Interesting, Gizmotron. If you think you can gain in a random game by just playing at right time, that too without any MM, that would be a mechanical Advantage Play. Logically, I don't think it is possible but would love to be proved wrong. Your idea can be proved/disproved only through simulations on a long random data with any tracker. Do you have anything?

QuoteI asked you the same questions. You give nothing.

I provided MMs with any system I talked of. Indeed MM is what makes any bet profitable. I read both of your books Kimo. There is no MM.

There is a strong reason for picking "Player" in baccarat that you can read here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400640/Why-Banker-is-the-wrong-choice-for-progression-play#.V577zdycHIU

        MM is the trickiest thing and makes all the difference. Ironically, I never saw any MM that is made considering a wide variety of probabilities we can face in a session. You need to create one yourself or choose among the existing ones that looks safer to you.

I see this tendency for years or since I start to think of baccarat or roulette. People came up with complex looking bets that needs microscopic eyes, long excel sheets, complex formulae or miles of tracking to get our bet. Even I went into the same path, for sure when I was to find the bet that is better than all other. Many gave me illusion of being finer for a short period and later when evaluated that long enough,found that it was only equal to a randomly picked bet only. No difference.
                 I would like to point out some of the very complex looking bets that gave no real advantage to any but kept delusion in minds of the  readers that oh, it is something different and unique and will help for sure.
           First I would start with GUT, a deemed big thing in online forums. It gave a theory of a crossing of some hit and unhit numbers and to extract the numbers therefrom to bet. Even creator of the system could not clarify the exact way of using that. No appropriate MM were ever suggested that can help. Ophis simulated the same and declared a big loser as anything else.

   I saw Martin Blakey book and his method of betting different bets in steps of if first fails bet second and then third. A bit complex to use but still easier than GUT. Mr. Blakey was alive and joined some forums and I asked how all these can help in random betting and if he is ready to prove his point by simulations. He said, I won with this all my life but you may not. Enough to understand.

  Then came the king of optical illusions over roulette wheel--Kimo Li. He taught us nukes, stars, pies, boomrang, bowtie and what not on the wheel itself. I asked him some plain questions, how does these images or any of them help to win and if he has any appropriate MM to help. He did not answer much and tried to avoid being straight.

           Then I saw our superstar of complex bets, Johnlegend and his pattern breaker and hilarious 7 on 1 which were based on the assumption that if a pattern is the last possible pattern of that length, it may not hit as easily. I myself simulated both his methods and that proved too silly to try.

I had my own silly complex set of bets too. My favorite was the best two numbers that kept me busy for about 2 years. It looked good but had the same set of troubles as any other bet. In my earlier, "finest method to defeat roulette" that became talk of the town in rf.cc in Victor's time, I relied too much upon repeaters in a particular span. It had trackings but not too complex. We just needed to see the marquee and bet every number that came twice there expecting to come for third or more times. Although my complex betting had a difference. I suggested MMs too to handle the worst cases and never claimed anything to win flat or suggested any martingale.
           I worked on Latest 18 unique numbers considering that better than any EC bet and trying to get advantage from "sleeper" numbers. Believe me, all these doesn't work. I can confirm this and challenge anybody to disprove me.

                  Recently saw, lots of hue and cry over VDW, an old idea of picking non-random bets started by my friend Nick. Although he doesn't have a claim that it will be better than 50:50 but some of his tests and tests of one of my another buddy Audiokinesis over No Zero wheel are making ripples in the forum's pond.

                  No amount of tracking, codifying, sorting, unsorting, filtering, calculating can give us any idea of any bet that can do better when we start to bet that. Since we need to bet on any bet, we can pick that in any style and I am not saying all these betselections are foolish but they won't give us any advantage in long run, I am 100% sure of that.
                       
                               One of the wisest guys in forums, Mark (known as gizmotron) does have claims of identifying patterns and gaining advantage therefrom. I am not sure if anything like that even exists. His ideas are either too complex to understand and use or he failed to demonstrate how exactly one needs to play that.
                        If someone asks me what would I like to play in roulette as my bet, I would say any EC bet. In baccarat, I would bet only Player.

More Later.....

Knowledge of science and maths help us to understand the power of nature and life and to make it better.

Just blaming people with the knowledge of maths offer no solution as they can prove themselves right again and again while you can not prove the same. Mathematics of gambling, the house edge, variance etc won't change for you, you need to change other aspects of the strategy that have been killing the player. Ironically, people like to redo fallacy based ideas than thinking something out of box. Martingale did not work 300 years back and won't work after 3000 more years.

@ Blue Angel,
            I have tried this with ophis tracker many times. No real benefit over millions of spins tests. We risk 35 units to win 1 unit and never know if we will get to win 35 units till a loss kills all. Long simulations prove this wrong. I have done this thinking your way, far early.

          Ball has no memory to either give any of the two left outs or leave them. This doesn't change the probability of the game.

Rather, you can bet any 35 numbers same way and expect the same outcome.
               No betselection proved to be better than all other in long simulations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
           There is no need to be overexcited with this method. Audiokinesis was at -621 after one million placed bets in No Zero Roulette. It means, they have ignored the 10% house fees charged periodically by the casino for letting you play no zero roulette. Whenever one is in a net win 10% can be deducted in a given span and not after millions of spins pass. This makes things further horrible and lesser rewarding and the real net will be deeper in loss than they calculated so far. I assume there is a loss of atleast 5k if proper calculation is made. Same goes with Nick's tests. Ignoring House fees calculation is a blunder worth looking very seriously.

Betvoyager looks most balanced to me in all regards and I do not hesitate to play their RNG roulette and other games after Bayes confirmed that SHA-254 mechanism used by bv is un-parallel and absolute safe. Excellent table spread is another reason I can vouch for betvoyager.

15th Harsh Session:
                      142 Losses vs 120 wins


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

Good Job again, Janos,
                  Now check Harsh sessions #1 to 10 too the same way and publish reports with graphs.

If at one million placed bet you were at -621, it is still attacking the house edge and better than anything else tested mechanically and flat bet but not a winner system. Do you think you can better it with our own progressions?

@Auduiokinesis @Janos,

        What is the net you achieved in over 1 million placed bet? is it a 1 unit 2 unit play or entirely 1 unit game?
Have u calculated 10% house fees from net winnings too for playing no zero roulette? It is crucial.

Great Job, Audiokinesis @ Janos,
                  You have been my best student so far and a real hardworking guy. It looks great to see you using different tweaks to better things. You can definitely play better than most members/guests here but you need to polish your skills a bit more. Even I am doing a lot of work to make things as better as possible.
                Doing so much varieties of harsh sessions, you learn a lot of skills and graduate to be a sensible player. Anybody winning net profit over all these have positive chances to be ahead in real play.
                             

Nick,
      Winning so many placed bets(82,000), that too flat is kind of unseen for any mechanical way to play. I hope there is no serious error in coding giving false hopes. Too good to be true. Coupled with a better MM, it can earn much more.