Dealers do not make a random game lesser random. If the casino doubts you of being an AP(cloaking speed of ball, rotations or any other flaws or bias) they may take steps like this to harass you a bit. Since I have never tried AP techniques or ever thought that necessary or even useful, I personally feel that you should not bother even if they make a queue of dealers to spin ball for your session. [smiley]aes/joking.png[/smiley]

@gizmo,
                Are you referring to regression towards Mean and its strategic use?

Betting upon virtual limits can be a wise idea but to get such things will need thousands of spins. they are little better than random betting but again not a panacea in themselves.

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.