In a major breakthrough, I have redone the positive gambling module to be fit to be played in all over. I have realised that no trigger makes the game absolute safer and waiting for too remote triggers to bet is not so wise, in real play. Special care has been given to take care of too bad cases that will show more often than not in all over play but it is still doable.
                           Now, one can sit and play without waiting for any trigger or pausing anywhere. Ideal for real casino environment. Could be used in roulette as well in baccarat. The stop loss of -300 will still be applicable. I believe we can still surpass most of the sessions(even harsh ones) than not.

14TH HARSH SESSION:

                126 LOSSES VS 103 WINS.
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W

QuoteAttached is what today's statistical testing has produced for me. Two different but similar VDW statistics used, both produced profits flat betting after 100,000 spins. However, the one on the right had about twice the profit and a Z-score of 2.5 with over 35,000 placed bets so I will use that one as the baseline to test future statistical anomalies.

100k spins doesn't matter but only placed bets does.
How much did it win flat bet?
OK, I see 200+ and 400+

so, if in 100k spins we generate this much units, do u think is good enough?

Can you simulate a few more sessions the same way?

This recalls me to the famous/infamous Pattern Breaker.Betting anything doesn't change the probability. You can neither change odds nor can you avoid tricky/bad stretches. Therefore, picking any COMPLEX looking betselection doesn't help by itself. It is only as good as playing RED.

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 26, 2016, 07:32:07 AM
You omitted "skilled croupiers" (house burners).

If you haven't come across them or don't believe they exist, then you haven't gambled in B&M casinos enough, or play at a level that they just don't care.   

             I do not go for voodoo type ideas and look only for mechanical ways to play roulette/baccarat that can be played online too.

Captain,
             This compilation of harsh sessions came from trackers as I said earlier. IF you did not see 17 losses in a row ever, either you did not play enough or have never tested any method on simulators/excel sheets. I have personally faced streak of 20+ losses many times playing online and in real casinos too I witnessed that. I have done over 100 million simulations on various methods with trackers from over a  dozen programmers. Such streaks are nothing extraordinary. You can see the extremes here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-dispersionvariance#.V5b9b_l97IU

In my experience, people lose to casino due to two main reasons:
1. they are not prepared for unfavorable sessions
2. They lose huge in such cases blaming their luck.

I am not asking anyone to do these sessions and showcase. One can use these sessions as acid test for any method.
Those who are not interested can move to other topics. If someone tries to mock me, I will delete the worthless replies from my topic to keep it streamlined. It is within my authority. My topics are not meant for meaningless chit chats.

Quote from: esoito on July 25, 2016, 06:50:35 AM
Nope. I could see no evidence of "foul mouth".

[Nor any dogs either, come to that.]

They are doing mudslinging and namecalling openly and you can't see that. Wow!!!
I made a few reports earlier too failing on deaf ears earlier.
     Two three members deliberately enter my topics and start calling adjectives that I either need to delete or report and I see only one warning so far to Mark Tureya.

Captain,
             How a difficult session came for an EC doesn't matter much as it is not upto your wish. When I shown #3 of Zumma none could do anything on that too. The crow has selected a tiny portion of the session by God know which algorithm.

               The purpose of putting harsh sessions is to see if we can pass through tough times with one predefined strategy as we have absolutely no control over what will come as L and W and in which cluster or scatter. We need to bet each decision and not trying to be smart here " I would have not played this" or "such harshness isn't possible in my bet" etc.
         These sessions are extracted from a long excel tracker having nearly 23 kinds of EC bets. I never bothered to collect numbers as they do not matter to me in EC betting.

P.S>: There is some foul mouth dogs barking in each topic of mine doing mudslinging and namecalling intentionally. Administrative crew can check the deleted posts here. I have reported many of them. If Administration finds that language OK, I will reciprocate too as I did in gamblingforums.

I am not demanding anything from you. If you can't understand LW is enough to work upon showing working of any MM, relax and let it be like this. A few others can work as it is on this. I don't need to prove you anything and you are not being requested to do anything in specific. Move on.

LW is sufficient to work out any strategy for an EC bet or even other bets. If we are betting even bet every spin, be it 2 or 32 or 12 or 22 doesn't matter but LW.
             However, if someone needs it as inside numbers to be worked with any tracker, just replace the Ls to 1 and Ws to 2 or vice versa.

If he is talking of providing LWs with their spin numbers, that one can easily insert in excel.

Put it in excel. It would be easy to handle then.

Any taker of 13th session?

QuoteLuck is when the good preparation meets the proper opportunity...!

Nice thought for motivation but luck may be defined as when a person gets great time without deserving.

Gambling is not about luck, in long run. Odds are set in stone to favor the house. Limited bankroll and fallacious methods(from players' side)
make it easier for casinos to make someone empty.
             No strategy maker ever talks of long run effects. When one starts they say, we won't live in long run etc. Result: newer fallacious unripe, untested methods and gossips around that. 99% of talks on gambling forums belong to the same.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 23, 2016, 11:22:13 PM
Not surprised about that, I've always stated that the most brilliant gambling experts are roulette researchers; actually the only person here who seem to have found one possible way to beat baccarat is a roulette expert.

as.

  and who is that expert?

Sorry buddy,
              I do not find most of the members even talking of sense. Most are taking dip still in age old proven failure fallacies. Sputnik claimed that playing after 3 SD is advantageous, I asked how. He gave example of if 16 spins have 1 win next 24 will have atleast 4 more.

First, it is a fallacious thinking in itself. We can't determine these things by observations. 4/24 is rare by itself but in no way it is a virtual limit.
Even if we take it as one, how will you beat each case of 4/24? He got no answer and ran away. Would you mind answering?

Playing after a very bad stretch is no guarantee of great times ahead or even average ones. It is always like playing all over, in terms of probability. You can not bypass the harshness of randomness by opting to play at time A or time X. It will be as random as ever.

Similarly, Gizmotron tried to preach that he can identify a streak, if it is a start or middle or end. This statement is another poor fallacy. If I see WWW, we can't say it will go WWWL or WWWWWWW or WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ahead. Anybody claiming to "sense" future is either a fool or a crook.

Anybody claiming to use patterns in making is either a fool or crook.

Anybody claiming to win a game of house edge flat or without risk of any loss is a fool or a crook.
In lesser harsh words, he may be an ignorant fellow incapable of simulating ideas in long run.