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

My point for such triggers is to avoid cases where losses are pouring in out of proportion. I know that even my trigger in not absolute way to filter out all kinds of horrible stretches, for sure but I know losing only twice in cases like LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLL can not be termed bad, by any parameter. I even know that I can get many LLs even with this filter but they are still better than playing all over in all those cases. I am still saving on 5-6 extra losses. I am going to lose only twice even if it is a stretch of 50 losses in a row. What is your take on this?

To be continued ahead:

@Vic,
           Can you illustrate how exactly you will bet on the EC case given above viz:
LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WLWLW LLWLW WLWLW LWWLW LLWWL WLLWL LWLWL LWWLW

I would love to see your approach in action. I read over your topic talking of 75% MM but failed to get its gist. It would be great to hear from you if you could offer something valuable in handling bad and tricky stretches.

Well,
          I know that no amount of trigger changes/affects the future probabilities. However, we can avoid betting in the worst of the worst possible cases with a trick or trigger that I use for long.

For instance, my bet is an EC bet, I wait for a trigger of 5 or more successive losses followed by a win and a loss thereafter. like

LLLLLLLLWL

How does it help?
It gets me not bet for a very bad stretch of  successive no hit of an EC be it 5 losses or 25 losses. Secondly, my trigger makes me bet only two bets every time, irrespective of both being wins or losses or one each.

So, in a case like
LLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLW

I get only LL as my effective bet and I will resume my betting on another trigger like that.
So, I can lose only in cases where one extreme bad stretch is immediately followed by another bad/very bad stretch. However, I will miss all chances like LLLLLLLLLWWWWWW. However, I can afford to miss such chances for the sake of avoiding extreme variance against my bet.
To be continued further...........................

Quote from: alrelax on August 12, 2019, 04:48:15 PM
Note:  I was told by the OP that my comment was shocking. Since I disturbed his thread and discussion, I have removed my comment as he labeled my play both novice and bothersome.  I do apologize for responding with my post.

Hey admin,
            There is nothing personal here. You have got every right to speak your mind in whichever topic you want. As an experienced player it was shocking to me to hear from you that you never came across 15 successive losses. Anyways, your language was neither annoying nor disturbing. I do apologize if I did hurt you. Keep commenting. 

@Kattila,
              Good to see you in the debate. Buddy, it is not about what kind of bet or trigger you opt. You may still face the harsh outcomes whenever you opt to start or bet. My question is, are we destined to only lose in cases where we meet with a very bad stretch of consequent losses followed by average/below average wins. As I said earlier and all of us know, it is fallacious to think of compensatory more wins. Law of short run says, we may see any sort of wildness of randomness and law of long run says, results will only tend to get near mean value later. You may not get enough wins to compensate for your harsh moments but in a very long data, things will be closer to the average expectancy of the bet.

          Thus, in 10k spins, we are likely to see approx 4900 reds and blacks both but in a short span of 100 spins, we may get 68 reds,1 zero and 31 blacks easily. Any strategy set to doom and lose big in such cases will ensure that we can not win in the long run.

You haven't seen 15 losses of an EC bet in a succession? It means you haven't played enough yet. It is not so frequent as it is probable once in 32000 hands/spins but it could come in the very first session one plays. I have written a post on extremes and their virtual limits but many of members here objected on that too and you are asserting 15 losses in a row followed by bad wins is not likely, I can only wonder. I play roulette in mostly betvoyager having a marquee of 20+ spins and many many times witnessed the entire marquee going black or red.

Are you winning when a dozen behaves like this:
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W

Or you will be looking for lucky strikes to come and rescue you?

Hey friends,
                I wasted almost a decade looking upon both bet selections, with and without a hell lot of triggers. Finally, it concluded that no bet selection is better or even stable in all times. It may not hit for long in succession or hit intermittently as to make you lose and lose.
Your wins in average or good times will not compensate for your losses in the worst times.

After simulating and playing millions of spins, I can conclude that, only that strategy is worth playing that can:
1) Survive the worst possible; and
2) win a net profit in a below average/average win rate thereafter, without looking for a clumping win or compensating wins.

Clumping wins and compensatory more wins are not always unlikely but expecting that to rescue is again going fallacious and having a wishful day only.

For 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


but the same progression will become fools' gold in a W/L series like:

LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WLWLW LLWLW WLWLW LWWLW LLWWL WLLWL LWLWL LWWLW

Are any of you winning in the above noted scenario ? Or you think it is not likely with your very wise bet selection?

The virtual limit of successive hits of a bet:

1 straight up bet: 7 times
2 nbrs/a split bet: 10 times
3 numbers/street: 12 times
4 nbrs/quarter bet: 15 times
6 nbrs/doublestreet: 18 times
12 nbrs/a dozen: 22 times
18 nbrs/EC bet:       30 times
24 nbrs/double dozens
or double columns:  45 times

Since these are the virtual/historically recorded limits, you might not see any of them ever in your plays or tests or casino stories but they may happen anyday.

I got made a tracker of this bet from a programmer. The bet is good enough but still it may need to fight two things:
1. Temporary variance, i.e. more losses than wins
2. House edge.

Hence, it is certain that any bet is no ticket to win easily on roulette.

Let a session start and 25 unique numbers show. When 25th unique number shows, we bet the latest 24 unique numbers leaving the farthest number. Now either a new number hits to kill your bet or the oldest and farthest will hit instantly to make you lose. If we keep betting in this manner till 30th unique number shows, I expect a very good number of hits in most of the sessions as a perfect rotation of numbers is lesser likely than vice versa. What is your opinion on this?

Kurt Lewin developed a change model involving three steps: unfreezing, changing and refreezing. The model represents a very simple and practical model for understanding the change process. For Lewin, the process of change entails creating the perception that a change is needed, then moving toward the new, desired level of standard and finally, solidifying that new standard as the norm.

IF you think losing is the only fate for players, think again. While the game is not completely beatable mathematically but none says you can not win or gain in any manner. There are only two hurdles, house edge and variance. Blackjack had the same hurdles but yet one day Thorpe came up with card counting. If you say, Ok BJ is beatable but roulette is not, I would name a plethora of players who cloaked wheel and utilized the bias they had and earned millions. In like manner, come out of all sick, rotten ideas which are failure at their own face and which could be confirmed through simple simulations.

Remember, even Thorpe did not share his strategy in the beginning and milked casinos first. You need to make one yourself for you or learn from someone who has done it before you.

@Asymbacguy,
              If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?