+ Register

[ADulay]

I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.

Albalaha,

  Hopefully I can get some more free time to play with this and I'll run a few more of your posts.  Would there be any particular one that I should take a look at?

  Thanks.

  AD

[Albalaha]

Try to do all with one predefined approach that you can play realistically.

[ADulay]

Had some free time this morning before getting the first cup of tea and ran the next one back, #25.

Playing it "for real" as you would say it produced a trailing stop exit of +15 at hand 110.  It had been at +25 at hand 84 but ran into a streak of 13 losses, 1 win and 7 more losses in continued play.

I obviously exited the shoe after dropping from +25 to +15.

Finishing off #25 it eventually finished at +6 in spite of the drama in the last 50 hands.

I will say that was the first time I've ever run into more than 10 losses in a row with any of "your" testing posts.

Flat betting saved the day for sure.

AD

[Albalaha]

LAST SESSION: DT 24TH JAN 2017

WINS : 88
LOSSES:105

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


           

[Blue_Angel]

There is a common element in ALL of your harsh sessions and as long as it exists MY progression will be always victorious, even if you turn all of those sessions upside down in order to reverse the results' order.
No, I'm not talking about the progression which I've shared with all of you.

[Albalaha]

Your last progression was disastrous and it got proved right here by coding. If you can beat all these sessions with a single progression you are at par with me or even better. May God help you.

[ADulay]

I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.

What does that mean?

AD

[Albalaha]

What does that mean?

AD

It means that you can reverse engineer a particular harsh case and find any MM workable for that case only but it is not possible for all the given cases. Anyone beating all the given sessions playing all over in a single well defined approach, is a guaranteed randomness and variance killer.

[ADulay]

Albalaha,

  Early on in this thread you mentioned that changing out "W/L" for any EC wager would result in basically the same outcome for your testing.

  I do not believe this to be true.

  With the examples presented, the enormous amount of long string "L" would skew the results so far to the positive for anyone playing a streak type method that the results would invariably show up as "positive" for any run.

   So, for anyone "testing" these results and transposing "W/L" into "P/B" or "R/B", they would be using bad data for their tests.

   I only bring this up as so far I've been showing a profit on every test posted running a rudimentary streak method.

  Generating a string of "W" and "L" is not the same as generating a string of "B" and "P".

   
   From what you have presented in this thread, it could probably be boiled down into merely asking "Can you survive a loss of 17 in a row?"  (I think that's the largest "L" string displayed so far).

   Just my thoughts on what is being presented

   AD

[Albalaha]

Captain,
These sessions are not normal ones but harsh ones. Keep this in mind, first of all. Harshness could mellow after 50 trials and it could not even after 500 trials in extremes that are possible. My motive behind doing/compiling these sessions to bring different varities of trouble sessions that should kill any known progression. Winning Flat bet is impossible and I am not debating about that here. Those who think that they can win flat bet by their bet selection alone in a game of negative expectations are godsend angels and they can even fly across ocean.

                    If we work only one kind of trouble session like those not having any long stretch of losses, even the dumbest person can suggest a 10 step martingale as panacea. Similarly with long streches of losses and wins, one can easily suggest D'alembert. For just a little below average number of wins, one can suggest playing labouchere or fibonacci or any other silly version of them like HP Johnson. Many came up with gradual martingale like what Blue Angel suggested once. They forget that one key won't fit other as the key is made seeing one kind of lock/trouble only. These harsh sessions show mirror to those daydreamers and confused lots who has any so called money management for their help. They can cross check their expertise on these sessions and innovate to better their approaches.

[Blue_Angel]

If  you don't mind I have a few questions.

1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?

2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?

3. If f you check large amount of results, like 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 you would find that one of the two sides has more wins than the other combined with 0.
If you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?
The more bets and decisions you have experienced the larger becomes this difference between the winning side from its opposite (including 0), therefore progressions make no sense as long as you never know exactly when a win or a loss will occur.
But backing the winning side with flat bets does, the big question is how to know which one ?
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.

Do you agree?
If not, could you explain why?

[Albalaha]

If you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?

We can never predict what will be happening next. It could be the best possible or the worst possible or anywhere in the middle. My point is to make a system that can behave reasonable in the worst of times alongwith the best times possible and yield without bleeding too much. That is where every known progression sucks.

[Blue_Angel]

Understood, but you've failed to address all of my enquiries...

[Albalaha]

Understood, but you've failed to address all of my enquiries...

provide the link when you posed your queries.

[Blue_Angel]

provide the link when you posed your queries.

1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?

2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?

We don't need a crystal ball in order to know that ALWAYS there is unequal distribution on that which supposed to be equal, there is always a dominant side by much or less, even 1 appearance more than the other makes it uneven/unequal.
Since this is a hard fact we should focus on it in order to expose it in the best possible way.
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.
Furthermore, streaks could contribute to somewhat equal totals, for example 5 streak for 1 side and then 5 streak for the other.
Streaks are ideal to identify dominant EC's because their cycle is just 2 spins, for example a sample of 100 spins contains 50 EC cycles, 10 streak could be interpret also as five 2 streaks.
For other bet sections which their cycle is longer clump or cluster theory is more accurate to determine their dominance levels.