Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 06, 2020, 09:30:25 PM
Ok, thanks.
Regarding baccarat, how many shoes on average do you expect to be behind when strong negative conditions are met? (Say 4 sigma or higher deviations)

Thanks again.

as.

There could be many probabilities in the long run. At one in a million bad case, it may drag upto 10 shoes or even more but normally 1-2 shoes is enough to conclude. I believe that playing uninterrupted for long stretches is not required.

QuoteImpressive ! That was a tough session.

If I summarize the clues you already gave :

1. Start with a 0,1 labby
2. Stop betting when you have 5 mores losses than wins (Mini stop loss).
3. Accept the loss and restart betting the next spin with a new 0,1 labby.
4. Stop betting in certain conditions and restart after. Which conditions and when do you restart ?
5. Increase the base labby in certain conditions. Which conditions and how much do you increase the labby ?
...

Hmm. You knew the core that I elaborated. Now, think how to move ahead yourself and create an HG for yourself, if you can. I am ready to tell fundamentals whenever required. There could be many ways to do that.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 05, 2020, 09:33:03 PM
That's real interesting, but I guess that in order to recover any deficit you need W's coming in short intervals after the strongest L bad situations happened.

But say the "enemy" knows in detail your plan, thus rigging the game you're playing at.
Do you have any escape plans?

Thanks.

as.

Expectation of Clustering or clumping wins or compensatory wins is wrong even after the worst possible so my methodology doesn't look for one. If you see my worst 800, it has first 200 bets with 60 wins only, rest 400 has 186 wins only and the last 200 bets has 99 Wins. Thus, it only confirms to regression towards Mean and law of large numbers and there is nothing to compensate and no wins in big clusters. It still won without going -300 ever.
Regarding, a rigged casino, I do not believe it to be so easy and I do not ever try to win huge in EC bets so there is no room for rigging results only for me. That could be done for a martingale player. Playing on unrealistic premises is wrong by default.
I created this methodology primarily to beat "Player" bet of Baccarat in an all over game. So far, it is unbeatable even in the worst found stretches. I believe that I can sustain now even if there is an unbelievable case of 1/50 or anything alike.

Quote from: sean on May 04, 2020, 12:00:56 PM
How many units do you win with a session like this?

Just a net profit in the given stretch.

Quote from: sean on May 04, 2020, 08:05:13 AM
what do you do after each mini stop loss? do u consider it as a loss or do you include the losses (from the mini stop loss) as part of subsequent bets for recovery?

Mini Stop loss stops my progression for a win target. I try to earn ahead afresh than pushing to win back of the lost sum of MSL. Pushing to win too bad times give us irreparable loss. It is a complex methodology to avoid the worst outcomes, in any eventuality. Thos playing a 10 step martingale can't even comprehend this even slightly.

Quote from: hgwen on April 30, 2020, 06:10:57 PM
Ok.

You should pass this one from random.org like the others but it's a bad one from spin 101 to spin 400.

It was tough from #105 and it took 621 bets to beat it with a net profit thereafter. Horrible losses all over: 268 Wins vs 355 Losses
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W

Mini Stop losses could be defined as per your comfort level. I define it as 5 more losses than wins. For example LLLWWLLLLLLLLL
here LLLWWLLLLLLLLL  red colored area defines an MSL for me. Size of unit or count may vary depending upon your progression.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 03, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Dear Albalaha,
Sir,
With due respect.

I think, since, it,
the extreme variance,
kills everyone br,
and previous profits too...

Then, my main purpose,
is not, to look for,
an EDGE, but to avoid
EXTREME VARIANCE.

We need to seek any
possible way,
to avoid going through it.

          You can not avoid variance by doing anything like this. Even if you bet once in 100 trials you may still get 10 successive losses. Learn to face the variance as it is beyond your control to avoid it altogether.

@patternanalysis,
                  It is easy to find how to bet after seeing a session. If you wait for LLLL to make a bet, you will averagely make one bet after 16 spins and in worst cases your one bet could take you upto 300 spins of waiting too. It still won't make you any safe. That is the beauty of randomness. I wonder that even after decades on forums, people still have childish ideas to play.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 02, 2020, 12:14:29 PM
Hi,
I think, bet EC, is risky,
since, worst in 100spins may only had 30hit, and worst ever 200spins=69/200spins

below,  a bet selection, that bet in matrix4,
say, roulette,
bet RED for 4spins,
if win a spins, sit out,don't bet the rest.
If lose all four, change to bet BBBB.

No way of picking/filtering bet could give you safe times to win always. You better learn to fight the worst instead of dreaming of getting a bet that will never go too bad. That made me work on all over playing approaches and I can win passing through even the worst. Even if I get say after 10 millions spins of play a time to lose -300 somehow, I won't mind.

 

QuoteBecause I'm going to stop after I get ahead by a certain amount of units and it's always going to be that way.

You can not get ahead on a regular basis, so easily. House edge coupled with variance do not allow the same for long. Countering that is not so easy as it might appear. People are trying to work with all sort of betselection, tweaks, triggers and money managements but any long run test proves the contrary. If someone is saying he can win regularly, playing flat bet, he is a liar. Even oldschool money managements are proven failures. They are meant to handle one kind of variance and miserably fail in other.
            I have analysed all sort of money management approaches and could get what they are lacking. Then I started to work from scratch on a money management with following traits:
1. It shouldn't lose in a very long stretch of no wins and only losses like LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
2. It should n't lose in intermittent wins with too many losses: LLLLLWLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLLWL
3. It should not bet too huge to make it impractical
4. It should survive the worst possible sessions with minimal loss that should be recovered back with the same strategy in average session thereafter. We should not expect clumping or compensating wins after a very bad patch.
5. Even in a EC bet losses will either outnumber wins due to house edge(as any EC bet of roulette) or house fees will make it a loser(like Banker bet of baccarat). So we always need to be able to win in lesser wins than losses.

        Keeping all this in mind and developing something to cater all, is no child's play for anybody. Whoever can do all these or somehow manage to get more wins than losses( through advantage play of some sort) can win in a casino game otherwise it is destined to lose.
          I feel myself very close to an HG although it is too early to claim that. Let's see how it goes for me.

Excel RNG is not good one. better refer to random.org or work upon real session data. Your data has simple bad stretches which has easier recoveries than my posted sessions. Come up with real data, if you can.

We win a net profit till the end of the session shown as LW for me as I did not compute sessions before that or after that. There are number of mini losses that I did not count. I know it had to win, sooner or later.

QuoteAlbalaha, did you post your betting scheme or is that's something you're keeping to yourself?

Thanks

This is no betting scheme to try for fun. I m looking for most stringent real sessions to work upon and see its potential. So far, it is unbeatable to any data I could put my hands upon. I m also checking if it can still be bettered.

Quote from: hgwen on April 29, 2020, 12:20:22 PM
Nice ! And what's the maximum drawdown ?

-222

I spotted the worst time to start . #143. It took me 600 spins to win it finally. Max bet=24 units.

268 Wins vs 333 Losses almost -2SD overall. L/W of the worst stretch looks like:
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W