QuoteFor example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.

wow!! havenly revelation.From where did u get this wisdom?
nothing in past can indicate anything about future. Anything else you learnt is pretty fallacious.

and even if you know there will be atleast 4  wins in the next 24 spins, you can't win then by knowing that.

Dear BA,
  Even I had a similar approach earlier for my positive gambling module as you can still read that but after lots of introspection I found that:
1. No waiting can give you very good time later. Even if you wait for 10 successive losses and play just 1 spin thereafter, u will still get the same amount of wins/losses as in a random game. So why wait?

2. No trigger can safeguard you from getting tough long stretches of losses or below average number of wins. So why wait?


      Only exception to this is, if you attack a virtual limit by waiting for its 70%-80% going virtually and then attacking with a brute force do or die progression. As you can see here: http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/hg-for-baccarat-and-all-even-chances-bets-for-free/

Hence playing after 3SD doesn't offer any advantage by itself.

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 21, 2016, 03:58:31 AM
Wayyy you deleted my post in your blog harsh session about the harsh treatment you are getting over at GF.

Nice suicidal way to make an entry on a gambling forum Ali. 

You can't get away with things over there, like you can here.  I'm surprised soxfan hasn't joined up yet, he'd be drunk as a skunk and out of cashews in no time, the entertainment is boss.  There is a tab linking the site on the home page of this forum (hey hey)..

@Markteruya,
              This is not GF where you can speak anything. Being oversmart and speaking foul could land you in trouble here. If you think I have deleted any post of yours from my topic and that is very important for you to talk of, start a new topic of your own. In this forum, none is allowed to forcibly enter other's bathroom and piss there. None is exception to this, even me.

My style require 300 units stoploss in worst of the worst cases. Hey Hey.
3000 units is lifetime bankroll. Hey!Hey!

Nice suicidal way to play.

QuoteThis session is easy to win, you only hit 3.0 SD once or 14 contra 2
And 15 contra 2 once which is 3.15 SD - nothing extreme about that sequense, very common.

He is caculating the SD wrong and don't understand that the imbalance happend within a window around 16 to 25 events or you skip that particular imbalance.

              Which book of maths you refer that tell u it is only 3.0 SD?
65 hits of an EC in 200 spins is 4.5 SD below mean, one of the toughest situation ever recorded in ECs.

It is easy to win? Show us how u can win this easily playing every spin.

Session #13: This may be the worst one ever seen:

    446 Losses vs  354 wins

ONLY 65 WINS IN FIRST 200 SPINS
NEXT 200 SPINS BRING 89 WINS ONLY
NEXT 100 SPINS GOT 46 WINS ONLY
NO BIG WINNING STREAK EVER TO HELP with compare to losing streaks




outcome
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L'
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W

Making a plan to beat a particular data after seeing that, finding its peculiar weaknesses is what we call as "reverse engineering". That is no way to go ahead. Every session is different and every session pose a different set of challenge. The degree of variance may vary too. All these are not important. By putting a variety of variance through tough sessions(where losses surpass their natural ratio)we try to see if we can actually do with any idea in "not so good" cases too.
                 In two of my topics, viz. "anybody think..." and "Harsh sessions.." both one can see in my section I compiled various sessions touching even the boundary line of virtual limits and hardships that we keep facing time to time. I believe that these sessions together could make a nice compilation of "acid test" for any EC system. Unless a method can surpass most of them without needing tonnes of chips, that is no method.

SESSION #12: 

                              138 LOSSES VS 109 WINS



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

It seems you are too much into counting SDs and playing that way. May look good as you get betting opportunities after too many spins, the way you want, even if you track a few dozens bets together. So, to see the bets being devastated with whatever MM you use, u need to simulate with high end tracker capable to track millions of spins.

Playing after super harsh times have two in-buit disadvantages:
1. It gets you negligible spins to bet in, practically not doable in any real casino
2. Even if you chose 3 SD below mean as an  opportunity to start, it can not guarantee winning flat or with most of the MMs known.
3. It will still have all the troubles that comes in all over play. Only thing by your side is the virtual limit.

  I did work a lot in "Regression towards Mean". While it is a statistical truth but the difficulty in using that practically is we can never guess the span where regression will start to work. We can rather get disillusioned with pseudo temporary regression as well.

Answer is here:
http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/why-progressions-fail-to-make-a-difference/

@Sputnik,
         There is a virtual limit by our observations but there is no absolute limit to what can happen in succession. A very unusual looking streak or say 5 SD below mean may look too remote to happen but it can happen any moment without anybody can guess its arrival.
We can count SDs as per our own convenience in any span but it doesn't help much, in real play.

Quote from: NathanDetroit on July 17, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
Bet selection for EC like  either  Black OR Red requires  the ultimate of a  skill that one would not think  of. It is not a  bet selection for long term play and  even SHORT term requires that type of a skill better left to  experienced pros.


Nathan Detroit

          No betselection can put you in a state of permanent advantage whatever manner you choose that. It will still have the worst and the best moments and everything in-between.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 17, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
By the way, I've made a profit of 12 units from that fictitious session with max drawdown of 245 units and 64 units max bet.

3 hits for an EC  within 37 successive outcomes ONLY in Albahala's world!!

Oh really!!!
            I never met more ignorant gambler ever.

Quote from: ozon on July 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM
If you play against RNG, even BV no zero you see this type of sessions, they are bordering on virtual limits, RNG play against you.

I totally beg to differ here, Ozon. Rather, betvoyager is the only casino that can guarantee no foul play and complete randomness.
If you do not trust me, you may trust Bayes on this. See reply number 6 here: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1045.0

You failed to win in the long run test as you based your strategy on false notions as blue angel did when he thought a 37 step delayed martingale can beat any session under the sun. He needed streak of wins after streak of losses which may not always come before it is too late. You did something similar and lost in randomly picked normal session.