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.

@Mike,

QuoteIf the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.

"Will" is a wrong word here. You may be at break even, losing or winning even after a million spins. A perfect equilibrium of all bets may not be possible even after a billion spins. Think over it.

QuoteThat wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.

I never said I will quit or not, I just said I will be ahead with my bankroll, for sure at one point of time or other if it is only about beating house edge alone, be it 185 spins or 1850 spins. Give me any kind of scatter. That is not as easy to do for everyone.

QuoteOf course, you will win in the long run.

Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check  #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.

      I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.

Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

      Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.

We can survive even the worst possible and win thereafter in average times. Making a workable progression like this needs out of box approaches and innovation. Ranting over existing failure ideas is not the way.

QuoteLearn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. 

---Mike


  I agree to this statement to the extent of patterns and trends but refute the statement further regarding progressions. Actually, most of the people never worked upon a progression meant for the long run, so it is  easy to negate all. Reality is, a sensible progression can help. House edge is not the sole culprit rather ignorance is.

        If you think that a negative expectation or game of house edge is sufficient to beat players by its own, it is not.
For example, give me a session of roulette with 111 spins and a number placed anywhere three times(confirming house edge of 2.54% of European roulette), I will get a positive score, for sure, without going deep in losses. It might not hold true without a progression though. It is merely an example of how a progression can help handling negative expectations. In another way, the progression can handle temporary variance too and get a net win, thereafter.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 22, 2018, 03:52:52 AM
Exactly this.

as.

Thanks. If I can get an edge of 6% by my bets, I will ruin the casino, in the same manner as a casino does to average players. Nice hypothesis.