It's called trolling and until moglizu or one of his anointed minions posts a detail play sheet (should take about three minutes to produce) he will continue to jerk everybody around in this thread.

It is kind of funny watching it though.

Now that he has deleted the kernel of the method, it's kind of pointless to "discuss" it.

AD

moglizu,

  I thought you were done with this thread when you removed your method.

  Why continue to come back?

  AD

What?  No editing of posts available?


AD

Gentlemen,

  The obvious "solution" to this entire thread is to have one of the members who believes they understand this method correctly to simply post up a play sheet with a spin by spin description of what they have done and why.

   It should save everyone a whole lot of time and get the players who are interested in this on to their various methods of testing.

   Until such time, you're all just spinning your wheels taking guesses at what this is and how it "works".

   VDW was equally mysterious until play by play examples were posted.

   So, whomever the four guys are who understand it, just post up the play.

   Problem solved.

   AD  (not a roulette player(

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 28, 2017, 06:33:04 PM
Good choice Al.
I'd suggest a BMW i8, fantastic line and an unbelievable gas saver.

as.

Wow!  BMW makes cars, too!  That's great.

AD

Quote from: gr8player on February 25, 2017, 03:44:19 PM
Again, I'd think twice before committing any real dollars to rather phony on-line betting services.  'nuff said 'bout that....

What if you play at an apparently "legitimate" online service?

One that has paid on time when requested and has done so for several years.

AD

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

Quote from: ProfessorSlot on February 24, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
I think betonline is good to try. They accept US player and you get to play with real dealers live on camera. They also have good live support and they are already know by some online gamblers.

How often do you play there?   Any problems with the video feed?

What documentation did they require to sign up?

AD

Quote from: Albalaha on January 08, 2017, 12:47:29 PM
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

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 05, 2017, 01:42:27 PM

You had me going there for a minute. I was thinking your Gamblers Anonymous meetings.

Nah, it's our monthly Blue Knights meeting.   An international order of current and retired motorcycle LEO's.

AD

Brink and mortar casino (Indian) every third Thursday of the month after my meeting in Fort Myers.

Why?

Because I'm already halfway there when the meeting lets out.

Otherwise it online play.

AD

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

Quote from: Albalaha on January 08, 2017, 12:47:29 PM
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

Quote from: Albalaha on January 05, 2017, 11:08:11 PM
Harsh Session #28:
                                        87 Wins vs 105 Losses: Very tricky session

Albalaha,

  After reading your response that these "Harsh Sessions" would be the equivalent of any EC game, I elected to run your latest one (#28) using my current normal play method.

  As my baccarat sheets only go to 80 hands, I played the first 160 hands across two sheets.

  Flat betting Harsh Session #28, with a small progression AFTER wins of 4 in a row and 9 in a row, like normal, the result was a very nice +22 to finish.  (Without the small winning progression the result would have been +15 for strictly flat betting one unit per wager).

  Between hands 32 and 55 the bankroll did drop from a +17 to +10 but it recovered nicely shortly thereafter during the 8 IAR that showed up.

  The opening "10 IAR" set the tone nicely as the bankroll never went below that initial starting win.

  Long winning streak was 10 (hands 107 to 118) and long losing streak was 4 hands (3 times).

  I'll try to translate some of your earlier posts to see if this event holds up.

  AD

Quote from: Albalaha on January 06, 2017, 02:53:13 PM
I play and simulate in excel. I try to pick the worst( in different types of challenges) sessions as Harsh and the point where I get at net profit session ends. A few sessions are imaginary too and a few provided by a friend. Few are so harsh that they can not appear realistically or in other words you need lots of extreme badluck to witness them.
          The motive behind compiling such diverse set of challenge is to see if my approach is really dynamic enough or not to handle all.

Albalaha,

  If I were to change those "W" and "L" to "Bank" and "Player" would the overall effect be the same?

  Thanks.

  AD