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.

QuoteDid you know that in the phenomenon of the Elegant Pattern a sleeping dozen can sleep for more than 30 spins in a row? You can validate this for yourself if you want.

In my observation, the virtual limit of a dozen to sleep is upto 45 spins. I have done all these years back. http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-dispersionvariance#.V5GHOPl97IU

Quote1.) Do I need to be a clairvoyant to know that I'm in the middle of a common win streak? (Answer) No

Answer: Yes, definitely. You can only talk about the streak's length after it has passed. If you are at WWW, you can not say with any precision that it will last here with WWWL or go WWWWWWWW or WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Can you? Answer: No. That needs clairvoyant capabilities.

Quote from: Sputnik on July 21, 2016, 06:10:34 PM
Yes you can but i don't Selling any solution and will not talk more about the subject.
You can continue this topic and i will not be part of it.

Cheers

   Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.

I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.

Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.

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/