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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

You don't need loopholes to be in plus. It seems you are not aware of my "extreme variance control technique" which can take care of monster side of variances. I am only talking of limited variance which can be handled with certain progressions. Since u do not play system but a random bet with oscar grind so you are not expected to contribute anything here. Please let others speak up, if u can't.

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
It seems you are not aware of my "extreme variance control technique" which can take care of monster side of variances.

Al,

  It seems I'm also not aware of your "extreme variance control technique" either.

  Where might one find this link or thread so I can bring myself up to speed on it?

  AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
You don't need loopholes to be in plus. It seems you are not aware of my "extreme variance control technique" which can take care of monster side of variances. I am only talking of limited variance which can be handled with certain progressions. Since u do not play system but a random bet with oscar grind so you are not expected to contribute anything here. Please let others speak up, if u can't.

Its called RFH and nobody has found a way 2 deal with that other than accept the losses. 

Quote from: ADulay on February 22, 2013, 03:55:44 PM
Al,

  It seems I'm also not aware of your "extreme variance control technique" either.

  Where might one find this link or thread so I can bring myself up to speed on it?

  AD

Same here. Interested.

Quote from: ADulay on February 22, 2013, 03:55:44 PM
Al,

  It seems I'm also not aware of your "extreme variance control technique" either.

  Where might one find this link or thread so I can bring myself up to speed on it?

  AD

Ad,
       refer to my "exclusive section" at our private forum. There is a topic called" how to fight the worst enemy of gambling-variance".

It would be wonderful -- truly wonderful -- if you could describe it on this forum.

Perhaps in a dedicated thread?

I am against copy+paste thing but if Victor says, I can put it in a new topic in money management. People just do not want to learn anything which can really be useful in real play. Only copy-paste of others thoughts.