Quote from: Drazen on December 23, 2013, 09:45:06 AM
81 spin

In how big data you got this much extreme?

QuoteHello Master

Is it for me?

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on December 23, 2013, 05:59:53 AM

If your MM does give you an edge with flat bet then you don't need any MM other than flat bet. You will win and win and win without having to worry about MM.

that is what I said. Thanks for emphasizing my words. If you can win flat bet, u do not need MM and there is none that can win flat bet, for sure, in long run.

Quote from: Tomla on December 23, 2013, 07:04:51 AM
cute question albahala

You either do not know how to pronounce my username correctly or use incorrect one willingly.
Anyways, nice to see you back.


@Vic
            I have seen about 30 in zumma baccarat itself. Thanks anyways for your answer.

QuoteDrazen, we may not discuss it here. But you might be absolutely right. The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.

This is exactly what I have been emphasizing upon in all my challenges. If you beat persistent variance, you have a true Holy Grail. One who can not lose much even in extreme worst time, will be a real winner. If your MM doesn't give you an edge with flat bet and if it works in favorable conditions only and lose worse in adverse cases, you should not play this at all because loss will be your last outcome.

Say,
I am betting on Red only and targeting two consecutive wins on that. What is the longest stretch of no such hits on any EC, this way?

Bayes,
      Say I chose to bet all three EC pairs in euro roulette and trigger being a z-score of -3.0. Do you feel such triggers will suffice to earn flat bet? How many bets should we place after that?

Dear Bayes,
           I read your posts like a read a good quality book and rely upon them in similar fashion. If you say, "RTM" can give an edge than playing continuously and randomly, would you give me any working example of how it can best be used? I am talking of straight up bet.

There are some ugly facts which we should not forget:
1. Every number has mathematically equal chance to appear but due to "law of small numbers" anything can happen in a limited playable session and "regression towards mean" can not help us in any way in that span. It is only good, theoretically.
2. There is nothing like a "fill in the gap" thing in a session. If a number is going very bad in its first run, there is no guarantee that it will improve in the next cycle. If RTM helps any way in playing, play number 3 of zumma and beat that with that or give us any example of how to use this concept practically that gives a "definitive edge". If it wins and loses randomly, it is not any better than playing any manner randomly.
3. Everything works in a particular condition be it RTM or martingale, when adverse runs like number 3 comes all these theories become laughing stocks. There is no mathematical theory that can make you a winner in gambling otherwise all maths professors would have been gambling in casinos making millions.
4. Every betselection is proportionally good and bad when it is random. There is nothing like "hot" or "cold" numbers and even some bet is looking like one, it may turn upside down any moment.

QuoteRTM doesn't say anything about the probability of the next (individual) outcome, only that given a strong deviation from the average, the next SAMPLE (and the larger the sample, the more likely this is to be true) is likely to be closer to the average.

What is the difference between this "Likely" and "it is due to happen" of gamblers' fallacy? Both theories doesn't help in any way, in gambling. If it does, prove that through any clear example.
           Indeed, playing after certain SD is a kind of gambler's fallacy, a statistical veil upon your eyes. Playing after a particular SD moves you away from betting repeatedly and you get proportionally far lesser opportunities to bet and to earn. Nothing reduces the risk and reward ratio in gambling. All strategies are proportionally helpful and harmful.
               #3 of zumma book is a very fine example against these myths and there is no "smoothening" of variance even in 15,000 spins. Virtually, it should have gone smoother, in long run but the "long run stretch" is itself virtual and unpredictable.
             I know that people can use better scientific and mathematical terms to push their views but what I have stated is a harsh and undeniable reality.

Dear Beat the wheel,
        Please illustrate what u just shown step by step and better in an excelwith the progression that you are referring to.

Quote from: PratikPokerpop on December 18, 2013, 02:20:30 PM
sick variance

Howsoever sick it may be, it won't kill.

My way to handle "extreme negative variance" is to avoid playing in the stretches where a bet goes above 2x of break even.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
wwwwwwwllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


you may still lose some bet but not losing  your bankroll.


No money management except this can help.

Dear GGAsoft,
         How your approaches help to win more and lose less in a random session?Would you mind elaborating that?

Quote from: Buffster on November 30, 2013, 01:56:46 AM
Addressed to anyone willing to answer...

I'm looking for best MM to use on a EC system on Euro Roulette (0)

The average stats of the system flutter in this neighborhood:

Total Spins: 499
Total Bets: 465
Total Wins: 260
Total Losses: 205
Total Wins in a Row: 9
Total Losses in a Row: 9
Win Rate: 55.91 %


Thanks in Advance

B

        With this win rate(55.91%), flat betting will earn itself. If you continue to get such hit rates and successive hits, any positive progression like oscar grind or parlay will do the trick.
P.S.: If I am sure of getting so many hits in succession(9) for sure, I will go for a 5-6 steps parlay. If I am only sure of getting more wins than losses, I may try D'Alembert.