Well if someone doesn't have a real edge, this would be a progress for him/her.

Quote from: plolp on August 20, 2016, 10:15:27 AM
I bet the maximum on a single number with his  4 splits and

his street

in every spin?

Quote from: plolp on August 20, 2016, 08:21:50 AM
Winrate ; 3,16

not so impressive it

I passed easily ,  3,64

I'm a math genius for that?

I see you are top on that list, what bet did you use?

The thing is that if you don't have a good understanding of how this game works you are becoming a loser, like in everything else.

It tries your limits, tests your patience and discipline, doesn't care about your emotions, neither about if you are good or bad, the only thing which being rewarded is what you can do, the same goes for the world.

There is not any progression which can endure all sessions, variance is formidable foe even for the best of progressions, happens very few times but just once is enough to wipe out entire bankrolls.

And when this moment arrives what would you do?

You must spend almost the whole day at the table with vast bankroll in order to turn such situation around.
It becomes pointless because you are risking too much in order to gain too little, the best in such occasions is to be absent, but how could you know, you realize it when already late for maneuver.

That's why you need a plan, winning every day/session is not realistic but having a net profit every 7 days/sessions is realistic with the proper plan.

Variance is a wild beast which cannot be tamed by progressions, progressions seems to work when variance is milder, usually is but that's not enough.

So such time and money is far beyond the reach of average gambler, but even if you had would it worth?
I understand risking 100,000 to make 10,000 or more, not to take 1,000 or less, or even worse by chasing your loss.

Have you any idea what you are dealing with?

Step number one, know your enemy.
Step number two, control yourself and you'll control the game.
Step number three, set a realistic plan in action by focusing in medium term.

By completing the initial smaller things we have made a big step towards success.

It's true that like in life, roulette shows that nothing is equal, while probability theory shows how things should be, it remains just a theory but what we see in everyday life is not what should have been but what actually happens.

Consider results as cards of a deck, they are repeating with different order each time, when your progression could win any possible order of the deck, then you would be a long term winner.
That's what variance does, it's changing the order of the events, that's why linear progressions will never work.
Where is the end of the rainbow?
You never know, you don't want to know, so instead of swimming against the torrent why don't you let it drift you away where the rainbow ends?

QuoteWe know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.

How absurd!

Then why don't you bet a Marty of 9 doubling ups??
You would always get a winner!

The fact that so many people are looking in such ways says a lot for their level of knowledge,experience and intelligence!

I believe that usually truth lies in the middle, not on the extreme ends of opposite sides.
We cannot disregard easily neither bet selections, not bet progressions.

The thing is that a large bankroll of say 100,000 $ or even more is harder to broke but the persons who are gambling with such bankrolls are not betting the minimum, their initial bet is something like 25,50,100 or even more per unit, therefore whether you have 1000 $ bankroll and bet 1 $ units or 100,000 $ and bet 100 $ units it's the same in terms of risk of ruin.

It's highly unattractive for 100,000 bankroll to bet with 1, 5 or even 10 $ units, additionally is needed sufficient spread between minimum and maximum bet limits.
A high maximum with high minimum is no good, neither is a low minimum with low maximum, the greater the difference between minimum and max bet the better.

Another fact is that gamblers have lost millions at roulette tables, if the brute force of vast capital was sufficient to guarantee profit, that would never happen.
Imagine bankroll as force, imagine prediction accuracy as technique, the best warrior must have both, force and technique.

There are several examples in history where the larger army has been defeated by much fewer men, also in one on one combats smaller individuals beat larger because they used their technique, their intelligence to beat brute force.

A few examples; David and Goliath, Leonidas and the 300, Trojan horse, Mongols were many but this was not the key to their largest unified empire ever existed, they were very disciplined, with well organized and extensive scouting teams and formidable archers.
In other a combination of things makes the best possible results, we cannot rely only in one asset.

It's wrong to consider that since casino has much larger bank than ours it's going to win at the end because the aim of every gambler is not to empty the entire bank of the casino, but to win some money.
If someone was trying to broke the bank, then yes, he/she would be in great disadvantage if he/she wouldn't possess at least equal amount of bankroll.

Another misconception is that time is against the players, what matters is not the duration but what happens on that duration.
I'm sure you have experienced shorter and longer sessions with positive and negative results, time doesn't control the outcomes but gives the opportunity to every possibility to happen.

So if you start winning and decide to go, the next time you'll go will be the continuation of your previous time and every time thereafter will be a continuation of the first time.
If you think that every time is not continuation, then think the following, if you could win easily and stop while ahead equally easy will be to begin negative and the what would you do?
Take the loss and go? Or risk more money to win less?
So as you see, neither hit and run could help anyone.

My philosophy is the following, every bet is a part of a session and every session is part of the long term, thus if we could win most of our bets while maintaining the balance between risk and reward, we would become long term winners.
Win ratio could be deceptive because it risks more money to win more times, this is not the solution.

Positive progressions increase after wins, negative progressions increase after losses but do wins and losses follow a specific distribution pattern??
Instead of focusing on the distribution, it would be more accurate to focus on totals and establish a sophisticated money management on that basis.

Every bet selection has each unique characteristics, therefore a progression should accommodate the specific characteristics of that bet selection.
First of all is important to understand a few things like, why my selection wins/loses, why my method has the potential to become long term winner, why I would bet this instead of the other.

All these questions will help to determine which bet selection has the best possibilities to be long term winner.
House edge cannot prevent long term winners, this doesn't mean that house edge doesn't exist nor that the casinos will still have profit.
Let me give you a simple example, I'm betting always on Red and after  100,000 bets Red has appeared 50,900 times while Black and 0s were 49,100 times, this means that I've won 1,800 times more than I lost.
These figures are really possible and nobody can say with certainty that after 100,000 results would be 48,650 for one side, 48,650 for the other and 2,700 for 0.

Actually what happens in reality is not this balance but smaller or larger deviations, the larger the total amount of results the larger could be this deviation.
Within a small sample like 10 spins is much more likely to encounter a balance, but think about 100 spins sample, 1000 spins sample, apparently becomes more and more possible to deviate from the theoretical mean.
Expecting results to balance is VERY big assumption, actually reminds me of the gamblers' fallacy, what could happen within 100 bets is just a microcosmos of what could happen in 100,000 bets, the same in larger scale.
You could find a streak of 20 EC within 100 and 100,000 but in the larger sample chances to find more than 1 such streak are tenfold.

It could mean everything, it could mean nothing, but I believe that such ''hard'' questions are helping to realize where we stand and why we hold such position.

I don't want to influence your votes but I have some rhetoric questions;

If a progression and/or money management were the only assets one needs to become long term winner, wouldn't we already winning on long term basis?
My opinion regarding progressions is that all belong to 2 main categories:

1) Losing frequently less money and winning few times more money
2) Losing rarely large sums and winning frequently few money

There are also sub-categories of the main 2, but no matter how you decrease or increase your bets and your bankroll from session to session you cannot become winner if your selection has not an edge.
I believe that progressions only change the distribution of wins VS losses ratio, but not the totals.

Talking about bet selection, is payout the only element one should consider?
Or there are more elements than this?
Statistics for example could assist to establish some specific entry and exit points, of course everything is an approximation and estimation according facts, not theories, that's why knowing what usually happens is practical and useful, while what could happen is not.

What could happen remains possible but not in the same frequency with what usually happens, therefore by selecting an event which occurs with high frequency in combination with not losing too much when you lose is the essence of winning.
What I've described is the possible effect of a bet selection, not of progressions.

You might argue that all bet sections will balance out eventually, let's assume that this is correct, why does this prevent someone winning?
Perhaps because your first assumption (events have to balance) leaded to another one which is that someone would stay with the same bet selection all the time!
So no matter if one gets ahead or behind, by keep on betting always the same, eventually would lose by the house edge percentage because events have to balance out at some vague point in future.

I don't know about you, but for me this theory contains many ifs in order to be accepted as de facto axiom.
If...we could assume many things without practical value, we've to discard such things in order to focus on the most important.

Quote from: sqzbox on August 17, 2016, 05:51:04 AM
But I don't want to leave - I want to see what the next outcome is and then decide what to play. That's what I would do anyway.But I realize this is just a little fun thing and not to be taken seriously. All good.

So single result is no good but 2 can make up your mind??
Are you betting avant dernier?

Quote from: sqzbox on August 17, 2016, 12:55:55 AM
Where's the no bet option?

5)  Time to leave

Quote from: TheLaw on August 16, 2016, 01:41:09 AM
25% wins - 75% losses..........yes distribution is key.

I think that GLC was trying to find an easy way to test a method with these numbers.

Unfortunately, the only way to truly test this would probably be on 1 million spins.

At least then you could see any practical variance rear its ugly head. Anything less, and everyone will probably just right it off as lucky.

It's not only about the total spins to test but also about bankroll at risk in comparison with potential profit.
For example it's one thing to risk 1000 in order to gain 10 and another to risk 500 in order to win 500.
Also if we assume that every bet selection is different, then 25% could not be for all bet selections, that's why "Gizmotron" & "XXVI" spoke about bet characteristics...
Besides the 25% it's also important to see on average how it could be distributed within the total.
The particular bet has not so easy way to calculate its average probability because it's not a fixed amount of numbers, let alone to see its win/loss ratio distribution.
If it wasn't worth, I wouldn't brought it to your attention.
Right now I'm analyzing a few variations of the specific bet.

Quote from: TheLaw on August 16, 2016, 12:45:32 AM
Agreed.........although a large drop is usually a bad sign right out of the gate.

Wish I had time to do more testing.....but it's just not in the cards for me right now.

I think a progression is the best option. Now you just need the sequence from hell to really test it out! (I think that GLC suggested to use 25%win rate)

I sincerely appreciate your work BA!!!

25% less wins or 25% wins in total??
However, quantity isn't the only important element, it's also the distribution!
I think we should focus on the distribution of won VS lost cycles, then we could adjust the optimal money management.

By analyzing the distribution of won VS lost cycles, we could use a progression per cycle, like Fibonacci for example.

1st cycle 1 unit on every bet
2nd cycle 1 unit on every bet
3rd cycle 2 units on every bet
4th cycle 3 units on every bet
5th cycle 5 units on every bet
6th cycle 8 units on every bet

Lose a cycle and proceed to the next bet level, win a cycle and drop 1 bet level, win 2 cycles in a row and restart from 1 unit.

I put forth my idea which could be improved, now it's your turn to show your insights in order to improve the overall figures.

Spot on "the law", but the real question remains;
Can we grail it?!

Gizmo, thanks for your work but this cannot be used on RX.
You have posted the outcome of just 100 bets, we cannot rely on such small sample.

Since you made the initial step to create the code, why don't you run a simulation of some thousands of bets?

By the way I made a mistake, Ken (mrJ) is from Wisconsin and not Wyoming.
Sounds quite similar that's why I've confused.