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?

Quote from: BetJack on April 13, 2016, 06:42:14 PM
Hello
From reading through the pages I conclude that ...
Albalaha dislikes Negative progression ....
and all of them are wrong....
so if you change direction....
We will get...
a Long Run Positive Progression ...
Maybe if someone can make ...
this kind of animal....

It is not like that. Negative progressions can help but not in the way they have been used considering only short run. If one can prepare a negative progression considering odds of the long run, he is more likely to succeed as long run results are more likely to be closer to the mean. For example, due to the house edge, in 1000 spins, Red or black are likely to hit approx 486 times but due to the extreme run of variance against it may lead it to hit 10% lesser, i.e. (486-48)=438 times, one should still be able to win. That is the core idea.

Quote from: Azim on April 13, 2016, 07:29:43 AM
Ignore his. Look at the explanation by Gizmo.

You can't extract anything practically usable from this. If you can, please show us.