QuoteHey, I told you (and showed you) how to beat that silly "challenge" and after I did, it quietly just died on your forum

You never did anything worth recognizing in the challenge. Do not try to blindfold all along with yourself.

Quote  You and I look at the problems differently.  Your attack is some sort of "brute force trauma" to the table while mine is a bit more cerebral and civilized.

You do not do anything worth following and you are totally unaware of my attack. If I use "brute force", in beating more than 10 millions I would have down by billions.

QuoteI think I'll make up my own challenge.  Let's play dozens.  Can anybody beat this?   LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL W LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
  Yes, it's silly and about as original as your first post.

Even this is not as silly as you think. I can't win this but can lose the least
using same set of methods as I would like to play to extract max in exactly inverse case
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


           Except when I refer to Bayes or a few very nice fellows (a few are doing admirable work), I feel like sitting in a kindergarten class in forum.
        All the same primitive failure approaches and mostly copy-paste guys.[smiley]aes/angry.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/angry.png[/smiley]

As forecasted......completely unproductive Topic/thread from you again dear Albalaha.


Instead of having  Instead of constantly having a go at anyone, and seemingly everyone who does not either
agree with your assessment, or POV, and the method YOU say needs to be adopted, why don't you
make one honest post for a change?


What I mean by that is this:- because you are so far up your own backside, you fail to see what you are slowly* becoming
in so far as a Roulette poster/contributor.
(*some would say rapidly, and achieved.)


You are full of attitude, aggression, and metaphoric platitudes, because you have severely taken your Indian eye off the ball.


Is there any chance you could just come to this fine house, post up something useful, without mentioning
your forum/blog site, maybe something we all have not thought of before, and have a genuine discussion about its merits or otherwise?


HUH?


Just for once Sumit.................post something that shows us all your obvious desire to beat the game, and the depth of your experience in your attempt at doing so !


Please, save some face, and post up something of use that the fellows can read, digest and then conjure.
Otherwise, like a lot of your recent started topics........its liable to be locked, and set to the archives.

Quote from: ADulay on September 10, 2013, 04:04:31 AM
Your attack is some sort of "brute force trauma" to the table

Never a truer word. On reading the first post in the thread I thought the very same thing.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 10, 2013, 02:56:20 AM
                I as a researcher and system developer (call me seller or scammer or whatever) start my testings on the worst session first and if the idea looks doing better than flat betting then I test semi-harsh, normal and favorable sessions as well.

The approach of brute forcing your way through a random stream with some massive negative progression is just far too square. The whole philosophy is wrong and archaic. And no way can progressions and money management make you a better player, you already need to be able to win consistently to manage any kind of money, otherwise it's invariably just disappearing down a small crack in the table. Knowledge enhances a person's intelligence and insight and thus helps to build understanding and skills. The understanding, in this case, is working out why the bet selection is so terrible. If it lacks a proven premise, it's just a random selection.

Beating a worse case scenario doesn't teach much because, in the end, there is always something worse around the corner. Plus the permutation is moot, any of a given length has the same probability. One stream with 10 Ws and 50 Ls may prove to be a winner, another with 10 Ws and 50 Ls may be a loser.

Also you're ignoring negative value on all bets. This just increases variance, you can't play through it with a hard progression, it's too high. Even if you had an edge, you'd still need a progression to make it economical. With a 1% edge you may still be in a drawdown for weeks flat betting. And even with a soft progression the risk of ruin is still high given a limited bankroll.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 10, 2013, 04:20:58 AM
              You never did anything worth recognizing in the challenge.

Hmm, I solved your innane "challenge", showed you the profit and then told how it was done.  What more did you want to see?

Quote from: Albalaha on September 10, 2013, 04:20:58 AM
If I use "brute force", in beating more than 10 millions I would have down by billions.

Uh, say what?

AD

QuoteHmm, I solved your innane "challenge", showed you the profit and then told how it was done.  What more did you want to see?

          You never did anything that you can show. Refer all to the place you did and you will be appreciated. This place is filled with frustrated gamblers who did nothing in their lives worth showing or even talking. Have you ever realized that you are only misleading newbies to lose in innovative ways?
      Nobody offers a solution because nobody has that. Answers in this topic clearly prove that I am talking to the wall and nobody can guide someone to become a better player.