Misunderstanding math, statistics and other scientific concepts or making them go fallacious is a common practice, specially for gamblers.
The most serious ones here preach math can't beat any casino game since it has a house edge. Such people rely upon their own set of assumptions that everybody will bet 1 unit or a constant sum only and thereby lose in the long run, due to the house edge with either less wins than losses or house fees on wins(as in on banker in baccarat). For those math geniuses I have martingale, labouchere and Fibonacci as answers. These can beat any scenario. Now they will come up jumping but table limit will not let you. Well, that is another issue but by altering their bet sizes, they can beat any session mathematically.
             One of the most known and self proclaimed math genius (who has been muted here) tried to convince me as a mathematical concept. Since roulette is a game of negative expectations, sum of negatives will always be negative. nonsense, will there be no positive figures in my wins to add and how can one say that positive ones will always be subdued by the negative ones?
             While I claim to sustain even the worst ever witnessed or even worse cases and win thereafter with average wins in further sessions, I can only laugh on them.

Very true. Mobile friendly, it has to be.

I finally got a coder in my family with basic coding skill. It took me a week to make her convinced to code it. For her, it is a mathematical game. Basic coding done on VB but I need to input L/W manually in the tracker. Still, I won't need to calculate things manually, at least.
Millionaires' plan was my dream project and with my recent cyclic MM, I am very close to accomplishing it finally. If it works as expected, it will be a very interesting way to play. One or two sessions a day with 100-200 units of profit a day or similar loss every third/fourth day.
Will keep updated.

QuoteWas there a particular reason why u chose : (-1.5 SD) for your trigger, instead of let say (-1.0 SD or say -0.5 SD)?
thx

Well,
          One might try 0.5SD or 1 SD. There is no hard and fast rule. Bigger SD we want, longer we might need to wait, unless we have multiple tables to choose from. Remember, my variance virtual limit says that it could be upto 15x of break even point/mathematical expectancy. Therefore, at times even 1 SD could take hours of waiting. Since my current way of playing is looking for only one session a day, I can wait for 1.5SD below mean or worse to start from.
             I repeatedly warn anyone who is being confused a trigger based play to gamblers' fallacy. No trigger gives you more wins than losses, in the long run. It is not meant for everyone. Use it logically. Only average results could be achieved through this, in the long run and in short run, it can yield anything.

Let it be like this. No harm in this classic look.

QuoteAgreed. Potentially it could help as a trigger. Though I think u will agree it would also depend on where in the shoe the deficit(-1.5sd) was triggered. For example, lets say at hand 20 vs  hand 60. The deficit side may indeed start accelerating in its attempt to catch up. However, regardless of how fast it is closing the gap, may simply run out of time(too little remaining distance to make up the deficit completely),...etc, in that same shoe.

     Alrelax also speaks of this often in his writings as it is his opinion re: side deficit. (re: sides: often desire to do a correction "snap back" once they reach a deficit of 10ish or the seldom 20ish, total score deficit). I agree and do indeed watch for this when I see a side creep ahead by a >=8 count (especially if it wasn't due  to single long runs of say 6-8 streak). Plus, as mentioned above it could have different implications if it occurred in first 10-15 decisions vs at say hand 60-70.

     I think these larger SD side deficits often sneak up on players. I know I've been guilty of suddenly looking back at my card and surprised to realize one side just increased its lead to 12(though it occurred gradually with 4-2,3-1,..etc type surges).

         Sadly, while I am talking of RTM you went for gamblers' fallacy. Nothing corrects or catches up after any deficit. It might happen, it might not. I do not expect a corrective or compensatory or even clumping wins after a very bad stretch. That thinking is fallacious. I only expect results to go better gradually. It can't remain horrible always. I do rely upon sequential probability as well. Chances of getting an LLLL is definitely equal to getting an LLL or an LL or an L put together.

               As I said earlier, waiting for a trigger( a very sensible one) for playing a session with a target could be tried. If a trigger is being used just to better chances of getting more wins than losses, it will not give desired result and is fallacious thinking.
Remember the old adage, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."[/size]

I agree -1.5--2SD isn't that uncommon (within a shoe).

That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way. Getting 2/10 in an EC is an easy to be seen phenomenon. getting 4/20 is comparatively rare and is nearly -2.5 SD. Getting only 16 hits in 80 trials is over -5.2 SD and as rare as next to impossible.
           Playing with rarer trigger mean waiting for longer. Hence 1 SD below mean or worse could be tried once a day, specially when we have multiple tables to access.

Any other trigger one might suggest?

Quote(+)Variance u have seen (e.g., +5.2sd,...etc)?

I have analyzed over 20 millions roulette data and over 1 million hands of baccarat of both simulated as well as real data. I compiled many of the extremes of baccarat here : https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/worst-stretches-in-baccarat.15221/
but don't forget that whatever we have seen is not the limit, it can always break that. My strategy can bear even -6 SD playing all over( even without any pause or even when my extreme variance management doesn't help). I would rather love to face -6SD. It would be an experience and will rather strengthen me.
           In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though.
Recently, someone approached me via email asking for my MM that beats 35/165 case. I replied there is no such MM that can do this, in my little knowledge. Neither 35/165 case has been witnessed yet. However, if I play with my MM, I can sustain even 35/165 and might win a net profit thereafter with average sessions later.

QuoteDo you also ward off the best possible to the exact same level??
Lets say (e.g., -4SD to +4SD),  OR  are u more likely to do a predetermined setup such as : (-4SD to +2SD, ....etc )  ??  Other?

It all depends upon the trigger. it is pretty configurable. Even 0.5SD could be a trigger.

QuoteAlbalaha--what  are a couple of your favorite triggers to sidestep losing clusters?

I use extreme variance management to ward off the worst possible like pausing betting after third consecutive loss and resuming after getting a WLW or WW only. If pausing isn't possible, I bet least possible.

Before using any trigger two things must be understood:
1. Waiting for a trigger, you might miss the best times to play;
2. A trigger could make you wait too long, yet might not yield something as we can't predict anything based upon past results.

Trigger and Extreme Variance management, my way, could complement each other.[/size]

How many of you go for a trigger to start bet? Do you think it useful/helpful?
In my humble opinion and observation, it doesn't change probability further but it could be utilized to ward off the worst possible
probabilities and if we take multiple triggers together and their net total impact, I found it helpful logically and probability wise too. We should not expect any in built advantage with any trigger or flat bet win with it.

       Let me illustrate as to how I perceive it can be used.
Say, I m looking for a trigger of 1SD or worse to cool off and then I bet for the same length, expecting better.
LLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLW , 15 LOSSES AND ONLY 3 WINS.
If I bet upto 18 more decisions hereafter, I might get a similar stretch ahead but very few times. Mostly, I will get something like 9:9 or 7:11 or 8:10 win:loss ratio. Getting LLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLW is not impossible but definitely rare.

Such triggers might not be good for playing for +1 but excellent for my millionaire's plan where I want to play for 80-90% winning sessions, with 50-100 units' gain or loss.

What do you say on this?

There are many challenges in accomplishing this. My core programmer is sick, so manual testing are being relied upon. Stop loss, stop win and max bet are other crucial issues to be decided and finalized.
     A fully programmed and configurable tracker makes it super easy to analyze the real impact in the long run but I can't compromise the method with a stranger.
Keep in touch. Best of luck to all for your future sessions.

Both are important for me but I focused always on method 1 as it was considered impossible by so called math geniuses. The premises behind their belief of casino games being unbeatable are the house edge and a silly belief that player will bet 1 unit or any fix/flat bet permanently.
     After somewhat accomplishing the first method, now I m focused on the other and very close to finishing it.

I have a query for fellow members:
          Which one is better?

1. A method that always gets +1 in the long run and earns averagely in average sessions; or

2. A method that either wins 50 units minimum or loses 100 units maximum with 90% probability to finish with a win.

It is more or less successful. The basic premise behind this method is Regression towards mean which is a statistical reality. However, we can not guess the length of a session when it finally reaches near equilibrium situation. I am ready with a way to play where chance of winning 50 units or chance to lose max 100 units with 90% certainty to win a session and after finalization won't look back to play anything else. Still fine tuning on extreme variance management and stop loss. One good aspect of this method is play for the day and do not drag your sessions whether you win or lose.