Movement of number 3 of zumma is a burning example against this "even out" theorem. It doesn't matter whether you start playing after 3.0 STD or 5.0 STD of any bet. You are as much likely to face a bad phase as someone who is playing since beginning. Playing a bet after a very bad time doesn't fetch you further wins, flat bet. I can see this fallacy being mongered in many of the so-called "systems" with pride.
                              Flat bet can never win, in a systematic manner in a game of house edge. It can only win if u get streaks of wins, by chance. The best way of trying your luck in a game of chance is use of mild negative progression and patience.

QuoteIn no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event,

Thanks Bayes. I highly appreciate your inputs. Does it mean that if previously a bet had bad strike rate, it is not necessary that some future event will "even out" the gap?
                In my personal observations and studies, if a bet is going bad now, it does not necessarily even out, it may rather go worse too.  Number 3 of zumma is a leading example of this.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on June 19, 2013, 06:20:27 AM
dear Allabaha, may u please delete all my stupid kiddie post on your respected blog, [i had ask u long ago, but still there]...lest i become laughing stock by others. Thanks in advance!

       You requested membership at my blog. Then you started talking your wise martingale (which you are admitting as stupid kiddie posts now). Later after I admonished you, you started verbal abuses which I never tolerate even if you are the wisest man in the world. I can delete them only if you apologize for your harsh and undue words.

QuotePlaying after a strong deviation is not (only) to play for the catch-up of the least-showing side, but to play in a period of lower variance.

Another fallacy. It can be opposite too. You can not pick a right or wrong time to get a hit on a bet irrespective of its past performance. Only in very long run, you can expect a "correction in the proportion of variance and not in the count".
            For instance, in a 100 spins you may get 45 Blacks and 55 Reds and in next you may see a bigger gap of 35 Blacks and 65 Reds. Gradually and in large number of data the gap shrinks and they tend to go towards their respective mathematical proportions. The initial gap of 10 may never shrink ever and it can go rather larger, although percentage wise, they will come closer to their mean.
                         Wrong interpretation of a correct theory is also a fallacy. I would like Bayes to come forward and clarify this.

This is a big eye opener for most of the newbies to safeguard them from growing number of fallacies.
http://albalaha.lefora.com/2013/06/19/reality-of-law-of-large-numbers/

Winning in all probability is not possible by any mechanical or non-mechanical approach. Similarly, winning in every session is also not possible with any mechanical or non-mechanical approach but one can win in most of them (i.e. upon a variety of probabilities). Gambling can never be absolutely risk-free but you can still win more and lose less.

In my first trip, I entered a small casino having airball roulette both automated which runs at every minute and touchscreen betting and one having a table to place chips, a croupier to pay you wining or buy ins or to say, "next bet" or "no more bets". Croupier used to press a button over a roulette wheel having a wheel similar to automated one. I did not like that way too but soon I understood that it has no difference. I won good too, in the very first day.
              When I felt like playing baccarat, I saw again a machine with no real cards. It was kind of software. I tried a few hands, it looked random to me too but again my mind did not allow me to play there. Automated roulette had no trouble, indeed I prefer that. It is like having a private table to place bets where no one is caring about what you are are doing. software baccarat looks indigestible to me although if I think rationally, unless they cheat, they are all same. Continuous shuffle is only meant to make game more unpredictable.

QuoteIf a player plays on equal odds casino games, a 10% house fee will be taken from the player's net winnings at the end of the game session or upon a withdrawal of net winnings from the table through the cashier. The duration of the game session cannot exceed 24 hours. The house fee and restrictions are only in regards to equal odds games.If a player plays in the poker room, a 10% house fee will be taken upon a withdrawal of net winnings from the playing table. If a player is absent or does not play for 20 minutes, he is automatically removed from the playing table. The 10% house fee is taken from net winnings upon automatic removal.
The minimum house fee is not less than 1 cent. The rounding error for house fees is +/- 1 cent. Example: A player made a €100 deposit on the No Zero Roulette casino table, won €53.46 and closed the game with a total amount of €153.46. The net winnings here exceed the deposit by €53.46. A 10% house fee is rounded to €5.35. In this case, €148.11 will be credited to the player's account.

QuoteJust say no to this piece of junk.

                          I said it too, Captain. This is something like tossing a virtual coin again and again. Limited cards baccarat and this RNG has world of difference. "No house edge" is not even a bit helpful or profitable than the standard one.

Do not forget that they will charge additional 10% on the net winning of yours as the rule of "no house edge game". They have very clever rules to harass and not let you win with "no house edge games".
              If they want to give a real "no house edge" baccarat or punto banco, they should give 1:1 on both banker and player bets and 10 for 1 on "tie" bet wins.

QuoteCards are shuffled before every hand in Punto Banco.

This rule further makes the game endless and highly unpredictable. RNG baccarat is a joke.

smartlive casino has three roulette wheels live dealer/automated and it offers last 185 spins data which runs from right to left and bottom to top. 185 spins means 5 cycles i.e. 37x5=185.
              It is a very standard data set for testing real ideas in a playable session of 3-5 hours. I use them for testing my methods.


At present I am compiling them at:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/11/20/real-sessions-of-smartlive-casino-screenshot-of-18/


for old compilation see:
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3689.0


I hope you would like that.
Thanks

QuoteI am quite embarrassed to show my face again, but hey ho, I am sure I am not alone.

                You are all alone to accept the defeat openly.

What is the logic behind doing after "LW"?

QuoteI betted $71 but got back $54.

That is due to erroneous bet on #0. The bet suggested by Victor can be multiplied but not divided/downsized.
                      Millions of virtual monkeys may type a Shakespeare novel but even billions of actual ones can't.
No offence meant.

This method has no merit in real play. It is still better than playing martingale.