All push to win progressions lose and they lose so badly, the player never dares to do such thing again. Even a million chip can not ensure you a win of 1 unit with such progressions.

This is not taken from a book or forum but it is my conclusion based upon my study, experience and research.

Casinos are fearless of losses because they rely upon the ignorance of players regarding probability, house edge and variance and greed to fight with an enterprise having virtually endless money with only 100 chips in hand. Ignorant players are not safe even with a million chips.

In my humble opinion, there are primarily four classes of gamblers:

1. Casual visitors: They come in a casino as they go to amusement park or a club or a disco, once in a while. They know they have lesser chances to win anything than lose. It is merely a kind of leisure activity for them. They move around, play a little and go away home usually with a small loss of money. They often come with regular ones as friend or family. They have interest in gambling but are too scared to play large.

2. Regulars: They may have started as a casual player but now they want to take "revenge" against their prior losses. Mostly they do not have any strategy and they either bet on impulse or on their superstitious choices. They are seen in casino on a regular basis.

3. Semi skilled: They know law of third, martingale, fibo, labby, positive progression, negative progressions, EV and various other terms and fallacies spread out by various gambling books, websites, forums, blogs etc. Even if they have not read all these they understand this by their experience. A few of them even test their "favorite systems" to win in a few sample sessions. They have a misconception that they are far better than casual visitors or regulars and have thereby better chance to win too. They win and lose sessions and ultimately remain at a net loss.

4. Skilled: They know how to play and maximize their chances of winning. They do not win every time but in overall, they are winners. A cut above the rest.

Percentage of all classes of gamblers, in my observation:

Casual Visitors: Not less than 40% of total players

Regulars: Not less than 50%

Semi Skilled: Not less than 9%

Skilled: Not more than 1 in a thousand

I would love to have it here, as early as possible.

Captain,
          69/200 is not something that can occur so easily, in every session. It is truly "rare"but worse is technically possible.
As I said, even worst possible, 55/200 can easily be beaten by martingale, if there is no very big losing stretch in it. Therefore, planning to beat this thinking, "if I do that, I win the randomness" is faulty thinking. Understand probability and permutations and combinations. They can be innumerable, for 200 spins having 69 hits. No MM can beat all of them, even with 10k chips.
                                             Indeed, tendency to win in all situations, is the worst gambling hope that leads to Martingale type suicidal MMs.

@BTW,
          You are again getting fallacious. "Extreme" needs not be followed by good or above average patches further. Hence, there is no guarantee that flat betting can do any help to you.
                  Indeed, no betselection becomes so good, after any pre-condition that it should deliver net profit, flat bet. Expecting to earn flat bet is expecting too much. Do not find the best betselection or best progression. Just find a way to "filter out" the worst cases and then try to fight the random session. You know Extreme Variance Management of both types. Use that.

Quote from: RoulettePlayer on November 11, 2014, 07:06:39 AM
For your information, the statistic average is1 single loss in 32 games, 1 double loss in 1024 gamesand 1 triple loss in over 32,000 games.

Roulette Player[smiley]aes/evil.png[/smiley]

What kind of edge you get by this info? Can you predict which case will happen in which sequence? Statistically, in 100 spins, u r mathematically likely to win with any EC about 48 times. How does this help?

All progressions are proportionally good and bad in all probabilities taken together. None is, conclusively the best. Be it flat bet or martingale or parlay or anything else that you can devise or read anywhere. All presuppose a particular situation to work best. In not so favorable cases, they go ridiculous. This is true about all of them.
                             If you are looking for the best progression, for all probabilities, I am afraid, you won't find any.

I don't think 69/200 is the worst possible. It can mathematically go as low as 55/200 to reach its virtual limit.
        There can be no money management that can handle such rare cases. If someone can beat such probabilities with a money management, there will be no gambling. It isn't possible, so better do not waste your time and efforts. In roulette30.com and in rouletteforum.cc, there were talks of "HP Johnson" or "belgian labby" that were considered as a way to beat such odds while in reality, you can beat some particular probabilities that all these progressions can handle. If 69/200 has no stretch of more than 10 losses,in a row, even martingale would win it. Theoretically, 69/200 is beatable with labouchere and fibonacci but in an unfavorable session with unfavorable scatters, they will have drawdowns none can afford.
                           Better focus on winning average and a little below average sessions than the worst. 69/200 is a once in million spins probability. It is better we surrender in such cases.

Yes, about 25 spins. I have seen over 18 many times. Even in real casinos.

No betting pattern or trigger will give you better odds than is expected mathematically. If you are calculating that in some way or other,either your sample has bias or you haven't tested enough to see the reality. Only thing that has to be learnt by an educated and informed gambler is how to survive a game with casino favoring payouts and very wild and kind of unpredictable negative variance.

No software in the world can see the future and predict winning numbers with even slight accuracy. Why are you trying to change the meaning of "random"? We can only speculate, we can't predict.

No number is connected to others. It is one of the worst fallacy to think of connection between numbers. Had this been even slightly true, casinos would have gone all bankrupt. Whatever you bet upon whatever logic, may drag you long enough to lose whatever you can afford/allowed to bet. Never forget this vital truth.

Excessive deviation that has to lead towards comparatively better outcomes by the principle of "Regression towards mean" or "law of large numbers". One should be able to differentiate between "RTM" or "Law of Large numbers" and "Gamblers' Fallacy".