#2            153 LOSSES VS 106 WINS

SOMEHOW LIKE WHAT AGRALIM WANTED: BEATEN AT THE LAST WIN. OVERALL -2.4 SD. -5.46 SD IN THE FIRST 50 TRIALS WITH 5/60 WINS. KIND OF VIRTUAL LIMITS. THE SESSION HAD REGULAR UPS AND DOWNS THEREAFTER TOO. NO PATCHY OR CORRECTIVE WINS.
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
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

Quote from: argalim147 on April 26, 2020, 09:26:45 AM
Can you beat this?

LLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLW ?

I told very clearly that the worst can not be beaten by itself but it can be sustained and later won too. Say, it has 50 spins with 6/50 hit rate. If we get 100 more trials ahead of this with say 47/100 wins there, it should win easily. Trying to win 6/50 in itself will be a laughstock and only martingale with unlimited chips and unlimited table limit could be the only way.
Put this L/W vertically, add about 47 wins in next 100 trials, I would love to try it . By the way, I have done even worse in my https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/an-eyeopener-challenge-and-query/ challenge already. It had 60/200 in the beginning of a very long haul session that won finally.

Quote from: argalim147 on April 26, 2020, 05:39:28 AM
This is also beaten by 5 step martingale which start to work after 5 virtual losses.

Hmm. You are trying to do curve fitting upon a session. To get 5 successive losses to put your bet, at times, you might need to wait entire day and whenever you get an opportunity, still loose. I am talking of an all over playing idea where neither a 5 step martingale after 5 virtual losses nor a 10 or even 20 steps martingale will work. Had such basic things been sufficient to beat the humongous probabilities associated with the game, this would have ended 400 years ago.

Why don't you go for this?

Quotethis is easy beaten by 10 steps marty

Hmm. Marty can beat anything with no limits. 10 step marty will bust in the 10th successive loss and we know we can even get a 25 step loss. No point in playing such rotten ideas. I told my bankroll is only 300 units and I have faced world's worst known cases so far.

QuoteSo I don't see the point

I do not see any point in any other discussion where everybody is churning failed ideas. Even after decades of being on gambling forums, people still come up with 10 step martingale. How silly is that? Just think that I am making a repository of worst looking sessions of all sorts.

Hmm. Rather 600 units to start with. We never know if a supertricky session may come in the beginning before it doubles.

Just tested this dreaded session of EC and finally won a net profit. It has 141 Losses vs 94 wins i.e. -2.65 SD
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W

Yes!!!
        I am onto something that could be termed as a Holy Grail for casino gambling for games like roulette, baccarat or any other game with fixed odds and payouts and slight house edge. I started to test it with the worst reported cases of EC in roulette and baccarat. Then I created a few hypothetical cases with 2SD, 3SD, 4SD and 5SD or even worse going below mean, for as long as 1700 continuous trials. I have beaten all, so far. I won't say that there will be no session where I would need to surrender but even the worst would not take away more than 300 chips, in total.
          In manual testings, it took hours and even days of mine to compute a tough session but now I have a fully coded tracker(Still working to better it a bit, if possible), so I can evaluate any session in a few seconds.
  Remember: It doesn't win the worst session while it is still worst but in long run when things go closer to mean by a predefined approach that I can play in all over betting and can swiftly win any average or below average session.
             I have reasons to believe that I finally have something that beats the randomness delivering extreme variance alongwith the house edge. Please provide me any EC w/l string from real sessions that should make me surrender with -300 finally.

53 losses vs 37 wins: (how does such sessions go with your MM)?
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
w

Playing both sides(RED/BLACK) is like playing chess from both sides. No outcome can be ensured that way, unless both are played separately from each other. In that case, when one side might be winning, other will be losing. Again do not find any advantage.

These Pseudo mathematicians know that you can not win in casino due to the house edge. To make some analogies to the real world, the math boys argument is like saying that you cannot be profitable in business because you have to pay taxes or like a 105 Kg boxer has to lose to a 110 Kg one. Mathematics and Physics both will support the boxer with 110 Kg weight but we know that skill matters a lot more than those 5 Kg advantage. How about 10 kids of 10 years fighting against a pro boxer of 75 Kg? Both scenario are different but a mathematician may conclude those 10 kids winning against the pro boxer cumulatively.

Quote from: 6th-sense on April 03, 2020, 10:08:06 AM
Would the Paroli method be combined with the modified Labby?

By Paroli, do you mean reverse martingale of may be 3 steps?
We need negative progression while Paroli is positive one and it requires successive wins to get a net profit. I do not see it working well with labouchere of any sort. Can you put any example as to how you propose to use it?

I elaborated my techniques time and again:

1. play a progression that can get u a win in lesser wins than average
2. have mini stop losses points (I use 5 more losses than wins as a mini stop loss). Do not push bet to get back mini stop losses, it
    should come gradually. Do remember that even 10 mini losses could come one after another.
3. Have an absolute stop loss point: 4x to 8x of mini stop loss, as per  your comfort
4. Do not push to win absolute loss and take that as losses accepted or surrender point.
5. When things look to cool down after long haul variance, you may push your base bet upward.
6. RTM will be guiding principle. Nothing could be more unwise than pushing bet in worst times.
7. Remember that law of long run will kick in and things will gradually get smoother but they might not compensate for earlier superbad
    losses..
            With these guiding principals, you may form your own strategies. I have played with as many as 3 ways to beat the superbad session, ever without getting too deep in losses.

Yes,
     Swiftly. Even a data double bad than this could be sustained with minimal loss and a recovery is easy thereafter.

QuoteYou don't need bad data for an EC because you can be 100 percents for sure that in every long term game with every system you will meet such sequence -
WLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLW         If you can survive this without big drawdown you have a grail. I have no grail but if i met 10 times such a sequence, for a 5 times i can survive easily...5 times not...

Real data gives confidence that I am not subtly fixing it to win somehow. The worst 800 that I created had superbad stretches but even if it goes 2x worse i,e. either it gets only 30 wins in 200(9.5 SD below mean) hands or 120 wins till 400 trials(7.4 SD below the mean), which is so remote that we may take it next to impossible, it still can be won, in the long run. Remember, do not try to beat the worst itself but only sustain that with bearable loss and win thereafter as you can not beat the worst possible itself with any money management in the world otherwise it won't be gambling, at all. I know my findings could excite many and many may take it as outrageous claim or even lie but it is doable. What is you loss in the worst case, decides whether you can recoup it or not.