Quote from: Mike on March 20, 2016, 12:40:18 PM
So why don't YOU? In my experience most gamblers are utterly clueless about the math, they don't even know what the house edge means.

If you understood the math you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to find the "perfect" progression, or asking others to help you find it.

  I believe in working to better things and not in whining that it is unbeatable like Michael Shackleford and yet he refers casinos to join with his referral links to earn commission which is much more in the nature of a shameless exercise.
      I believe in out of box innovation to make things better. If I believe the game to be unbeatable why would I be in a gambling forum? Why are you here in a gambling forum after knowing there is no hope?

      A perfect progression needs lots of working, improvements and re working and winning in long run is not impossible. I beaten over 10 million spins earlier to prove this. That was based upon calculations that were not humanly possible. I want to better that.

Quote from: Mike on March 20, 2016, 12:07:16 PM
So what? Your reply is disingenuous; there is a huge amount of useful information for gamblers on his site, and he has exposed a number of unfair gambling practices over the years. More to the point, he doesn't mislead gamblers into thinking that there is some magic system or progression which will overcome the house edge in NE games.

The affiliate ads are there because no one could reasonably be expected to put so much effort into a website and expect no return. Would you?

It seems you are awestruck of his so called useless info. Even a guy who studied maths till Xth can understand all that. People ask most silly questions there like what is the probability of getting 20 blacks in a row etc. He is merely a commission agent and better maths can be understood with high school books than upon his site. It doesn't need an expert level knowledge to understand that it is not easy to win in gambling. We do not need professors or CPAs to tell all these.

                                                                              I wrote to Seth Theobeau @Ian Palmer regarding his methodology and he replied me through emails. I presented his ideas here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400639/Seth-Theobeau-Ian-Palmer-wisdom#.Vu6Eo-J97IU
  I simulated his ideas and as expected, it tanked badly. Reason was the wrong assumptions he based his MM upon. Unless you understand the reason of a disease, there is no chance of finding a cure.

                                                                                                        So far Wizard of Odds is considered, his site was meant to earn commission from casinos and he was also into arranging tours of LV and Macau.
     Lastly he sold his site to latestcasinobonuses.com which is the biggest affiliate of online casinos having thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of views. Topics regarding gambling were written not with the purpose of enlightening gamblers but to catch their attentions and show them links of various casinos.
                If someone think such sites are meant for any noble purposes, he needs urgent psychiatrist help. Same is the case with another very popular affiliate site: casinomiester.com .

Quote from: soxfan on March 19, 2016, 04:38:54 AM
Sorry, I promised the old Armenian cat that I wouldn't divulge the beans and reveal the specific of his play. So, I can only speak generally, hey hey.

Have you verified his claim? Can it pass through the worst of cases and winning at last?

Quote from: soxfan on March 18, 2016, 06:42:31 PM
I've always thought that you could run a progression deep enough to allow you to withstand most any negative outcome. There's an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with what seem to be an unbreakable style of play. But, there are practical consideration in that for his style ya need a 10 000 units lifetimes bankroll and ya need to have access to tables offering the fat spread so you can make a max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. I said it again and I'll say it before, in the end it boils down to havin the balls and bankroll baby, hey hey.

  Can you reproduce that MM for evaluation here? If it is set to win, a bet of 1000 or a bankroll of 20k units is OK for me. Let us see that.

Quote from: Jimske on March 18, 2016, 12:51:07 AM
I guess you weren't paying attention.  The D'Alembert like ALL progressions are failures without being able to take a measurement of losing trends and make adjustments.  My example above is just to demonstrate such an adjustment.  When one uses the -X, +X; FLAT or a variant offset it ceases to be a D'Alembert.

You can have the last word.  I just wanted to add my 2 cents about the progressions.

J

I appreciate your inputs but a demonstration over a session that starts too bad and later only gets average, will help more to establish your viewpoints as to how do you expect it to work. Every MM is good enough for an average session but I am talking of when extreme comes followed by "normal" flow of wins.

D'alembert or its other variants do work upto a particular stage and is not meant to work well in long run thereby. When there is a very bad stretch going like 25 wins in 100 spins or anything alike, it goes so bad that later it never gets to recover, in any manner. After extreme bad sessions, very good ones can not be expected always and in expectation of getting "corrective" wins, we get "not so good" time and "below average" times that makes it failure.

AP guys do not rely upon any mathematical progression or "system". Their advantage wins money for them in long run.

They can, however, do increase their bet sizes and capitalize gradually to win even more. You must have heard of "Kelly criterion".

Quotethen we need to have a progression,
that recoup -195losses,
by 405hits.
=====================================
or win, at least 1u, with only 405hits/1000spins!!!

that's a grail!!!

Absolutely.
            You won't find any such progression that can beat 405/1000 wins of an EC in all patterns they can appear.

Quote from: greenguy on March 17, 2016, 07:14:13 AM
So 3700 spins is the long run?

What happens when you have done 100 of these long runs and you now have 370000 spins?

Doesn't that make your 3700 spins look like a short run, or hit and run?

I'm confused..

3700 spins could be considered long run for an EC bet but I have defined it far better in this topic:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400636/Long-run-in-gambling#.Vup3uNJ97IU

  I believe that we can discard martingale, Labouchere and Fibonacci type super aggressive progressions that none can afford to use being realistic of the obvious failures that we can face any moment. They are of course not meant for playing for the long run.
                      Oscar's Grind or raising +1 on a win and betting the same on losses is one of the long run progressions suggested. It is still better than many other conventional progressions but still, any simulation of long run proves it as a failure because it fails to earn unless we get a good streak of wins after losses. A normal flow of wins and losses could create many layers that it fails to break.
                         

We do need replies of our posts and unread topics on the top.

QuoteDo you expect everyone to agree with your biased views and congratulate you on the same time?!
You (think) know better than anyone?
Fine, just use what you know to win and let the rest of us who we are inferior than you to lose, it's our problem after all!

  and you want to force feed and mislead everyone to play a delayed marty believing you alone? I did not just speak but cared to code a tracker as you propose to play. You weren't scare in boasting about winning the worst of red in roulette30 forum while here you started to sing, "why would I play red" and all that. If my views are biased or wrong, prove it with correct examples, simulations as I did. Speaking loud and writing big paragraphs you are not going anywhere.

There is nothing like trends or patterns or "going with the wind" or "going against the wind" in a game of pure randomness.

No betselection can outsmart randomness or lessen the house edge or the volatility of variance.

http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400641/like-patterns-random-game-help#.VuP4H3197IU

  To showcase this, I simulated entire zuma 1600 baccarat removing Tie which has nearly 114k bets. I did them with 5 kind of betselections like betting the last, betting the opposite last, betting before last and switching at certain losses. All performed almost equally and each had good, bad, average and extreme streaks.

http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/11104358/5-different-kind-bet-selections-perform-zumma-1600#.VuP50X197IU

Come out of the fanciful illusions of pattern playing or "identifying the running pattern" or "current flow" of randomness. They do exist in our wishful thinking only. They do not help in real world.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 11, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
That's true but you do recognize  that there are better bet selections and not everything is the same, right?

I say, there is no better bet selection. Only a time could be favorable for a bet or against it. A bet itself has no advantage attached in it.