Quote from: Gizmotron on May 26, 2018, 02:53:38 PM

Funny. That depends on luck.

Luck, or randomness if you prefer, has limits.
For example you will never see a number missing more than 666 spins, we could extend it to the rest of the bet selections/probabilities:


666/2 numbers = 333 spins maximum absence
666/3 numbers = 222 spins maximum absence
666/4 numbers = 167 spins maximum absence
666/6 numbers = 111 spins maximum absence
666/12 numbers = 56 spins maximum absence
666/18 numbers (EC) = 37 spins maximum absence

If in some way you could surpass those virtual limits then you would be always victorious.

I've created a progression for EC bets which it succeeds as long as there are 25% wins out of the total of the bets placed.
This means that the expectation is being reduced to half of 50% (roughly).


The ratio of: 1 out of 4, 2 out of 8, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 16, 5 out of 20, 6 out of 24, 7 out of 28, 8 out of 32, 9 out of 36, 10 out of 40...etc
Can we get 10 out of 40 bets right as minimum??


It doesn't matter when those 10 wins will occur, on the beginning, on the middle, on the end, all the same as long as the ratio is being confirmed at some point, any point.
So the real question is, how long before a 25% wins for Even Chances is being achieved?

Quote from: Mike on May 26, 2018, 07:34:40 AM
You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.

Furthermore, all numbers are the same and are not the same on the same time!

If we consider them as static and fixed probabilities then are all the same, but what makes the difference is their condition, they all transit through all phases...and that is what someone should aim for, the tendencies/phases rather than the numbers themselves.

The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies.
Which tendencies?
Those which we encounter on every session.

Quote from: owenslv on May 25, 2018, 11:49:48 PM
Again I must congratulate all of you contributing to this thread for the massively, intelligent, interesting and relevant information that is being introduced. Indeed any money management system cannot overcome an inadequate bet selection protocol.

When you have a betting protocol in place that allows you to win consistently, creating a positive edge, then of course, a structured money management system will allow the player to maximize winnings and minimize losses.

So now the big question, as professionals our main, or perhaps initial focus, should be on bet selection.

How, in an ocean of probabilities, do we gain a positive edge on say, Baccarat when an individual session (80 hands or less) represents a "drop in the ocean of probabilities ?

The only concrete tools we appear to have is past performance, developing trends and the like. Is there a method we could develop as a like-minded group, with various backgrounds and skills that would provide enough shift in betting protocol to give us that positive edge ?

I totally realize that each individual hand is essentially random, and that, "The past does not equal the future." HOWEVER, every session produces variable results and that may be our strength. The player who is able to step back and see the bigger picture of a string of outcomes, look at those outcomes in a new and different creative manner, may be able to instinctively and intelligently predict (guess) at a different and superior level.

If you add up all of the years of experience each one of you have personally, collectively, as a group we likely have centuries of experience, right here in this form. What an amazing privilege !

I sincerely believe that there really is a very subtle difference between losing to the house advantage and shifting the bet protocol to a consistent player advantage and if anyone can figure that out, this is the group that will do it.

Next step ?

Garry

Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?


It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 26, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.

Yes, of course, you could be lucky but luck is not controllable.

Probably you are the one who doesn't take a hint...such a pity!


There are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.


What you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work  this way...


Whether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.

In regards to your original question, "what MM is better...", my answer is nothing when you have no winning selection and on the same time, every MM when you have a really good selection.
Money managements only change the distribution of profit and loss, whether frequent small chunks, or infrequent larger ones, all in all provide no advantage.


Long term is the accumulation of many sessions and each session includes many bets, since we are not 100% certain for a single bet (any single bet) then what's the point of increasing and/or decreasing in spin by spin (hand by hand, decision to decision) basis?
If we were 100% sure then we would wanted to place as much as possible in that single bet, right?
Therefore the point of MMs is to accumulate a profit within a total of bets.


How many bets should this total be?
That depends from the general probability of the bet, more probability the less times, the less probability the more times our total bets should aim for.


Everything is a trade between time and money, gamble is no exception.
You don't need 100,000 bets in order to realize that something is not working, as a matter of fact you don't even need 10,000 bets, the same could be said for the opposite.
Like they say; "the good day shows from the mourning...", what's more possible to occur will happen first.
What could be confusing and deceptive is that some progressions are causing small, regular wins and big infrequent losses.
So unless you are using such progression, it will be clear the value of your bet selection, especially when you flat bet.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not advocating flat betting, a sophisticated MM could boost the profits, but only if there is a really good bet selection in the first place.


There are 2 kind of probabilities, one is the sequential which speculates about the order of the results and the other is the general probability which indicates the totals.


Thus if we take a 50-50 chance for 100 bets then according to the theoretical mean we should expect 50 to go one way and 50 to go the other way, I suggest you to consider such averages with a grain of salt...
On the other hand, sequential probability would have too many permutations to distribute 50 VS 50 in 100 outcomes, when progressions are aiming to win in a certain order of results then are being challenged by the sequential probability.


Like I said, there could be 1 permutation which have 50 times in a row for one side and then 50 times in a row for the other, it could be one side after the other interchangeably for 100 times, the point is that are so MANY ways, permutations to distribute THAT mean (50/50), let alone for 49/51 or 51/49 or 48/52...!
By attempting to predict the order your bets are just drops in the randomness ocean!


Why casinos are above this issue?
It's because they are not attempting to predict the sequences, the order of the outcomes, but are capitalizing in something much more solid, the totals in the long term...!
It all comes down to the perception and the approach, if you think and act like there's no tomorrow then eventually you will find out that there is not for you because this is what you have chosen, to live and die in the short term.

Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 02:27:07 PM
What is it that you expect the law of large numbers to do for you?

Expecting the effect of "law of large numbers" is just an expectation, if it wasn't then variance wouldn't be unpredictable.
If we really knew that as a fact and not as an expectation then we could create a long term money management which would generate profit as the results will get closer to the mean expectation.
So by using more results rather than a few would we guaranteed that the results would always conform to the theoretical mean?!
What forces and obligates variance to act so?! NOTHING!

Xander,


The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.
You should know better by now, negative, positive and flat bets MMs have no advantage in comparison with each other, only a selection could generate a real edge.


1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.


2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses.


3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.


When you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!


The main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.


The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 


Once again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!

Quote from: Lugi on May 09, 2018, 07:34:32 AM
Not very frequent, however the point I was making is, how many losing bets would it cost you, if it happened once?  You could end up chasing for quiet some time thereafter.

@as  I found your reply confusing I will re-read it a few times before responding.   

Are you referring to the 'not so secret', "when high cards leave the shoe it favours the Player side and when low cards leave the deck it favours the Banker side?

You simply focus only on 1 side...I'm going to give an analogy in order to make my point clearer, you (anyone) could buy lottery tickets for the entire duration of your lifetime and NEVER to become millionaire.
However, every time you are buying those lottery tickets you are entitled to a tiny chance of becoming a millionaire, while on the other hand, you are spending slowly but steadily a tiny amount per time.
The clever investor doesn't have the "lottery" mentality, he/she has the prudent and consistent objective in mind...in other words, if you cannot repeat the same results up to a certain degree, then what you are doing is simply luck and luck cannot be controlled, when you are lucky you win, when not you lose and this is all there is, just plain luck, not success, nor achievements.
To prove that your strategy can win with or without luck then there must be CONSISTENCY, something you could repeat again and again, anytime you want, the profit could vary from time to time, but there MUST be always profit.


So buy your "lottery tickets" just because they are costing less, who knows, you could become a millionaire!

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 09, 2018, 08:19:33 AM
It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.

So I won't go any further.

Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.

Cheers

as.

You have failed to address my question;
Am I missing something??

@ Luigi,


You might have seen streaks of 5 and 6 in a row back to back, BUT how frequently??
I guess are not so ordinary...!




@ ABG,


Perhaps eventually you'd realized that your "unbeatable plan" is almost the "DBL" or "penultimate bet" or "avant dernier", no matter how you call it, it's the same thing.
It simply wins when there are chops or 3+ streaks and loses by 2s/doubles, so WHY you think yours is better than that??
My intention is NOT to discourage you, BUT I might be missing something which makes your strategy better than "DBL", thus a genuine interest for your subject.

In my point of view the anti-DBL is better, in other words the streaks of chops and repeats NOT to exceed 2 in a row.
I'd like to emphasize that it wouldn't be better if we would continue betting till the streak breaks!


Regarding your approach, instead of betting against 2 in a row streaks why not bet against an event which has 1 in 32 probability?
This is 5 in a row streak, while 2 in a row has 1 in 4 probability, thus more frequent and more possible to encounter clustered doubles.
But if you've waited for one 5 in a row streak and then bet against it, that would have much better probability to win.
If the 5 streak occurs on Player bet that the next time the Player will have whether less or more than 5 in a row, this is applied by betting for Banker the first 4 bets (1,2,4,8) and the final 5th bet (16 units) for the player.
The same goes for the Bankers side too, it's not the same like if we were betting from the start against any 5 streak because we are betting against two 5 streaks to happen consecutive times on the same side (any side).

ABG,
Your bet selection of following 1s and 3+s is nothing more than the avant dernier or Decision Before Last, whether you use for Banker or Player it doesn't really matter.
As everybody with a bit of experience knows the 2s will kill your selection, my suggestion is of common sense because it bets for the 2 streak not to become 3 and according sequential probability the favorable situations will be double from the ones which will reach 3+ and will make us lose.
Still if we would continue betting after the 1st loss till the streak breaks that would be a fatal mistake which would bring us to the House Edge sphere!
But by stopping after the 1st lost bet, every first, we'll have just a reduction of our profit equal approximately to half, this means 50% gain from the total wagering minus Banker's commissions when Banker is bet and wins!
We could apply the same principle with 1s against 2+, again we have double the winning chances, the key is to stop after the 1st loss, every first!


The other selection which I've suggested needs charting rather than a mechanical betting pattern, that's because it counts which side is behind and in combination with which of the Streaks VS Chops is trailing, it selects the bets which cover both trailing categories in one unified bet!
If you go this way then you should also determine what must be the minimum deviation before you start betting, if you'd asked me I'd recommended to be 20 times less accumulatively (from both), or even greater deviation and each one to have at least 10 less difference from the one which is ahead.
If for example there is 20 less difference accumulatively but 1 of them has less than 10 shows difference from the leading, then it would be ok because most important is their accumulative total and not their separate totals.


If you'd asked me which of these 2 selections I consider better, I'd prefer the first for practical convenience, it doesn't need charting, also it doesn't have to wait for something to become "due" before starts betting, it could also be profitable even without Money Management.
This truth doesn't have to be confirmed by playing results because after all is what sequential probability indicates, fact and not opinion.


However, if you still think that your selection is better, then all I've to say is that what you are doing is similar to Sputnik's march and Avant Dernier (DBL) which are failures, are not new, regardless if they can be disguised in new descriptions.
So many persons in this forum and others consider Decision Before Last as the best bet and I'm suggesting you to reconsider it!
It's NOT as good as you think!

Hi ABG!
What news from LV, getting warmer?
I remember when I was there I was wearing t-shirts on the middle of February and was wondering what happens there during Summer months...I guess you could fry eggs at the desert electricity free!


Back to the topic, I know a lot of things and I want to share them, but why, have you wonder?
It is because I prefer to help persons who, I might don't know personally, but I could walk on their shoes, much better you rather than the casinos.
So yes, I want to rub your victories into their arrogant faces and noses!
All you have to do is to show a little bit of faith, not in me, but mostly in you and what you are doing!


We could summarize the winning rules in 3 sentences}


1) There are 2 kind of probabilities, the sequential which has to do with the order of the results, and the general probability which dictates the averages for every possible event.
When you are talking about steaks & chops then you are speaking about the sequential probability, but this is only half of the whole, the other half has to do with quantities, how many times this event happen, how many times the other...and this is how we determine the degree of deviations from the mean/average.
Here comes the important part so pay attention;
When these 2 kinds of probabilities meet, in other words a single bet would satisfy both of them, this is the strongest bet.
You have 2 categories, in 1 one you count total of streaks VS chops and on the second you count how many times each side (P & B), find the bet which would satisfy BOTH of the requirements SIMULTANEOUSLY!


2) What I consider as the best pattern bet, when we're talking about patterns it means that we are expecting sequences to conform in a certain order of results, is the ANTI-Decision Before Last.
Ain't all patterns, permutations, sequences the same, you might wonder, my answer is no and I'm going to provide you a brief but convincing explanation;
The DBL is expecting to win by finding 1 streak after the other, also 1 chop after the other, thus if sequences don't bring them in bunches it fails, usually that's the case.
We witness a few repeats here, a few chops there and all those 2-3 sets are the most frequent event before eventually a large streak comes, but when it happens is already late!
Therefore, according the sequential probability, a streak of repeats or chops has half chances to reach 3 in a row rather than remaining on 2 in a row.
Of course if we'd accounted for ALL possible streak ranges (3,4,5,6...etc) we would see that are equal to the total streaks of 2 in a row.
In order to have an advantage and not confirm the HE, we HAVE TO assume that after EVERY lost bet, that could be the beginning of 5,10,15,20...etc loses in a row!
This is how we conclude that we must stop immediately after 1 single loss, this way, no matter how long a streak might be, we lose only once per bet occurrence, but the situations which will be wins are twice as much from the 3+ streaks.
That's why ODBL is superior to DBL.


3) Establish a balance checkpoint per 100 results, increase or decrease the amount of bet according to the profit or loss during last 100 decisions.
For 0 change in your balance don't increase/decrease your bets
From  1 up to and including 5 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 10% your bets (for next 100).
From  6 up to and including 10 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 20% your bets (for next 100).
From  11 up to and including 15 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 30% your bets (for next 100).
From  16 up to and including 20 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 40% your bets (for next 100).
From  21 up to and including 25 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 50% your bets (for next 100).
From  26 up to and including 30 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 60% your bets (for next 100).
From  31 up to and including 35 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 70% your bets (for next 100).

From  36 up to and including 40 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 80% your bets (for next 100).

From  41 up to and including 45 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 90% your bets (for next 100).

From  46 up to and including 50 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 100% your bets (for next 100).


For table minimum 1$ the base bet will be 10$ and recommended BR 1,000$.
For table minimum 5$ the base bet will be 50$ and recommended BR 5,000$.
For table minimum 10$ the base bet will be 100$ and recommended BR 10,000$.
For table minimum 25$ the base bet will be 250$ and recommended BR 25,000$.
For table minimum 100$ the base bet will be 1,000$ and recommended BR 100,000.

After addition/deduction of the percentage which reflects the difference in the base bets, round it up/down to the nearest whole number, for example 14.4 would become 14 and 16.6 would become 17 units base bet.