I may not be competent enough to read randomness and predict anything on the basis that you are elaborating but I am kind of very convinced that gambling is all about speculations and never about predictions in a short session. In a very large span, things go very close to the expected average but one may not play considering that in a session. So, the most practical way that I consider is having a dynamic MM that can adjust to all the good and worse times in the best possible manner.

QuoteIn a 200 spin session you will see more than 50 six in a rows, 10 eight in a rows, and 2 fifteen in a rows of singles or sleeper opportunities.

It is only as good as saying in 100 spins you should get 48/49 blacks and reds and rest 0. What should happen averagely may not happen while you play. It could go better or worse.

All money management approaches(be it progression, regression or flat betting) are tailor made to handle one type of situation only and disastrous in adverse cases making them  fool's gold.

             For example a ten step progression can handle a 10% hit rate and super variance like:
LLLLL LLLLW LLLLL LLWLL LLLLL LLW
but one incident of ten step loss like LLLLL LLLLL will kill this cleverass idea. Same holds true with all other progressions known to mankind. Flat bet winning is making castle in the air only.

Mild progression works best but even that is not enough by itself to handle all varieties of variance. Gizmo's claim of identifying opportunities is a bit vague. In my humble opinion we can not identify any opportunities. By seeing WWWW, we can't say if it will go any further or end right there. Both are equally likely and house edge/house fees is still there to worsen things.

In my many years of research upon various sides of gambling, I found one conclusive thing:

Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.

             Ironically, all old school progressions and betselections(I do not think one can pick better bets with any methodology) are so much foolish that trying any of them is pretty childish. Every progression designed either fails easily or earn slowly till it loses all. I wonder that how come progression creators of Martingale, Labouchere, D'alembert etc  deserved to be called mathematicians.

If anybody is even slightly serious about gambling and earning from there or atleast not losing huge, working on handling all sorts of variance with least harm is the only prudent thing to be done.
 
   All talks of oldschool ideas are mere wastage of time.

Harsh Session #23:

147 losses vs 117 wins (very painful and tricky session)


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

Harsh Session #22:
      Losses=57, Wins=49 (bad start and later average)

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

Harsh Session # 21:

    60 Wins  vs 80 losses:

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

It is easier said than done to compound in a game of negative expectations. Practically, playing one number could be the most painful and foolish way to play in 2-3 hours of real casino play.

Trying to curve fit a given data is not a wise idea. Different set of 15k may have very different scatter or wins of a number. Only that strategy is good strategy that can be played all over with all the rules being consistent. Making one way to play for one set of data is like fooling yourself. No wonder none could do my challenge in any sane manner.

How much was the % of success on 17th predictions? Can topic starter or anybody point out? Anybody followed the tips?

Playing a single number could be practically the worst choice and a perfect no, in real casino environment. Unless one has patience to keep playing thousands of spins to conclude a game, it is not recommended.
           For better understanding what can we get to see playing a single number by any parameters one can see the fate of #3 of zumma in http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/albalaha's-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/

You can chose to waste many hundred hours on searching for anything that is called stable always but there is none which is stable all the times. Wrong expectations will only worsen your way to play and research. Talk of a wise strategy to face the worst than trying to magically find a bet that doesn't harass ever.

Quote from: zuffle on June 20, 2016, 03:00:24 AM
The problem with saying systems will fail in the long run is defining the long run.  If my system works for me for 50 years and I die, was it successful in the long run?  It was for me, my run is over.

Check the link in my last post. I have already defined the long run.

Wong,
Your or my strategy doesn't affect randomness and thereby no way to bet is better than others. Bets with larger coverage gets stable sooner but a dozen not hitting 30 spins is not better than a single number not hitting for 300 spins.