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.

@Tapolov1,
               Your results look impressive with very nice finish and no scary dropdown. I can see you are winning and losing in one trial too. Are you playing both ways? Please explain your methodology in detail.

Past doesn't tell the future, remember. However, randomness has a virtual limit and that is almost unlikely to cross. If we get 30/100 then next 30/100 is almost impossible. However, playing the dominant EC of last so many hands/spins may work or may not. It is still as much random as any 100 hands/spins. Ball/cards do not have memory to correct things or worsen a bet. It is only random.

  I never claimed that 30/100 is the worst recorded hit rate of an Ec but only analysed some 100-200k results of baccarat to find 30/100 as the worst there. Brute force progressions on virtual limits works mostly but it is not unbeatable still and hence I do not advise anybody to try that.

It is almost unseen to find an EC with over 25 successive losses but still, it is not advisable to play a marty after say 15 successive losses.
There are two problems in this approach:
1. A trigger to bet is too rare
2. You can still lose, albeit chances are negligible
            Actually, virtual limits as I defined in a separate topic in my section is only an assumed limit beyond which millions of hands/spins could not cross, hence extremely rare to ever happen but not impossible.

Dear Wong, It will be highly unfortunate for me if anyone reading my posts misconstrue them with fallacious ideas. Actually we need to tone down our progressions in the worst times than dragging it up.

I have created a virtual session incorporating the absolute variance as we discussed in the beginning of this topic. It has 246 Wins vs 354 losses. First 200 trials has merely 60 wins. IF anybody has any all over money management strategy that beats the given case without going deep in thousands of chips and that should be meant for playing all kind of sessions, i.e. good, average and bad ones, that would end the quest for beating the game of chance. The game of chance will then become a game of skill.


L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
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
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
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
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

Variance is the biggest killer in a random game as roulette or baccarat. Variance is momentary and a huge one can not last too long. Gradually RTM will bring in better patches and eventually in a very long stride, it will all look very close to the mathematically expected value.
           Take a case of an EC bet like Player in Baccarat. We get only 60 hits in 200 attempts. It is -5.27 SD and a kind of even below the virtual limits but as nothing is impossible and only remote, it happened while we played it. Later, in subsequent 400 more trials say we get 186 more hits of our bet Player. It is still at -3.76 SD in 600 trials and there is no balancing win or even any long stretch of successive wins to exploit somehow.

         Do we have any strategy that can win even in such cases after 600th trial even 1 unit Or we only have wishful thinking that such things could never happen to us. Even if we do not stand to win even after 600th trial here, how many will get bearable losses that could be recovered ahead easily?

Quote from: Lungyeh on January 19, 2020, 07:44:49 AM
Actually I too don't think it was such an evidently manifest shoe to give that scale of winnings. Not for me anyway. But always to each, his own.

That is what I want to know from the admin. How this shoe generated 10x to 30x of bankroll. What was an average person's bankroll etc? Interesting to read.

Every shoe has a different story. How can this shoe let one earn 10 to 30 folds of anyone's buy in? Can you please care to explain?

I discard this way of playing. It is as bad as playing simple martingale.

                               Actually, I see no progress at all on any of the forums these days towards bettering our chances to win. People either gave up on this or a few are busy in churning oldschool proven failure ideas. Whenever I come up with some innovation and feel like discussing to members here, I see no progress and it feels like talking to wall here. Other forums have more chit chat but many members are foulmouth and there is no attempt to control that by admins. This forum is the most disciplined one but apart from the admin himself, asymbac, Victor and myself nobody is even writing a single post for months.
                         I have kind of concluded a way to play where I can handle the worst with least damage(believe me it is not tough with the correct use of RTM) and win in the average or little below average sessions very easily. Handling variance is the sole challenge and variance could come in various scales and shapes.
                 All oldschool progressions are deadly dangerous and helpful to casino than players. We must understand the limitations of any way to increase or decrease bets, it can only help upto an extent. Progression is a double edged sword. A skilled player will use it to kill enemies at double pace, a naive player would hurt himself by it.
      Anyways, it looks like I am trying to preach all. I think, the moment one gets successful in developing any way to better his chances, he will get silent too. I do not think we have among us, any true pro player or even players with serious money and that describes the silence here. I tried my best to have worthy debates here on my blog and wish you all the best for your attempts. I enjoyed my researches and got help from many programmers here from VLS to Nickmsi, Ophis to Stef.
           

QuoteAnd for that matter I'm sure you have devised a plan capable to overcome 5 sigma negative deviations, the problem remains about the practical aspects of it.

Even worse could be handled gracefully and without bleeding. No amount of SD should kill the entire bankroll.

Hey friends,
                I might not be posting anything anymore on this place or maybe on any other forum as well. The reason for the same is lack of sensible debates and testing. People are engulfed with ideas like gambling is unbeatable etc. ( I do not know which maths book told them so) most are rigid enough to even talk. A few feel that they can win a random negative expectation game with flat bet by making a very clever way to pick bet or betting at the best times only.
               I, sadly do not believe in all these. I started to believe that repeaters are worthy, in my early days as well but gradually knowledge of testing random data helped me ward off such misconceptions. In my recent research work, I came across something that looks like conclusive as to how one may expect to win in the long run. The key is One strategy that works across average, below average, worst and the best times of any bet. An MM approach that let's one sustain through the worst possible (5 SD below mean) with only that much harm that could be recovered easily with average hit rate thereafter in double the span of the worst phase max. That too without hypothetically expecting millions of chips to help you. Forgetting extraordinary losses helps a lot in not losing too huge.
I did understand that EC bets are the best suited bets for MM point of view too. Although straight up bets of roulette will continue to fascinate me the most.
                 Understanding Law of large numbers, RTM, Virtual limits of a bet and aboveall a long run all over MM strategy helped me get what I always aspired.
       The game itself is not beatable in absolute sense but it is very much possible to earn from it, in the long run, still.
Thanks.

QuoteFor several days, I have been testing your method of bet selection using Labby.
Despite the use of safebreakes, I still have high drowdawns.

Basic laboucher tries to win back extreme losses that may go dangerous at times. Even after filtering out the worst, we may get bad phases and basic labouchere may fail badly in those cases with huge drawdowns.

In a different topic written recently on my board I have elaborated as to why any brute force or force to win progression fails.