Quote from: alrelax on May 21, 2020, 09:57:43 PM
You clearly misunderstand and/or misinterpret my Money Management Method along with its positive progressions and parlay wagers. 

I have done very well with exactly those since I began allowing those things to govern my sessions and play.

I haven't said a word about your MM, rather I got it now that you do positive progressions and parlays etc. I only answered statements purportedly said by myself and I stand by that.

              Since we started to discuss MMs and specially positive progressions, I know a few positive progressions:
1. Reverse Martingale or its slightly different versions as parlay betting
2. Reverse Labouchere or reverse fibonacci
3. Oscar's Grind.
              These presuppose a nice streak or clump of wins to fetch a net profit. We all know that they keep coming too.
Let's take a case of 3 step reverse martingale or a straight parlay where we ride upon a win thrice.
We start with 1 unit bet, if we win, we have 2 units, we wager 2 units in the second bet and if successful we have 4 units now, in the third bet, we bet 4 units and we get a total of 8 units wherein only 1 unit is our own money and we got a whopping 7 units net win. Eureka.
              but wait. It is not as good as it may sound. When we do it realistically over and over like anything we face exactly same issues as with any other positive or negative progression. Yes, my dear its variance. A three step WWW that should come every 8th trial averagely may take as long as 100 trials in one stretch or even more. Similarly, it may go south for hundreds of trials with average sliding to 1/16 or even worse averagely for too long. Unless one is very lucky, winning a net profit with positive progression is as much tricky as with a negative progression. Long run simulations or long run play experience will confirm the same. Any classic negative or positive progression doesn't win on its own. Had it been so easy, the game would have ended a few hundred years ago.

Quote from: alrelax on May 20, 2020, 08:55:13 PM


Here is a quote that someone on BetSelection has said to me and about me. "@Alrelax, Idiotic hyper progressions look rewarding but are fatal. Actually, progressions work in direct proportion to chance of losing all. You win pretty fast with it until you lose back all. Take classic martingale for that manner, it wins one unit easily till it gives back all in just one bad stretch. Casino would love to see a player using marty. He ensures the slowest win and the fastest loss."  My response.  Well, if the gambler wagers it with common sense, use an advantage Money Management Method for himself, etc., he will be able to put those wins away and use a certain portion of those progressive wins to maintain his win status and keep profiting.  When his win status falls off, if that gambler continues to follow his Money Management Method, he will cash out and take a nice profit. 



Two short examples of what I have read on the internet.  One author claims to risk 60 units with his wagering plan to make a few units.  Well, 60 units at an extremely low bet mount of $25.00 is $1,500.00.  Risking $1,500.00 (Plus) to maybe profit $75.00 or $100.00?  Another author boast on 300 units is his (almost max) drawdown, whatever almost means, and say it was at $25.00, that would total to be $7,500.00 and if it was at $50.00, the total at risk would have to be $15,000.00.

With no guarantee, no written assurance, and the possibility that the entire bankroll can disappear, to me that only complicates the matter of frustration, aggravation and generally adds to----just getting sucked in.

        The sentences in red are mine. All classic progressions are meant to plunder players only and they can handle only a particular style and limit of variance. If you cross that limit ever, you will lose so much that is irrecoverable.
         Regarding my MM, it doesn't lose when you get 30 successive losses nor does it lose huge when we get unseen 60/200 in an EC bet. In an average session of 100 bets, it is expected to win 20 units averagely. The loss of -300(my ultimate surrender point) is something that even 5 SD below the mean sessions could not fetch for me so far and as rare as once in 100k trials. I m not boasting anything. It is result of my decade long research that too with help of esteemed programmers.
            Randomness is the only trouble with any sort of gambling. I have tried to bypass the worst probabilities and by and large been successful too. I still can not cover 100% of losses but can surely win more and lose less, in the long run despite the house edge and randomness. I can prove this, if required. Still working to find if I can better my approach.

          The core secret of winning a random game (specially with house edge) is ability to stand firm in the worst storm of variance. If you are not capable of that you are destined to lose sooner or later. The degree of negative variance(at times positive variance too) is always uncertain. We can not estimate it perfectly. Therefore, a methodology that can auto adjust itself to the worst, the best and anything in between alike could break the ice and make a winner.
               I can withstand the worst with grace and that way I find myself having an edge over the house. I firmly believe that any player who is not ignorant of the basics and knows the art of handling randomness(variance in particular and randomness in general)and controlling his emotions(greed and anger) could have the Players' Edge.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 17, 2020, 09:10:54 PM
1. True, but ask casinos whether they really like to face virtually "infinite" bets coming from Bezos or Gates. Thus the main factor working for casinos is setting maximum betting limits.

2. See above

3. Absolutely true

4. Pure randomness is unpredictable yesterday, now and tomorrow and for the sake of our argument hence unbeatable. Whoever states otherwise deserves to be awarded the Nobel prize or a Fields medal.

-o-o-o-



1. Ignorance about how things generally should work or actually do work is of paramount importance to get an edge, imo

2. This statement could be true whether we have valuable reasons to think that pure randomness isn't going to act along this particular section of playing (and betting)

3. Define a "variance's peak"

4. Generally true

5. Absolutely correct

6. True at the utmost degree

7. I know what you do mean, but I fear most readers just see a contradiction in terms of what you already have sayed above.

as.

I would answer comments in the red.
Pure randomness is unpredictable but only in a short span. Degree of certainty increases with number of trials. We need to have an approach that inculcates two things to cater horrible variance:
1. Mini Stop losses(MSLs): For example I have a strict MSL qualification for my use: Five more losses than wins in any stretch that is not letting me have a net win. I temporarily give up on this and play ahead afresh. This safeguards me from losing huge ever in one stretch.
2. Absolute stop losses which are 3 to 5 counts of unrecovered MSLs piling up. At an absolute stop loss point, I take losses and there will be no efforts to get that back by doing anything. I will elaborate these in details later.

Variance Peak: Any variance in negative that makes it too bad to be recovered without unusual clumping wins. Say playing an EC bet we get LLLLLLLLLLLLW, it will be fallacious to expect WWWWWWWWWW. IF we keep accelerating our bets blindly in too bad time, it will turn a variation of poor martingale only. I did explain that in an EC bet we can expect a W, 90% of times within first three bets so pushing higher bets thereafter is of no use.

Betselection static or dynamic: I never contradicted in this. I always said that your betselection is only proportional to the probability it carries. None is better or worse. Many clever players here claimed (I was also among them a few years back) that playing upon a trigger or pausing at a situation will help or switching bets will nullify the variance but it will only help one type of case. Do not forget that opposite is equally likely too.

Resuming my post:
                People lose principally due to ignorance of following things:
             1. Casino has virtually unlimited chips and time to counter a player
           
             2. Casino has that theoretical edge

             3. All progressions that seem to help players are rather killing them faster

              4. Randomness i.e. uncertainty could bring unbeatable variance, momentarily enough to kill any money management.

           Now, how a player can have edge over casinos:
             

             1. Awareness instead of ignorance of all these

             2. Control over emotions as to when to bet, when not and how much to bet. When to call off.

             3. Trying to swim against the current could kill even the best swimmers. When variance is at its peak, you either need to
              mellow your attack instead of accelerating that or wait for tide to go.

             4. One must know that 90% of the wins are likely in 1.5x of break even spread i.e. within first three bets of an EC. Hence
              pushing ahead too much is a foolish approach.

            5. All old school progressions seem to be made to help casinos than players. They either go too high in bets (marty, labby, fibo
            etc) or are not meant to win in adverse cases with even infinite chips (e.g. oscar's grind or opposite). Positive progressions are
            even more foolish as they expect successive wins or clumping wins to win a profit. Not realistic and all proven failures in
            simulations. So, unless sure of having a bulletproof MM, opt flat betting and survive for 4,000 bets with 100 chips. Enjoy comps.
             Have fun in casinos at least harm possible.

            6. Lack of simulation skills: It is the biggest killer. Most of the system/strategy maker or follower fail to understand that their
                way is set to lose only. They are either ignorant or they self hypnotise themselves that they can win with a proven failure idea
            too as they had some success with it. You can have success with a ten step marty for a few thousands bets too but ultimately, it
            will be fatal. Improve this area and you can have some hope.

           7. Do not expect to earn from a clever trigger or betselection alone in casino games. There is none, practically. Play a static bet
             or switch that for any reason, will not help you. Waiting for any any trigger will only waste your time and will offer same set of
             volatility still as playing all over.

More later...............

          Unlike stock market or sports gambling where betselection/pick is much more important than anything else, a casino game is far more balanced. It has a fixed house edge, fix payouts and fix probability.
        Everybody knows of the house edge that lies in a calculation done to favor the casino with offering a lesser payout than the odds. This is done to ensure losses in the long run on certain premises. If I play simple coin flipping with a friend of mine with a condition to pay him a profit of 0.95 for a bet of 1.00 and to take his 1.00 when he loses, given enough trials he will lose. If I do this to 100s of my friends I will have to go rich gradually, even if a few friends somehow manage to get a net win from me. Say they win and lose equal number of times, I will be winning 0.025 for every 1 unit bet placed, averagely. Hence, if a player has 100 units with him, he should lose it all by 4000th bet. It is also known as Average Daily Theoretical loss, also known as ADT, theoretical loss, or "theo" for short. The theoretical loss is the amount of money a player is expected to lose based on the long run statistical advantage the casino has on the particular game being played.
               Now my question.
              Have you ever seen someone playing with 100 chips and taking 4000 bets to lose that all? Usually people do not play flat or even if they do, they run out at losing a considerable sum in bad streak or winning a considerable sum in good streak. An average player plays not more than 100 trials in a real casino, in any given day and concludes his wins/losses of the day. This is about clever players. Rookies come, buy and lose  all before leaving for home. If they buy 100 units, do they take 4000 bets to lose that? Never.
         They plan a game for short run, either use multiple bets together(like side bets in baccarat or inside bets on roulette) to lose faster in a little bad streak and in avenging those losses lose the rest even faster, or they use silly progressions to win back faster and ultimately lose all.

More later............

50K spins are nothing in terms of testing. If you think you will be ahead with what you have been doing, I would say Goodluck.

Quote from: Kattila on May 08, 2020, 03:28:44 PM
One question,
what is your base unit size .....0,01 ?  (online) . If so you have a 30.000 units bankroll, easy to not lose that .
If not , then good for you, go make some millions.

We need 300 units to handle most possible cases but being cautious start with 600 units. Unit size depends upon one's bankroll capacity and permitted table and bet limits. Theoretically casino earns 2.5 units in 100 bets. In the same manner expect upto 5 units net profit averagely per 100 bets betting an EC, sensibly. Now if someone plays with 1 cent bets, he should expect to win 25-50 cents a day max. Winning a million might then take 10,000 years only. If we raise our unit size to a respectable 10 Euros/USD, then we have a nice income per day: 250 to 500 euros a day. Thinking of a million capitalizing that could then be doable in a few years realistically but not overnight.

I do not need to predict to win. I can play all over and finally come out winner even in the sessions as harsh as never happened earlier.

Money management makes the difference. I have yet to see any session that makes me surrender with -300 among millions of roulette and baccarat data I have. That is why I say that randomness could be beaten even in the long run.

Stop Loss limits your loss per session. It doesn't make you a winner. Further, any progression makes you lose good enough which can not be recovered with small wins. You can never predict what you are going to lose in a session. You can only limit your bankroll.

@Kattila ,
         You said:

QuoteHi Albalaha, you remember my LW s strategys to avoid  sometimes
long  Ls  streaks......Still ok for me combined with good MM, up when win
and only if necesary,and reduce bets  when start to go down.
Must cut losses when possible , in special when long Ls streak.



In this your session i used  Levels each have  3 steps,
and   W  or L3 stop, wait virtual W (only after L3)
Even if i can t win every and each session,  many
sessions winners.

               Triggers and/or pauses don't help in real world. They can only prolong your wait time and bet time without giving you any real advantage, in the long run. When you see session like what I provided above, your approach may look very pragmatic while such sessions are rare. LLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW type of things could take millions of spins to show just once. We need to have "one key fits all" approach and not curve fitting thing. Going "pause" after first three losses is an age old formula to avoid a very long streak but in cases like LLLLWLLLWLLLLLLWLLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLLW you still got successive losses. A good MM is easier said than done. Tell me the best MM you ever used. You will get irreparable losses with that in a little bad session. You do not need extraordinary sessions to lose and your losses will not be at par with your wins in winning session.
                What we actually need is an approach that can sustain even 1 in a billion case. You can see a streak of 50 successive losses of an EC in one of my sessions. I not just sustained that but got at a net profit without needing "helpful cluster of wins" thereafter with Max bet=4 units only. Similarly I sustained a never witnessed 60/200 sessions playing all over and without any astronomical bet size or bankroll. I have yet to see -300 stop loss even with sessions with 5SD below mean or worse. I know, there can be a session that will breach -300 one day but given the probability to see one such session vs winning sessions, I should be able to play without any irreparable loss. That is my vision and approach.

IMPOSSIBLE SESSION : 23/100 in the first 100 bets and no win for 50 consecutive bets. 99 Wins and 162 losses
              Won with max bet=4 only. Unbelievable but true. 
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 07, 2020, 11:47:59 AM
Dear Albalaha,
Sir,

One pertinent question.

What the ratio of
Extreme vs within-math
seasons.

or in 100seasons,
how many seasons, averages,
are the extreme seasons?
Thanks.

10% sessions always seem to disturb us with variance which could range from 1 SD to 5 SD.

Quote from: hgwen on May 07, 2020, 11:20:12 AM
It's quite challenging but ok I can try if you're ok to help me (and I think i'm not the only one interested  ).
Could you please show a tough session with max bet, max drawdown, numers of bets, wins, losses and a clear graph ? It will be very helpful to understand your method.

Thank you!

OK. Try the last 124:80 session.
graph:                   max bet: 15 units          worst drawdown:  -77
[attachimg=1]

QuoteIt is not quite good
to bet "fixed RED",
since we know,
great negative extreme
variance, will hit, after, few
easy sessions...
and then drawdown,
to -300u, just impossible,
to play

OK and if you play a bet by changing it then you will not get great negative variance? Who tells you this? It seems you lack the skills/trackers to simulate and understand the reality. Once you get that you will know that no way of playing saves you from going extreme bad temporarily and occasionally. Better work on a durable MM than looking for magically safe bet.