Ladies and Gentlemen,
               Indeed a case of 25 wins in 100 trials is not beatable. Same goes to 66/200. There may be a few isolated situations in those wins which may lead to win by a particular MM plan but if anybody claims to beat all types of 25/100 or 66/200, he is either very ignorant or a fraud.

Old Faulty progressions that we see relied upon very false assumptions and hence fail. If we ever encounter 25/100 or 66/200, only way to not doom is keep betting low. Never try to guess the number of wins that you will get and even if we presume 25/100 or 66/200 as limits, they can not be beaten by any MM plan with all scatters and clusters possible.

You are using a 200 years old joke called Martingale with a little pinch of salt and claiming to win any 25/100 or 66/200 situation

Quotealbalaha, earn it, sum it or whatever your name is,

1) Post a session with 25 wins out of 100 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.

2) Post a session with 66 wins out of 200 results and distribute those wins and losses anyway you like.

Then I'll show you what's the meaning of this topic.

Are you ready?

I'm waiting...

and later running  away from the same in just one little unfavorable case. Hilarious.[/size]

You have nothing that even work slightly. First you proposed a delayed martingale that will go till infinite without winning at one point of time. Anybody can simulate that. Now you came up with even worse idea that can easily lead you to a loss of few millions in just one bad drag.

               Just one bad win followed by many losses will cause irreparable losses. Reverse engineering a progression in some particular favorite situations led us to martingale and labby type failed ideas already, do not make more comical versions of that.

I am talking of a progression that doesn't lose too huge while a bad stretch like 66/200 is encountered but later when things go near normal, we stand to win. That is the core of this debate.

It will indeed bust as HP Johnson does. If you guys look at my sessions done, all big bets came at the last since the creator of the progression had prior knowledge of the number of wins, so it tried to win back all at last with even thousands of chips. It is as much foolish progression as martingale and doesn't help at all.
                    HP Johnson was too much boasted upon roulette30 forum and none cared to understand the fact that it is merely a flat betting to begin with, a normal labouchere in the middle and it ends with a martingale that if went a little bad could take millions of chips to win one. It just needs a bad beginning and a bad last win to doom without any limit.

My verdict: It is a fool's gold. Even worse than BA's delayed martingale.

If someone tries to make good an unfortunate last win that sucked thousands of units without winning, it won't work either.

Wow!!!!!!!!
         No reply to this session? It seems the system busted finally.

Nice decision. If it doesn't help in earning even for the site hosting, why promote them at the cost of irritating visitors?

One more session: 25/100            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
W            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
L            
W            

Paulnewman's method can be coded in excel and verified as it is mathematical. BA's method is similar but why ME changes periodically is a mystery which only he can describe best.

@programmers, please try.

In the second session, your ME went upto 44 correctly. Then it shot to 86 for unknown reasons. Later after 66 it again rose to 99. Can you explain?

Dear Blue Angel,
        Are you sure it is a mechanical way to play? I can see that in first session u played with 1 unit for about 30 spins. In 2nd session you played with 1 unit for too long. Can you describe how a method is being played actually and how do you calculate your next bet?

Thanks in anticipation
and Kudos for trying to fight with extreme.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 21, 2016, 08:36:23 AM
I said 66 wins out of 200 results, not 64.

Add two more wins anywhere u prefer after first 11 wins and then try.

Quote from: soxfan on March 20, 2016, 06:47:36 PM
With my style I could capture regular nice profit winning just 16.6666666666 percents of my placed bet, depending of course how those w/l cluster, hey hey.

even Oscar's Grind wins in 20 losses vs 6 wins

LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL WWWWW W

BUT it doesn't make it a winner in 17% wins in different styles, hence useless.

We can't get wins in our desired way, hence something working in different varieties is needed.

Regression towards mean starts to help with further wins going closer to average gradually but we can't guess the span after which it should start to work in our favour and that is why we need to think of longer like 500 or even 1000 spins progression to win at last. We might not win all types of 25/100 or 66/200 but for sure the worst of 1000,i.e. 405/1000.

Quote
From 25 wins out of 100 results we are arriving on the next interval of 66 wins out of 200 outcomes.
Let's assume that the first 100 and the next 100 are from the same session, 25/100 is 25% while 66/200 is 33%.

As you see from the first checkpoint to the next there is an increasement of 8% (33-25=8).
We could expect a similar increasement (8%) within the next set of 100 results which means approximately 40% of 300 outcomes or 120 wins VS 180 losses.

It's becoming apparently clear that regression towards the mean takes place after extreme deviations, so by expanding the event's horizon we're moving closer towards the mean and in return help us to recover smoothly.

This is where the solution lays and could be applicable in practical terms (within limits of time and money)

Very true and this is what we need to work upon as a progression of long run. Let's see if  your methodology works to beat this 64/200 with same idea.

First of all, I appreciate blue angel's efforts but to cross check if his same progression holds in a lesser harsh 64/200 or not I am giving another session. If the same methodology beats this session too, it is worth checking since even marty or labby would have failed to win this session even with much higher bets.
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W