I understand that maintaining discipline was very important but you should also see that none is writing here regularly these days but You, me, Victor, Asym and occassionally a few posts here and there from others. Check topics started. Same thing continues. IF it continues like this, I bet this forum will turn dead soon.

Got one worst of worst data with 109 losses and only 68 wins in EC. Kind of extreme but yet beatable:
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
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
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W

QuoteI believe you, yet imo the problem lies in the word "later". How much later?

When a certain % of total wins vs losses come gradually.

Remember, it is about Regression towards Mean. Do not mix it with any fallacy like "compensatory wins has to come" etc.

All negative progressions fail due to their limits. Martingale fails itself if it is a single big bad stretch going too long, beyond its capacity. A labby or fibonacci loses if the wins are less than 1/3rd of the total outcome. Those forget this fundamental, has to lose.

Gradually is the keyword and we can't define it in exact number of trials but we can have some rough estimates regarding the virtual limits which are almost unbreakable. I gave 28/80 example which is purely beatable with a little aggressive progression like labby.

Come up with a data where we have only 2 wins in 20 spins and the later 80 spins have less than 28 wins.  I won't die even if this happens somehow due to the RTM principles.

Since the forum got functional again, I see negligible discussions and debates here. Most of the members who were pretty active seem to got silenced at once. Why so?

Quotewe do not know if previous very bad patterns will be followed by favourable patterns. Not in the same shoe, not in the next ones.

That would be fallacious to think of. A bad one may or may not be followed by a good one. Nothing for sure.
Only sure thing is, from 1 or 2 in 20 to 3 in 10 to 5 in 10 has to happen. Compensatory wins might never happen even if the worst has just happened. My assertion is based upon a statistical principal of Regression towards mean. A working formula makes me safe during the worst possible and to recover later and not pushing too much in the worst like 30/100.

A very bad patch is itself rare, its repetition is "the rarest of rare" thing to happen and "successive rarest of rares" are so remote, nobody most likely will see them in lifetime.

QuoteThe worst after several million of spins - 5.35 - same as winning the lottery :-)

can you showcase the worst ones available to you?

@Ozon,
            You are right. This is being discussed in another topic. If RNG is a manipulated one, anything is possible.

Math wizards may not agree with me but it is no fallacy. Playing after a very bad patch which is touching the virtual limits ensure that another similar very bad patch may not be so easy immediately again and impossible in succession.

Do one thing, find an EC W/L to me wherein we see anything like:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW
5 wins in 50 trials
We do have millions of hands of baccarat data and even more roulette data available. With Ophis I worked upon over 10 million spins of roulette already, years back.

If I consider 30/100 to be a virtual limit of an EC bet and I have just seen 20 spins hitting only 2 Reds,I can assume that in rest of 80 spins, at least 28 more Reds are likely. 28/80 could be easier to handle than 30/100. Isn't it? Even if there are only 20 hits in the rest of 80 spins, we still escaped an absolutely unbeatable stretch by not betting during the first 20 spins giving us merely 2 wins. Please contradict me sensibly.

Labby may not win within first 100 spins but could get at net profit still before 200th spins. Chips required could be 2000 units, at max with a 0,1 labby. The harshest being controlled under so many chips isn't bad.

Worst of virtuoid first 51,000 hands(ties removed) for Player bet

30/100:

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

One of the worst run of Player bet from Virtuoid 100,000 shoes of baccarat only in earliest 20k hands:
32 in 100:

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

Can you provide link to this strategy in detail?

With classic labby we can prolong and win while Johnson will get struck at last needing a million unit poor martingale. Splitting will only kill as we can not predict future.

HP Johnson is set to win 1 unit only at last and it can lose even a million before that becoming a poor martingale at last. Basic labouchere can't go so bad in any possibility. The element of martingale makes  Johnson unintelligent's playground only. If you have 5000 units BR, labby will win all cases for you.