@Captain,
             Nice to hear from you. Actually, I play RNG full time these days as playing inside bets live online is a very painful affair without bots. I can look for such sessions further but can not guarantee to produce any thing alike.
         Are you into playing dozens?

Victor has always been a good helping friend as well as a nice administrator with excellent skills to run a site and a forum both technically and administratively. Glen has been active in this forum since long and I hope he will handle the forum very well. Nice to see a very experienced player as administrator. I do not know about his past behaviours in former forums but here he has been nice mostly. I wish him all the best for his future endeavors and for his baccarat plays as well.


P.S.: I hope, rather I firmly believe that he will keep the debating spirit alive. Healthy debates are what we are here for.
I also appeal Xander and other vocal members to keep the forum buzzing with new set of knowledge than verbal abuses and mud slinging.

QuoteIt is not variance alone that kills the bankroll. It is what you do with variance that kills the bankroll.

Very true. Variance keeps pestering bets. You need to know what to do and how to handle the worst, the bad and the average times.

QuoteNow if it's a person that signs on with no history or a few posts and all of a sudden he's selling some type of product or service and he never introduced himself and I don't know who he is and no references, entirely different picture and that is what's clearly not allowed.

Posting links and any sort of advertisement should be disallowed to any member unless he gets to become a "Steady Member", in my humble opinion.

Regarding Sales of systems, softwares, mentoring, tutorial offers, a disclaimer must be added along with the post stating that nothing can guarantee a win in casino. Buy anything on your own risk. If any seller claims to beat the game in all shapes and risk free, he should be able to prove that to the admin.
  Remember, not only paid systems harm players, all systems equally do. So, the disclaimer could be added to all the systems we talk of, whether free or paid ones.

                                         I m not denying the prowess of house edge. It is one of the vital forces that backs a casino business. House edge, by itself, creates variance too. Any bet you take in roulette or baccarat will hit below break even point in the long run due to this disadvantage but still the House edge alone is not sufficient to guarantee a win for casino. Ignorance of players of the law of small and large numbers and idiotic progressions kill them. Most of the players entering casino are ignorant ones and rely merely on their good luck to get a winning streak. Even those who are lucky enough to win in the beginning stay till they get empty handed finally.

                Handling all kinds of variance is the only key to win this game. IF someone can predict the future outcomes seeing current trend(if it is possible with any degree of certainty), it will be an advantage play again with a kind of edge playing at your side. I do not believe or expect any fixed edge coming to me by any divine knowledge to earn from this game.
               I have learnt the art of survival in extremes and winning thereafter without going too deep or expecting any corrective wins, that is a fallacy. It is both a science and art and I can compare it with breaking stones with empty hands. Inconceivable and un-achievable by most, even if the entire logic and techniques are explained.

      Remember, the house edge/house fee/unfair payout creates a kind of variance by itself, leave aside the other factors. In the long run we first need to fill in the gap created by 2.7% house edge edge first. Every bet will get this much variance for sure, in the long run. People seems to miss even a remedy for this.

If I say, there will be 500 wins of a number in 18500 spins and we can not get the scatter of the wins, most of the intelligent players around here will have a soar throat beating just that. If the number of win lessens to 450, they will lose thousands of chips and might be only losing all over. I have seen this clearly in my #3 challenge on zumma book.

Go and keep dreaming of getting more wins than losses to win easily and I believe that is not going to happen any time soon. Let me sharpen my skills in surviving the worst and winning in near average cases, thereafter. It seems the old failed progressions attempts had very bad impact on money management onlookers and they thought that the end.

QuoteSomething like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any  reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that  the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?

If you see the nature of martingale, it can win even in 10% hit rate but it is subject to a win sooner.

Labouchere  doesn't need very soon wins but it can only win if we get wins in a ratio that should exceed one third. It is a big deal in itself but Labouchere becomes foolish when it get a bit adverse case. It doesn't ask for more wins than losses nor any guess on when and how wins will scatter. just a ratio that shouldn't be so harsh. I believe we can better this too much and rather I have done exactly that.

I have accomplished a progression for long run that can sustain the harshest possible times and then can win after RTM. It is sensible enough to not get tricked easily. Since such things might look alien to you, it is easy to negate the same.

Tired minds of most gambling aspirants dream of only getting an edge, i.e. winning more than losing by any magical approach so that they can bet the max on the table and they get net wins at the last, that normally happens with a casino. They see all answer to their gambling aspiration in getting an edge somehow. They ask everyone, do u have an in built edge like casino? "No". Then you can not win. Period.

      I believe it never happened even with gambling legends in absolute sense. Even if someone gets 2% edge against casinos, he will make casinos go bankrupt in a few years, all of them. CASINO gambling will be then only remain in books of history.

QuoteHow does manipulating stakes improve the probability of a win? It can't. All it can do is attempt to recover losses after losing runs and/or increase profits on winning runs. But these attempts fail; all they do is to magnify both losses and wins, but on average you still lose because you haven't addressed the real problem and you still don't have an edge. Progressions work until they don't. 

It doesn't change any probability but can get you a net win with lesser wins than mathematically required. See the cases of martingale and labouchere. They can mathematically beat any session. These basic MMs were but childishly made to not take into account larger variance and hence became fool's gold. Now those who lack skills to improve upon the blunders made in these, can only cry foul on all progressions. Problem is, there was not a single progression widely known that handles most types of variance and strive to win in the long run. Everybody wants to win in a hurry with an hour or two and a fistful of chips. No wonder there are losers in the casino, all over.

QuoteCan you give me an example of such a progression? Do you think this hasn't been thought of before?

That is the sole problem. Everybody wants a ready reference/solution and not working in this area. Some progressions like Oscar Grind etc were done but they fail to address the issue in a realistic manner and also to fill in the gap created by the house edge in the long run.

Check as to how the harshest possible sessions could also be handled effectively with a well thought approach:
https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/harsh-sessions-won-by-positive-gambling-module/

QuoteI know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).

You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that. As I told earlier, even martingale or labouchere wins the game despite the house edge. Problem is, they need countless chips(mathematically they will win though) which makes them impractical, rather bad to try. A progression, sensible enough to handle the worst and then winning in near average case thereafter, as LLN confirms, can beat the game, in the long run.

QuoteHow does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?

As I said, mathematically, you can never get an edge so LLN doesn't give me an edge by itself but only the wisdom to understand that things are near average, with a nice degree of certainty, only in the long run. All MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.

No study in this world proved baccarat to be a game where past outcomes can help in winning. Hypothesis can not become a rule unless worth proving. Even Thorpe could not do much in baccarat.

QuoteAgain, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).

---Mike

Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.

Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?

Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?

Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.

Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.

Thing is, people who read too many forums have got more unrealistic and unscientific approaches towards gambling than a layman. We all assert our views without putting any evidence. Anybody getting influenced with our writings could get biased and thus harmed, inadvertently.

I feel ashamed to see approaches like "Pattern Breaker", which is one of the worst way of playing possible in our forums. Martingale is the nectar of obvious death. It is the worst thing that ever happened to gambling. Put all you have at risk to win 1 unit. Anyways, we are all adults here and thus responsible for whatever we learn.

I like Mike's posts and comments. They are very close to reality and mostly accurate. I like Xander's posts too. He has got his own set of experiences of the advantage play for decades and I got to see a bit of how he does that. Unfortunately, at times, he goes too far and people do not seem to like that.

Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.

We can still co-exist and behave in a mature manner.

QuoteI'm always amused by the novices and amateurs that think they know more than the professionals, gaming experts and mathematicians. .

In the mean time a visit to the wizardoffodds.com will serve you well.

Innovation can change the perceptions. People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived. The same house edge of earth (gravitational force) could not stop flying machines to go across oceans and even upto Mars now. Gravitational force still exists and people are easily flying with them from one place to other.

In gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.

P.S.: Please discuss on the topic than mudslinging and going off topic. If you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?

QuoteSo let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Spot on.

I do not believe or expect the former. Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.

Now, how to do the later is very tricky but not impossible. We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to  the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.

Take the classic case of martingale:

It can win without knowing when the win comes but it  lacked the common sense of remaining within a reasonable limits.
Same goes with martingale or fibonacci. They mathematically win the game but practically not.

They failed to keep in mind the virtual limit of variance that can even make a billion chips lose , the way they suggested to play.
Every progression suggested worked only in one particular type of variance and miserably failed in other.

I believe we can better that. An mm that can sustain the worst and win later in average case confirming "law of large numbers".

We can not change the payouts decided by casinos. Can change our strategies though and all old strategies are proven failure, so ranting on them or making statement that we can not win, is not fair. If you really feel that, don't gamble at all.