sucks if it loses.  However, it the wager won it was great, flat wagering and even more so, positive progression wagering.  The same amount of negative HE exists for the player no matter what type of wager he chooses to employ.

I am a strong, aggressive positive progression wagerer.  However, my progression is almost always from select (and I stress select) winnings, not attempted recouping or negative Martingales, etc., etc.  My MMM controls my winnings and assures me I cannot lose all my session winnings if I follow my MMM.

My only downfall is obeying my MMM and cutting my sessions at magical times while winning or worst scenario, after getting back even.