QuoteIf you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?

We can never predict what will be happening next. It could be the best possible or the worst possible or anywhere in the middle. My point is to make a system that can behave reasonable in the worst of times alongwith the best times possible and yield without bleeding too much. That is where every known progression sucks.

Captain,
These sessions are not normal ones but harsh ones. Keep this in mind, first of all. Harshness could mellow after 50 trials and it could not even after 500 trials in extremes that are possible. My motive behind doing/compiling these sessions to bring different varities of trouble sessions that should kill any known progression. Winning Flat bet is impossible and I am not debating about that here. Those who think that they can win flat bet by their bet selection alone in a game of negative expectations are godsend angels and they can even fly across ocean.

                    If we work only one kind of trouble session like those not having any long stretch of losses, even the dumbest person can suggest a 10 step martingale as panacea. Similarly with long streches of losses and wins, one can easily suggest D'alembert. For just a little below average number of wins, one can suggest playing labouchere or fibonacci or any other silly version of them like HP Johnson. Many came up with gradual martingale like what Blue Angel suggested once. They forget that one key won't fit other as the key is made seeing one kind of lock/trouble only. These harsh sessions show mirror to those daydreamers and confused lots who has any so called money management for their help. They can cross check their expertise on these sessions and innovate to better their approaches.

Quote from: ADulay on February 21, 2017, 04:19:49 PM
What does that mean?

AD

It means that you can reverse engineer a particular harsh case and find any MM workable for that case only but it is not possible for all the given cases. Anyone beating all the given sessions playing all over in a single well defined approach, is a guaranteed randomness and variance killer.

Your last progression was disastrous and it got proved right here by coding. If you can beat all these sessions with a single progression you are at par with me or even better. May God help you.

A nice democratic decision.

LAST SESSION: DT 24TH JAN 2017

WINS : 88
LOSSES:105

L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W


           

QuoteThey do not return the stake, which is on the table during disconection.

One can lose money only if a result comes. Usually result comes even when you get disconnected but you do not see that. I have even won in disconnection spins. Take a disconnection as a pause only and it can not do any other harm. It can not better or worsen the odds that are static. Rest is your luck only.

Try to do all with one predefined approach that you can play realistically.

I do not know what you did but any method can work on any particular bad looking case. If anything works to get a net profit is same ideas played all sessions, that is worth serious thought.

Quote from: ADulay on January 07, 2017, 06:12:19 PM
Albalaha,

  If I were to change those "W" and "L" to "Bank" and "Player" would the overall effect be the same?

  Thanks.

  AD

You can consider W to any EC and L to its counterpart like Bank and Player.

          An average regular player playing 3-4 hours twice a week religiously for over 30 years can see 3,75,000 spins approx. I test over this many spins in a day. I have been doing this for last 8 years, at least 300 days a year. Now you can count my experience versus an "old school player's". If you think this is an aggregation, I tested over 10 million spins with ophis within 3 days. I have dozens of bots and trackers made by Victor(VLS), madmax(michael),Ophis, Stef, Nickmsi and many others exclusively meant for me.
                        Experience alone doesn't matter unless one is educated enough to analyse the cause and effect. A patient suffering from an incurable disease may only feel the pain and troubles associated, he can not cure himself with his experience. Doing Harsh sessions is all about "not seeing pink only" and being aware of what can happen with you. Those claim to beat the game with merely their wise selections are either crook or ignorant. Every bloody player will face worst of times despite being the smartest behind around.

I play and simulate in excel. I try to pick the worst( in different types of challenges) sessions as Harsh and the point where I get at net profit session ends. A few sessions are imaginary too and a few provided by a friend. Few are so harsh that they can not appear realistically or in other words you need lots of extreme badluck to witness them.
          The motive behind compiling such diverse set of challenge is to see if my approach is really dynamic enough or not to handle all.

Harsh Session #28:
                                        87 Wins vs 105 Losses: Very tricky session


L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W

I can't locate the chat.

Ha Ha. It went repetitive and assertive hence closed.