A promotion of Bet365. You win till you lose all system. It asks you to risk upto 50 units in a match to win a net profit by making 1 to 9 bets each at 10 minutes. Very bad. Kind of Martingale of Sports betting.

Law of large numbers, law of small numbers and Regression Towards the mean all have to be read together and not in isolation of each other.

Law of small numbers says that in a small sample size any type of bias is likely and variance can be monstrous with or against the player or house. It is very true when we see 25 streaks of Red or no hit of Black for 28 times in a sequence due to reds and 0s occupying all the hits.
Similarly, it can be very bad scenarios like only 24 hits of Red in last 100 spins or 65 only in last 200 spins. Pretty unbeatable with any of the progressions one can use and even 1 million chips are not enough to cover all the cases possible to win just one unit of profit.

Law of Large numbers says that in enough trials, the count of two EC counterparts will be somewhat equal to their mathematical expectancies.

Regression towards Mean says that after an extreme sample of variance, the next sample of equal length is more likely to not be so much biased and more likely to revert towards mean.

            All the three laws or theories are correct if read cautiously and we do not derive our own conclusions from them.

Regarding law of average, it is a pure fallacy that says, after bias towards an EC, gradually they achieve corrective wins and counts of both EC counterparts will be equal in a fair wheel.

           There is nothing like corrections. It may occur, it may not. Expecting corrective wins covering prior losses leads to play in the most erratic manner causing very big losses.

Asym,
             You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
               D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.

Thanks nick,
             Do you find any merit into that? Have you simulated that?

Can someone please point out what is so impressive or rather enticing about her posts? Anything worth noting?

There is nothing like temporary winning bet too. What has past already may entice you by showing patterns that seem to do great. All the patterns are fake and you can draw no sane inference out of what has just happened about what will happen now. Only exception is the virtual limits if you believe in them. If you believe that there will be 100s of Reds consecutive too, one day, nothing is then left for you, to predict, that way too.
              Any bet picked in any manner, carries the risk and that risk is same risk as it carries otherwise too. It is all about odds and house edge and all volatility comes from randomness via variance.

Yes. Anybody talking of a bet to be better or the best is either a naive or a crooked person. Every bet on roulette covers a portion of the wheel. Its win:loss are thereby proportional too. In a random game, we will always see wild and wilder scatter and clusters and nothing can predict when they will behave in what manner.
         Even bets looking very dashing at the moment can go bad immediately when you bet on them. Hot, cold, sleepers, repeaters, opposite last, same as last or all these are just fanciful ways to pick a probability which is always constant.
        Whichever bet you pick by any magical formula, it can not be a Constant Winning bet in any manner, by itself. Correct use of MM can though make any bet a CWB in the long run.

More later......

What is the idea Priyanka is talking of? Links or any brief will do. Priyanka is qualified in maths and I had an opportunity to talk to her in length in a chat. She had good insights but if they can translate to getting wins in the long run is yet to be seen.

This topic has been moved to Albalaha's Exclusive.

http://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=1693.0

Quote from: greenguy on April 15, 2016, 03:53:19 AM
Not so naive.

I have an advanced knowledge of progressions and their frailties.

You just don't see the big picture, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining any further.

Your suggested progression explains your capabilities clearer than anything. You better not elaborate or explain them as they need no explanation being proven failures. Further, if you consider knowing this as advanced knowledge only a non human can have an inferior knowledge. 

Quote from: greenguy on April 14, 2016, 09:56:39 PM
45 losses in a row can cost my progression as little as 127 units. Not too much to recoup.

All progressions have a sweet spot that should not be overstepped.IMO

      It seems you are pretty naive about progressions. Even a progressions as simple as 1-2-4 a three step marty that Pattern Breaker used for ECs or 1.1.2.3 of yours for dozens equally harms and fails. Come out of these sick progressions that are meant for even faster losses. Even if you play a simple 1-2 on ECs it will have the same fate.

Quote from: ozon on April 14, 2016, 06:34:14 PM
In my post I write about positive d'Alembert, raising the stakes after Win,  decrease after Lose

Doesn't make any difference in troubled sessions. Try that to convince yourself.

QuoteIf you know that negative progressions are not working, maybe we'll try positive on these bad sessions, we use safe breaks after 3 L in wait for a virtual W
Progression is positive, after Win +1, -1 after Lose
Always we reset the progressions when we are on plus

    This is another classic failure progression called D'alembert. Had winning be so easy with +1/-1 every body will do that without hesitation. This is not a positive progression either. A positive progression only increases at a win like Oscar's grind or Parlay.
        A positive progression believes in getting "corrective" streaks after a bad span which you may not get in real play. No positive progression is proved to work and even with a bet as large as a million, it may not win a net profit. Simulate that to understand it better.

QuoteThe 9 steps I use are  1.1.2.3.4.7.10.15.28

This is as much a failure as a 9 step martingale on an EC or rather even easier. A dozen can sleep even upto 45 spins and you can not create any push to win progression that can beat such spans. Even one such loss become irreparable and hence totally impractical.[/size]

Quote from: soxfan on April 14, 2016, 01:54:27 AM
Exactly, the deep negative progression allow you to withstand the extreme deviation from the close to 50-50 outcome. And my style allow me to win well, and regular even if I only win 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bets, hey hey.

           It is not even possible with martingale, in long term. Can your progression withstand any of the horror sessions?