For several days, I have been testing your method of bet selection using Labby.
Despite the use of safebreakes, I still have high drowdawns.

I have recently come full circle and returned to total brutal force.
In my free time I played RS something so banal simple that it is hard to believe.
I started the 15 spins session, chose EC with 5 or less hits, and played for the next 15 spins.
I did not count on RTM, but on more stable 15 spins.
Brutal force is Labby with 2000 units bankroll, if the progression did not end in 15 spins window, I continued it in the next session.
Why it works?
and probably one day a bad series will come, but for now, there is a big plus.

Hi Albalaha
So it follows that if spins are independent, we are waiting for bad series and then from the beginning of this series we count as our window of beting when the bad series is over by one win we use Labby and say big bankroll 5000 units.
Do you think that something like that can survive against roulette RNG?

Big thanks Bally
I have to understand it well, but it looks really good.

The question still remains.
Is using a virtual loss on the side banker, to some extent it changes something.
I do not know if this is a place for such an open conversation,
if it were so but by making selections by statistics, i.e. the single player is more popular than the single banker, you can create interesting selections

I will return to my last post.
My question was about assumptions.
If we determine the player series is the same as the banker series, we know that the banker series are slightly longer and more frequent, but this is the minimum percentage.
We know at the same time that the payment is not equal.
My question is whether we will save 0.15 unit if we play after three virtual failures of  banker
Bet selection would be after 3 times the virtual loss of banker play till win for 2 or 3 hands.

This topic was probably one of the most important topics in this forum.
I wanted to refer, however, to the matter related to this topic.
  In the first post Mike, he wrote that it is possible to reach the edge, absorbing losses from the first 3 losses of bets.
I think he tried to do it himself, but I do not know if he achieved the goal.
He also wrote that waiting for 3 virtual losses does not make sense. But he wrote about roulette, where the distribution of even bets is equal , minus zero.

And I mean baccarat, where the bets are not equal, The simulation shows that runs of the banker are longer, which translates to a slight edge in this direction.
  My question is this.
Whether using virtual losing bets for banker, we are able to reduce the casino's advantage.

Hi Sputnik
I have this progression
Probably even slight modifications made by Bayes.
It has 46 steps.
I've never really simulated it.
I wonder if he is able to bring profit even after losing these 46 steps, sometimes.

Thanks a lot.
It saved a lot of time for testing.

I have one more question
Do you think that this progression is able to survive, with such a small drawdown, on the wheel with zero and normal house edge - 2.7%?

Great results.
On this example, the edge is 2.2%

Using the wheel with the La Partage principle, we are able to generate a positive edge.

I still have a question, whether reducing the length of the first cycle when we play a flat rate of 50 or even 25 spins, the edge would be larger?

Because we are moving faster to recovery mode, drawdown can be bigger, but it can also be edge enlarged.

What kind of stop loss would you recommend?

You use your old progression all the time, has something changed and you have something new?

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 25, 2018, 02:15:32 PM
Let�s explore the Triplets further.  As shown earlier for binary events we should get a 3/6 (50%) result but we get 2.5/6 results exposing a bias to be exploited. This is for No Zero Roulette, Baccarat or Craps which can be binary.

This is a very small EDGE but it is consistent and can best be utilized with on line casino�s as you can play more spins per hour.

I used a mild progression for faster accumulation.

This is mechanical and boring.

This can be played one side only (ie, only Banker) or both sides (Red/Black).  I prefer both sides as we get twice as many bets.

Here are the rules for this 3 Spin/Hand Game:

Spin # 1:  NO BET
Spin # 2:  If Spin #1 is Red Bet Red, If Spin # 1 is Black Bet Black
Spin # 3:  If Spin #2 is Red Bet Red, If Spin # 2 is Black Bet Black, End of Game
Spin # 4:  NO BET
Spin # 5:  If Spin #4 is Red Bet Red, If Spin # 4 is Black Bet Black
Spin # 6:  If Spin #5 is Red Bet Red, If Spin # 5 is Black Bet Black, End of Game
Etc.

That�s it.  Simple and mechanical.

We just tested this system with 100,000 spins generated by Bet Voyager No Zero Casino.  It does not matter where the numbers came from as the Laws of Math apply to all numbers, RNG or otherwise.

The attached picture shows the results for these 100,000 spins and the 66,600 bets that were placed.
We tested these in 10,000 spins increments so you will see 10 results.

As you can see even with a progression it does not generate much of a profit/spin but a profit none the less and the results were consistent and stable from one session to another.

Cheers

Nick

wow
I have just read all concepts now.
I have one basic question, whether playing one side eg Player side, or are we able to generate a real edge?

Certainly Nick carried out the simulations of a completely flat bet.
What were the results after 10 k and 100k spins?

If they even gave a minimum edge of 0.2-0.5% over baccarat  house  edge, it would be a breakthrough in longrun.

Sometimes we can wait up to 50 losing bet, befor we start using progression, but still i don't know it will be enough

This  is  the  old  post:

Going back to Nick's Vdw
If we have very stable selections by AP, we can even more restrict the variance. After 4 or even 3 straight losing bets we wait for virtual win, in this way we avoid long series of loses.
In some thread I read that by keeping the rules, drawdowns in exceptional circumstances exceeded -100 units from highest point.
One thing that can be used is this progression

Only theoretically, I have an idea for a very long progressions designed for bot and RNG.
We use these steps of progression, but in this way, raise the stakes after 20units down from the highest point of the bankroll, or say if the 20 losing bets from the top rise in steps
1
2
3
5
8
12
18
This is 980 units, and the must-140 lost bets from highest point to lose.
Sometimes you need thousands of spins to reach new high. But this is just a theory

We play so when we lose the first 20 units, and we play 2 units we must win 20 bets to back  to 1 unit, we have to either win 20 bets or lose 20 bets at each level. If  we  win 20 bets   on higher level and  we  have ne

Somewhere in my old posts I have been looking for such a negative progression, so that I can stretch as many failures as possible.
  I still think that it would have been destroyed with a really bad variance.