QuoteTrying to ride the wave of a win streak is the idea. Each first try loss is a signal that your starting bets might be in a phase of all bad starts. This happens sometimes. You must play a game of money management that allows for streaks of bad starts. If you can out live the bad streaks then you can ride enough win streaks to finish in the positive.

               Such misconceptions lead a player to think that a positive progression or regression could be a remedy to all gambling uncertainties but in long run playing for a "ride" or "streak" doesn't win by itself. If they could win, casinos would have dried a few hundred years ago.

Being aware of the realities and mathematics of casino gambling are the prime requisites to be a pro gambler. Every rational player knows that there is nothing like patterns, you can't determine future wins by looking at past wins, virtual betting may help you be safe from extremes but in no way, any or all of these help to have any better bet than we can randomly have. Negative variance that can arise while playing is beyond our control. House edge or house fees is already there to create a tilt against us.
                                                            Only a clairvoyant having mystical powers can guess what is going to happen in the near future and can claim to win, flat bet. Normal human beings need to either take risk with money management or totally rely upon luck to get a positive variance which can let him win flat.

             

It is true that virtual betting of any kind doesn't give you any advantage by itself but it may help you playing safer coupled with a few other safeguards. Having an "edge" over house is not possible by any means since opposite is the reality but still earning from it is possible.
       Winning flat bet, in long run, is absurd and not possible. Since you can't decide any better bet and have to suffer the house edge too, you can't win flat bet. No pain, no gain.

If you guys realize how easily martingale or labby goes sky high and how easily they are likely to go beyond playable range, you would not dare to use them. HP Johnson version of labby (which reduces in size gradually) looks wiser but that has other traits that are bad like that will behave like flat bet in the beginning, like a standard labby in the middle and like martingale in the end. It may suit at times, or it may not.

If you consider only one toss, it is 50:50 but if u consider the probability of HHHH or TTTT, it is always 1/16.

@the Law
               It may look repetitive but I would still like to add two things.
1. "session from hell" has to come for whatever bet you can think of. If you haven't seen that, it is only lack of experience and they can be of such bad degree that no progression can handle them.


2. Harsh progressions like martingale, labby and fibonacci  very soon rush you to either an unplayable bet or table limit. Believe me, all forms of them are disastrous. If you want to be a pro, think of mild progressions. Kattila has posted many sensible money managements which can be referred and followed.

Use extreme variance management of mine and it is a cheesecake to win. Although I have added a lots of layers in my current "extreme variance management" and may post them soon, in my blog.

You can't prevent the attack of variance on any bet or in other words you can't opt any better betselection . You can only try to be least affected when variance is extreme and at last, a wise stop loss saves your soul. 

@Maestro,
         222 Wins vs 263 losses. Don't you think that it is merely a coincidence to get such numbers? Do you expect similar counts in another worse session?

QuoteBet spin number 1, then bet spin number 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, so on till positive, and RESTART!....Bet NEXT spin AS number 1, then bet spin number 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, so on till positive, and RESTART!

How doing this guarantees any benefit over playing all spins? Since we do not know the future, it could go opposite too. Like after trying fourth failure at 8th spin, there may be many wins from 9th to 15th and a loss at 16th. It would be like  firing randomly while blindfolding yourself expecting better hits than with open eyes.

@ Law,
        Incredible stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                Can someone please show this step by step, preferably in an excel sheet? The given session was the worst EC case that I got in a million spin analysis that lasts for 1600 spins.  Beating this successfully means we can beat the worst stretch of an EC that should come in a million spin (little worse is possible too but this one was standard example of long lasting and irritating variance). I can't understand as explained or exhibited in the text file but it is serious.
                      If someone does this step by step, I will put another similar session. If that gets beaten too, with the same methodology, we need a tracker of this way of playing.
              Great job after a long time. I hope calculations have no fault.

@Law,
       Will your 65 step labby or 50 step labby (pick any one you like) clear entire 1600 spins with a net win?


@ Maestro,
            Same question for your suggested progression.




We may reverse engineer any given/known session and create a progression that can beat it but that is not workable in random sessions.
           If any of your progression beats this 1600 spins entirely, I can give another similar case and if they win both, everybody will admire that.

@Law

QuoteUpdate!!!The sequence that was previously a bust, has been beaten with a 65-Line Labby. Here are the results:

Buddy, if you re-configure the solution as per the problem, anything can be beaten but there has to be a general strategy to play because we can't guess the kind of variance that we may get in a coming session.
          Plus, if your strategy wins in 1600 bets somewhere, try to bet same way the entire 1600 spins. If it wins even 1 unit finally, it is worth re-looking.


@Maestro,
   You said:

Quoteno...you get labby and start bet spin 1, bet spin2 , spin 3 no bet, bet spin 4    ,no bet spin 5,6,7, bet spin 8,no bet 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 , bet spin 16,then start count again as after 16th spin is spin 17 so for your count spin 17 will be spin 1,spin18 will be spin 2 and so on...

Would you mind showing this on the given data, for the sake of clarity?

QuoteUpdate : Labby failed at bet #126 of the sequence provided  - Thanks for your help-much appreciated!!!

No pushing progression can sustain till the variance can drag us. If it gets possible, playing roulette will become a fearless job.

Sure,
          I am giving the L/W of this in a text file here.