Quote from: Lungyeh on February 21, 2020, 11:22:59 AM
Albalaha, as a matter of curiosity, where are you based? Where do you game?

Thanks

I m in India and although we do have casinos in a few states in India and neighbour Nepal and Srilanka, I mostly play online.

Player's personality? Does it help too? I believe that a well defined and logical way of playing could be played mechanically without any personality traits.

QuoteMy trading personality is to win many times with small amounts on a regular basis with very hight strike ratio and take occasional loses.

Hmm. What will happen if you encounter losses as given in the session here? I am not discussing about psychological aspects of the game but a harsh truth that is called variance. My point is, can you overcome this and if not how much losses will you get by the end of this session? Variance management is a topic that irritates most here. When I raised the #3 zumma challenge, I did not get even one sane answer in years of the open challenge. It shows the hollowness of the so called gambling experts. Everybody jumps and states that he won't play such a bad bet as if he can control randomness.
           One who is not prepared enough to face the worst, is destined to lose.
By the way, I will wait for your short notes.

@Sputnik,
            I agree with your first statement.

Quoteyou don't need to win every bet to win

But not so convinced with this:

QuoteNow let's say you make six placement for each sequential attack and lose -6 units and staking 2 units for the next six attempts (attack).
Now you only need to make +1 unit three times to break even with 2 units stake (simple)

Try this on the given 800 decisions and let us know your max bet and net win the way you offered to play. No regular MM can beat this that is meant for all over play. Winning in cases of clumping wins with a positive Parlay like progression is altogether different story. Playing the same all over doesn't work. We all know that.

Variance is not under our control and its length and shape can not be predicted. That is why every known progression fails to handle long run probabilities.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on February 19, 2020, 03:06:03 PM
since we want to avoid extreme variance,
and take advantage of rtm,
then we need to bet very long spin,
(as in Albalaha research)..of zumma,
lets ASSUME that worst ever EC,
is only 387hit/1000,
then we need a progression to squeeze,
at least 1u, in only 387hit/1000.
in theory, apart from
horrible staking, and table limit, labby must close,
in 33%,+1win
thus 387-330=57surlpus....
in hp.johnson,
we need 387*2=773zero and a single 1.
when the 387th win hit,
we have +1profit.
but of course, people will screams FOOL,
to bet labby and hp.johnny.

Why do u come to HP Johnson while I explained and illustrated already that HP Johnson will turn into a horrible Martingale at wrong times whichever way you play it? It may need millions of chips to finish with +1. If you can't comprehend that still I wonder what could be done for you. Basic labby is lesser horrible than HP Johnson or martingale but still could seek thousands of chips. These are only fool's gold and meant for frustrated player. I faced the given horror session that is not even likely to happen with 17 units bet as max bet and still won it. Just increasing or decreasing bet won't work as you never know what kind of variance will strike you.

@alrelax,

QuoteI do not believe in trying to define card order or the meaning of Randomness and how to literally beat it. I don't believe anyone ever will and I don't believe it's possible to do any type of mechanical or scheduled wagering with successful results with consistent play.

Well, I agree with your first sentence but not with second. Actually, people did not witness any mechanical strategy so far that beats the house edge and variance both together but it is not impossible either. Until when an aeroplane was devised and successfully flew with man inside the machine, it was considered a dream only. Many people tried even silly things to do the same but all failed. Now, we not just go to continent to continent flying, we are reaching even Mars. I will not proclaim that I have done something like that recently but I am close to that. It is pretty doable.

@Lungyeh,
           Nevermind. I removed the off topic post of yours. Are you into baccarat daily?

@Lungyeh,
              Although you are talking of the game but your last post looks a bit off topic to me.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 16, 2020, 10:59:34 PM
I'm wondering what we can do working together. 

as.

Only if we complement each other. I was working day and night for years to have a mechanical winner MM for long run that can handle the worst and win thereafter too, even if it is still below average. It should be good enough for playing average/a little below average sessions as well. No curve fitting into a session. Rather a masterkey that can unlock most locks if not all.
          All known progressions handle a particular kind of variance very aptly while seriously lack the capacity to survive bad patches and win thereafter. All ends by losing huge. With my RTM approach, one can play very safe and avoid the worst but I wanted an all over approach with playable bankroll. I think I have done it. Still will test more. Let me have any such horrible real game data. Only condition is I need at least twice spins/hands after the worst stretch. I mean, if someone sends me the worst 100, say 29/100 and if the next 200 hands have say 94 wins, I should be able to come out of loss or recover half of the lost sum in that very time.
                     I wish you all same degree of success. Just think out of box. No maths book tell us that a negative expectations game can not be won, in any manner. Your knowledge is your edge that no casino can take away.

After this gigantic test, I am 100% sure that I can play and sustain through even the worst possible and win too, thereafter without ever requiring compensatory or clumping wins within a reasonable table limit and bankroll. This is the biggest feat of mine, so far. I am attaching the entire 800 W/L for all to see and try their methodologies here. It will be kind of litmus test for all system testers. 345/800 is still -3.15 SD for european roulette. Gladly it was done with logic and mathematics and by a purely mechanical process. Please understand that my methodology sustains in the worst possible with bearable loss and wins thereafter in below average hit rate which is considered impossible, so far. It is an all over play approach.

I did 600 spins. Losses recovered by and large and graph turned upward but at 600th spin, it did not finish in a net win yet. Then I generated a random 200 more spins from random.org with 99 wins and 101 losses and no large string of wins/compensatory wins. I added the same to the previous 600 and it yielded a nice net profit finally. Max bet applied was 17 units. Max drawdown was -141. Total 345 Wins against 455 losses. Net profit at 800th trial=42 units. Last bet=2 units. Graph will tell the rest of story.


[attachimg=1]

Tested upto 232 hands/spins. It went as bad as -141 and recovering a bit after first 200 hands. Max bet used so far is 5 units, I think.
Check graph.
[attachimg=1]

In a random game, past doesn't tell your future. It can not say that if a pattern seems to work, it will continue or end right there. At max, you may get a good guess on sequential probabilities. For example, if a run of 15 bankers has just happened which ended by a player, there may not be another stretch of 15 bankers just there. It is not impossible to happen but most unlikely. All other guesses are just guesses without even slightest degree of accuracy.
         By the way, I do not intend to disrupt a discussion with my inputs which may look off topic to you. I just want to let you understand that working on betselection will not yield you anything. I have been doing extensive researches on random games like roulette and baccarat and have analysed several millions outcomes in thousands of ways in past 14-15 years. In the beginning, I was as naive as a routine gambler. I wasted thousands of hours working to find the best bet, strangely, there is none.
            If you want to earn from a random game, only way is devise your own money management considering all kinds of variance you may get. With that all games with slight house edge will be beatable, not just baccarat.

I firmly believe that anybody who has a firm approach to beat this case that beats normal sessions much easier will be a true Holy Grail and albeit slow but only mathematical approach to beat randomness of casino gambling forever. Even if someone doesn't beat this till 600th bet but loses less than 54 units in an all over play (since there are 108 extra losses than wins) is a very nice player. Remember, curve fitting experts may advise a progression that runs too slow in the beginning and gets accelerated after 200 bets. I would ask the same gentleman to beat the later 400 spins the same way. Something capable of handling -3.5 SD should beat -1.5 SD cases even easily. Many smart fellow would come and argue that they won't play such bad bet but its counterpart. I would like to tell all of them that any bet of yours could suffer from negative variance, any moment. There is absolutely no safeguard against that, whatever you do. I did put a similar challenge like this earlier but did not hear even a single sane approach. It seems that people have already surrendered before the randomness and can't even think of beating a virtually worst case.

Tried first 139 decisions so far (in the horrible 60/200 session) and at -75 now. I think it is easily recoverable. Will post full session sometime soon. With lots of rules to follow and manually calculating what to bet, it will take a week to conclude entire 600 decisions.
Remember, I m playing every bet and has set of rules applicable for all over game. No triggers, no pauses and the methodology meant for good and average sessions too. No curve fitting, no cherry picking.
[attachimg=1]

@Tapolov1,
           Curve fitting or saying that I will win by playing other side is not the challenge in this thread. This topic is all about sustaining through the worst and winning thereafter in below average times for an EC bet( not betting on the counterpart EC together) that could be played in normal sessions too. You failed to explain what you propose to do in such scenario hence your way is out of topic here.

@PatternAnalysis,
           Since we observed 30/100 as worst, it doesn't guarantee that even worse can not happen. It is only an estimated/observed limit. We need to prepare ourselves for even 20/100. Actually, we should not focus upon winning the worst itself but rather losing least in such cases and winning back all losses without expecting compensatory or clumping wins thereafter. If you think you can sustain 30/100 by pushing the hardest but not 28/100, it is as bad an idea as basic martingale.
                     Regarding Modified labby, yes I have incorporated mini stop losses and several other safeguards to avoid losing all, even if it goes 10/100. Recovery is not that difficult if you lose least in the worst phases. Losing huge in bad phases is what kills most progression players. That is the biggest blunder one can do.