Horror Session: 7th..   W=45, L=60


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

Ironically, people are still into a delusion that there will be a magical way of picking bets that will give any kind of advantage by itself. Never going to happen. Wake up guys.

Quote from: Tomla on June 02, 2016, 03:36:49 PM
aren't you selling a progression?

         Increasing or decreasing bets alone, be it mild or harsh doesn't help winning an uncertain series of events. Money management could mean a lot than just increasing and decreasing bets and it should be able to explain reasons for whatever change and volume it suggests.

    You have a lot to learn still, baldy.

Quote from: Tomla on June 02, 2016, 03:36:49 PM
aren't you selling a progression?

I sold you some knowledge too that you kept paying for two years till you got my best, paid for that for a while and later you became smarta**.
  Gladly, I am not giving anybody any chance to ditch me anymore swearing upon his kids. I believe you might not have forgotten me and my lessons, if you have even a bit of humanity still inside you.

Because they were created on false premises and assumptions than realities of the game like virtual limit of variance, table limits that a casino will offer realistically and a realistic bankroll. Martingale, Fibonacci, Labouchere and all their cousines were created ignoring all. Needless to say, they are bound to do irreparable damage in just one failure and even two- three successive failures could be seen too.
These progressions can beat any probability that could come in the game provided we have trillions of chips to risk for winning 1 and no table limits too. Nice fantasy!!!!!

D'alembert: This classical comedy of +1/-1 were done assuming law of averages to be true and getting compensatory wins later. Further, it believes in equilibrium while in reality house edge makes it impossible to have equilibrium for any EC in the long run. Even without a house edge there may not be an equilibrium so long one can play.

Oscar's Grind: This assumes there will be cluster of wins after cluster of losses and hence increasing only in wins and same as last after losses considered safe while in reality, it doesn't hold. There may be a good cluster, there may be none.

HP Johnson: This absolute hilarious illusion made many buffoons jump with Eureka while it is merely Flat bet to begin, Labouchere when string gets shorter and an ugly martingale at last. If you are not lucky enough to get all the wins at last very organized way, it finishes too bad.

More later.........

QuotePerhaps I will try this with other progressions like Sumit's hibrid type progressions (like standard hybrid, unbeatable hyb. or unbeatable ultramild hyb.) with or without base bet increments, substituted with load balancing, load shedding.

Who are you and how do you know all these ? I shared this with Nick and two more guys only.

@Jake,
        First of all you should not be interested in gambling alone as you stated to earn only E300 a month that is barely sufficient to feed you. Gambling is meant for affluent class people who has "extra" money and time for this.

Edit: This is for Betjack and not for Jake if both are different.
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400619/Who-may-gamble-and-who-should-not#.V0rQP_l97IU

           Anyways, your questions are wise enough and deserves answers:
Max bet: It is rare to get over 25 units but upto 50 units of max bet could be possible in different scenarios.
Max DD: I would ask to quit for the day if losses reach -300 units a day.

QuoteIs the system completely mechanical? Some systems have a discretionary element which gives a seller a get-out clause, so if the system fails then the seller can blame the player for not playing it right. If it depends on guessing or "experience"

Yes, it is purely mechanical with all rules very clear and no ambiguity. The system has no guarantee of "no loss ever possible". Although the entire methodology takes care of various types of variance yet there can be sessions where one loses 300 units. If you happen to get that much rarity in successive days somehow, you can lose the entire lifetime bankroll of 3000 units as well. Too remote and weird but not impossible mathematically. Understanding what randomness can offer is the core of positive gambling.

In my simulations, we earn in the ratio of our bets placed. Say we bet only 150 spins in 1000, we need to see the real ratio there. We can earn 1 to 3 units per 10 bets placed. Any estimation is estimation only as every session could be a very different story from the other. Remember, we are not playing all over, for the sake of ultimate safety.

No betselection gives you any edge by itself. I do not want to repeat that again and again.

We do not know beforehand the number of wins vs losses we will get, it is also a blunt truth. My methodology tries to avoid the worst and then survive if we still get the worse and tries to win back after that phase passes and we get close to average. The session may end in 50 spins or it may drag for upto 500 spins.

Price will subject to the existing knowledge and skill that the buyer has already. Asking price will be my prerogative and buying or not will be buyer's. I need not answer this to trolls and buffoons of the forum who write no positive topic that adds any value to the forum. This is not for rookies or daydreamers or frustrated players lurking here and there to find a panacea. It is an approach to play that makes a player a perfect gambler who has much more chances to win than lose a session and in overall. To play this way, will be possible for the toughest of players. A hasty player will not be able to use this module.

              This method keeps in mind the following principals:
1. Law of small numbers: anything is possible in very short span. Many smarta** players claim otherwise but in reality none can control the outcome of the game. It could be very harsh momentarily beyond the capacity of any MM to get a win there.

2. Law of large numbers: In large run, things get to normalcy in overall.

3. Regression towards mean: After a very highly skewed stretch the next stretch is more likely to be closer to the mean value(average). There is a big problem in the application of this theory though. We can not determine the stretch after which regression should work but my Positive gambling module has a way to optimize this too.

4. Extreme Variance management: I have some parameters that try to remove the worst of worst sessions from our plays. If the worst still creeps in, we can still survive and win back without betting too huge.

I thought you started to hate me for selling this module but anyways, I answer you. 3000 units are lifetime bankroll and only a maximum of 300 units buy-in could be required in any session. If someone dreams of bending the casino with 10-20 chips, he is only fooling himself. 300 units is meant for extreme of the extreme cases. It is a kind of ultimate stop loss that is very rare(even the 6 horror sessions did not get that) but not impossible. Similarly, it is not impossible to even lose lifetime bankroll if someone gets unlucky in every day of his play. It is although as much remote as getting 30 reds in a row.

I hope it should be enough for you.

I opened this topic if anybody has any query regarding that. Trolls and buffoons please avoid writing here and they are free to make their own topics anywhere else.

You are doing a single session in three ways so far. It is what we call reverse engineering.

Blue Angel did claim like you and later we got to know how hollow his method was. Unless you tell how you arrived those results, it is of 0 value. If you do not want to do that here, I will delete your posts having no substance. Show those graphs somewhere else.

I play online and I feel I am in casino 24x7. Thanks.