@Adulay,

                Nevermind Captain. Actually, no way to select bet is better than other, we have to agree to it. Simulations prove the same. If we create a trigger like LLL in an EC, we need to wait averagely 8 spins to get one opportunity to bet. We do not change or step out of probabilities by doing anything. If we make one bet after every LLL, we still would get similar set of Ls and Ws as expected without that.

                As I said earlier, only exception of this rule lies in regarding virtual limits. If say, we see 15 Reds in a row and start to bet thereafter for black, we are not likely to get 15 more reds. That reaches beyond virtual limits and kind of impossible. I have defined virtual limits in another topic. Virtual limits signify only an expected limit and in no manner it guarantees absolute restraint.

It is very easy to see past spins/hands and say i would have not got this many Ls which is a foolish statement. Sorry for being rude. IF anybody can eliminate long series of losses by doing anything, he will play a brute force progression(like martingale) and keep winning without any issue.

To handle such stretches make a strategy of going flat in such cases. How you execute that is a matter of concern.

30/100 is horrible but not the worst possible. We should not make a parameter on these figures but rather learn that such things could happen any day and a strategy to handle them is must even if it is about stop loss or quit.

Even dozen/colum and EC bets drag to 100s of spins to get under control. Playing 1-2 inside numbers could take forever to win with any sensible approach. We have seen how #3 of zumma kept doing superbad for entire 15,000 spins.

I am not trying to beat cases like 30/100 but a strategy that keeps us at least harm during such spans and you can win thereafter when regression towards mean start to show.

Harshness ensures fools to lose for sure. To be a professional, you need to know how to win in the long run where such harsh sessions are possible too. This is put up here to make you aware of the harshest times possible for any bet. For records, I say that I can beat this stretch too, being within a reasonable bet limit.

Worst session #2:
I scanned through Zumma 1600 with 114,074 hands of BP without ties(ties removed as push) and found this as one of the worst stretch of Player(starting with only 4 wins in the first 30 hands):

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

Yes.

I can face such stretches and come out winner too with my MM within 100-200 chips max. Sadly, I can't reveal that but that has to do with Regression towards mean.

Captain,
         It was not about I play FTL or OTL. I have entire zumma with FTL and OTL too. Do you want to see similar bad stretches with that?
The given hands indicate that howsoever smartly you pick a bet, you can still get this much variance. I want to only know that do you know anything that can sustain through such rough patches and win back too till the finish of this series.
                        Strangely whenever I put anything like this, smarties start telling that they would have not played it as if they knew before hand as to when bad bets will start to ruin them or if they can pick the bet in any particular manner that bad stretches can not come. Unfortunately, even veterans like Captain whom I have been seeing myself for more than a decade on forums think and speak like this, making me feel very bad.

I scanned the entire zumma1600  having 114,074 hands (tie removed)and found the worst of the worst stretches for Player bets. See if you can beat them:

#1. Only 30 hits of Player in 100 hands to begin your fight.

Starting near 92000 hands:
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
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
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P

Many members say/believe that they can use some trigger or LW strategy to avoid bad stretches but it is unrealistic. Whatever you do, you can still get a very bad stretch and in all over play, it may come any moment. So, instead of giving ideas that will eliminate the bad stretches altogether, get ready to face them and beat them too, within realistic limits of chips. I have done that gladly.

QuoteIf you think positive/compounding progressions' earnings on high-paying locations are fiction (or simply dreams) that's perfectly fine with me and I won't argue with you for a second. At all!

What I'm suggesting is simply losing the least during bad times + using clumping events for winning the most to offset misses in a natural/organic way instead of "chasing". That's simply one of unlimited possible personal ways to face the game;

Dear Vic,
                 I m not saying clumps do not come ever. They may come, they may not as per your needs. The point towards this topic was not waiting for an extraordinary good run to be exploited through positive progressions but rather very opposite of that, surviving the worst possible stretch followed by average wins only.

I clearly illustrated in my first post that:

QuoteFor example, in an EC bet if Losses and wins come like this:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW WWLWW LLWWW

Anybody playing +1 after winning while same after losses will win easily like

-1,-1,-1,-1,-1  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,  -1,-1,-1,-1,-1  +1+2+3+4+5 +6+1,-1+1+2 -1,-1+1+2+1

So, it helped a positive progression that way without much ado but realistically, a very nice stretch of wins is far from being under our control. We should rather expect the opposite.

So Vic,
                Am I correct to assume that you are although passing through the worst but not beating it still till my given session as there are no clumps, correct?

Positive progression is a good dream way to earn where we attack casino with money won from it but it is easier said than done. In a game of house edge and variance, it is even tough to get break evens. We will surely get certain clumps at some point of time but will they be sufficient to make up for losses achieved so far? Frankly speaking, I do not think so.

Positive progressions like "Reverse Labouchere" stories of breaking bank makes nice fiction but once you try to do that in real world, it will fail you only.

That is why I asked you to showcase as to how your strategy work on the given case but you instead chose to copy+paste your fiction here. You could have said instead that I will lose only XYZ chips here but you rather kept the answer under wraps.

Anyways Vic, It was nice to hear your viewpoint. These days this forum has almost no debates and many active debaters ran out from here to other forums.

When a storm hits with full intensity, it takes away even large trees and houses but small grasses go flat and defend themselves wisely. Negative variance is the biggest defender of casinos. It is a must to have one strategy that let's us survive even after the worst possible hits.

Pathological gamblers "see" patterns in things that are actually quite random and not really there, to such a degree that they are quite willing to impulsively bet good money on such illusory nonrandomness. This is confirmed by Wolfgang Gaissmaier of the University of Konstanz in Germany and Andreas Wilke of Clarkson University in the USA, leaders of a study in Springer's Journal of Gambling Studies that sheds light on why some people are gamblers and others not.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm