@Asymbacguy,
             

QuoteOk, yet we know that the more we bet even money propositions, larger will be the gap between W and L, of course nothing prevent us to be in the positive side coincidentally.

The largest Gap will be only near expected house edge, in the long run. I have defined the long run too.

QuoteMoreover at least at the time I'm writing, no one financial plan has ever demonstrated to control a 50/50 probability model, unless a very diluted multilayered progression plan is conceived.
Let alone whether a taxed coin flip propositon is in order.

True. I can control it to a very large extent with an indigenous multilayered progression.

QuoteI mean that stop loss or stop winning plans have demonstrated no advantages to any other random betting plan, unless we have reasons to think that random walks are limited in some way.

Even I used to think like that but after studying the sequential probability, I got to know how stop loss could help us from losing all. Indeed, we all have our stop losses for the day, whether one admits that or not.

QuoteWhat I'm asking is if you are always confident to bet into a possible perfect random model, in the sense that not knowing the actual conditions I'd be more prone to wager toward a "deviated" world than hoping to get a kind of balancement.

That is fallacious. I neither wait for any kind of balancement nor do I think that betting after a bad phase will yield me very good phase ahead. As I said repeatedly, A very bad patch touching the virtual limits
is lesser likely to repeat immediately and impossible to repeat multiple times.  For records, I can play all over, can go across the worst possible without being damaged hugely and then recover too, most likely when the curve comes out of valley and reaches plains(I do not need or expect reaching top).
Playing all over is the most feasible way to play but people use wrong type of progressions and stop losses that causes irreparable damages in bad times.

Thanks Victor,
                We know that playing all over with any bet of choice could yield us unbeatable stretches. We do know that such stretches are temporary and gradually we have to get average/better than average hit rates. Expecting compensating wins is a fallacy and we need to distinguish between fallacious thinking and statistical truth. No betselections makes us immune from such bad stretches and no MM beats all probabilities that dispersion could offer us. We need to have an approach that doesn't lose huge till the worst moments last, so that recovery could be achieved with playable chips.

I am not saying playing all over can not be done profitably but then for recovery we may need to bear painful losses that could even necessiate a stop loss.

This is how an EC bet normally behaves in 1000 spins, if we see the number of hits in last 20 spins.
[attachimg=1]

From this, we should learn how to best utilize the statistical concept of Regression towards mean to avoid the worst attack of variance.
These are the pre-requisites:
1. Let the number of hits in the last 20 spins go to 5 or lesser. It is an alert for you to bet further;
2. Let it improve to 7-8 in the next 20 spins or therafter without any clumping wins of more than 2  wins coming in a streak.
    This is your trigger to start betting.
3. Pause in cases where again hit rate goes below 7 in the last 20 spins or in cases of three successive losses, in your bet.
    In cases of pause, let the condition No.2 come again to resume, if successive wins streak pushes the hit rate above 7, abandon that
    alert and look for another.
4. Still bet cautiously as nothing eliminates bad stretches fully.
5. Use a mild negative progression that can get a net win in lesser wins than losses.
6. If you still get 6 more losses than wins in your attempt, abandon the trigger.

          You can see in the given graph that hit rate that goes down to upto 3/20, always corrects to 10/20 or even better. Now, it is upto you as to how you benefit from this statistical and universal truth to avoid the worst attacks of variance and play in a safer zone.

This is the worst any player can do. Remember, even if you have a million chips to stake, targetting only 1 unit of  net win, variance could drag you past that, believe me.
  Playing with any kind of trigger is no safeguard, except if you are attacking the virtual limits. Even the term "virtual" itself signifies that it can be breached too. For the simplest example, take a case of martingale with a trigger of say 10 consecutive losses. Firstly, getting such triggers will take you a few thousands trials waiting fingers crossed and even that does not guarantee that a 10 step martingale after such trigger can safeguard you, for sure.
         I have posted tonnes of horror sessions that I could find to ward this evil idea but still find many going for that. It is sad.
I would humbly advise to never let a single unfortunate day take away all that you have earned for long. Rather, make smaller and sensible stop losses and start thereafter with a higher base bet only, not targetting to get the exceptional loss back but win ahead faster. Remember, Regression toward Mean teaches us only that after a very skewed data in a purely random thing, further data will tend to go towards mean. It never says that you will get compensatory wins and that is why increasing bets crazily doesn't necessarily help. It may rather harm you to an irreparable levels.

@Ozon,

       There could be far safer way to play than what you r doing. Playing an EC doing 5/15 may not work if you encounter the crazily bad patches in your early days. Don't do that. Brute force attacks make even the best progression worst. At times, forgetting the early bad losses save us from losing huge. Playing after a very bad patch does ensure only only one thing: no more similar bad patches immediately as it touches the virtual limits. 5/15 could be succeeded by another 5/15 very easily. You might be lucky, so far but do not play this way, I insist.

QuoteIn my blog I've presented an "unbeatable progression", meaning that it can't be overcome by the worst successions in the world (ok, almost). Still without a proper bet selection, a player utilizing such progression could easily stay in the negative zone for a long time.

   Where is that? Link please.

What exactly is a "very bad patch"?

In numerical terms, it is not easy to define but let me try. For an EC bet, I believe 30 spins to be a virtual limit of one hit and therefore, 1 to 6 hits in 30 spins is a very bad patch and highly unlikely to repeat further. 9 wins in 50 spins/hands is the worst I found so far. It is merely an idea of how Regression towards mean work and no bet is good or bad perpetually and even after the worst of worst hit rate, it will ultimately hover near its mathematically expected hit rate.

Another super bad(longer) stretch of Player win found in Zumma1600 around 92100 hands(tie removed) in entire 114074 hands of BP hits:

First 51 hands have only 9 wins of Player.



B/P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P

QuoteFor example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.

Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.

After working over the worst cases available through public data in both roulette and Baccarat, I can confirm for sure that one who can survive through the worst possible and recover its losses too in average case thereafter(without expecting clumping or compensatory wins) is an ultimate winner and only such person can be a winner in the long run in a random game.

Rest of the magicians who can use physics based advantage play or have power of precognition to guess how to win more flat bet are Gods of gambling themselves. Nothing beats them except casino bouncers.

I gathered some worst of the worst data, specially on Player bet in Baccarat, which is considered weaker than its counterpart yet appeals to me due to no commission and easy progression calculations. Progressive betting upon Banker is a disaster due to commissions, one must know this fact.
            Beating the worst is becoming my forte, be it the worst number of zumma american roulette, zumma baccarat, Wizards of odds 2000 shoes, all playing all over and within a reasonable bet limit.

Should I feel I have got a personalized Holy Grail with me or it's a delusion merely?

Another 30/100 situation of Player from the same dataset as earlier:

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P

Worst stretch in 100 hands in 1000 Six Decks Simulated Shoes of Wizard of odds for player bet:
30/100

B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P

It is 1000 simulated shoes of 8 decks each. I have removed Ties. It should help all of us in simulations.

A 30/100 would look as much horrible as you seem to witness. Since you did not count it, you can not tell perfectly. The average number of cards per hand is 4.94. Assuming 15 burn cards, a six-deck baccarat shoe would have about 60 hands. You might have seen only 7-10 wins in a shoe or even more that will look nearly non existent in front of a big array of losses.
                     I say, if there is even a 60 hands with only 6 wins for my bet, I won't bleed dry there. I would lose the least possible betting there, betting all hands and may recover all in the next two normal shoes. Most likely, I will recover very easily. If I play after a very bad patch, most likely, there will be no bet during the first shoe.