The way I plan it, and execute it.


I have one rule. Bet on the best looking trend.


From that tactic alone comes the skill of guessing. You can't know in advance if it will work or not. But after the cards are down, the dice are rolled, or the spin stops in a slot you will have your answer.


I use rule 1 to get that answer. It's the answer, the result of the bet, that I'm interested in making my MM guesses from.


I need to know if what is happening is good for my bankroll or bad for my bankroll. My goal is to win a few more outcomes than I have lost, nothing more. So, if the first bet wins then that is good for my bankroll. If it losses then it means I will need a win for every loss until I'm back to even.


So the conditions of the game dictate the knowledge to be aware of, as it occurs. I want to win the session. If I feed a bad streak, where every bet is placed on the best looking trend to continue, and it ends, then I'm in a streak of ending trends. I don't want to feed that. And I won't feed that. Now this happens all the time in gambling. You must know how to live with your losses. It's not the only condition though.


You must also know how to live with your wins. They are just a passing phase too. Nothing more. You bet on the best looking trend and it works.


There is one thing to keep in mind if you are smart. When a streak of trends all end as you first try them, they all end and they are done. Hit a few endings on first tries back to back and you should pull back to a minimum table limit sized bet. Wait until the bad streak of results comes to and end.


Now for the good streaks. When they keep going it can be for 1 time in a row, 2 times in a row, 3 times in a row, etc... They win just once and it cancels any upcoming losing bet that is inevitable. So you take the chance that it will continue. You can't know in advance that it will work. But it will be part of the results trend that you are really following. I have found that the win streaks last longer than the losing streaks, based on rule 1 of betting on the best looking trend. If I get three net wins on my big bet level, I'm done. For me it is a mistake to try to kill off the casino with 20 black or red numbers in a row. Same goes for streaks in the other games too.


Knowing how to live with the results of guessing is as important as seeing the best looking trend. My charts make it easy to see the best looking trends. You don't chase your losses. You let them come back to you by waiting for the trends to start working. They work, they don't work. The point is in learning how to use them to your advantage. Think of all this as if the whole session is the tactic and not moment by moment reactions. Make movements and changes based on the big swings. There's the down swing followed by a flat swing or an up swing. They are all caused to occur because of rule 1.


From this you will find that a few best trends are gold mine opportunities. They get you to your goal real fast. The only question is can you play a game that depends on big deal trends in order to win your goal. Is your goal too high? Mine was. -- not now.

Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 05:46:39 AM
Common sense, logic, and basic probability say you're living in a fantasy world and perhaps experiencing a bit of mania.

Sorry, but the facts are what they are.

Yeah, "fantasy world." Basic probability will of course explain the high 20% return rate in the end of year earnings reports to the IRS. A casino's gambling activities, where an average 4% to 5 % house advantage should have been the common sense, logical, large numbered return rate. I'm sure that those casinos should hear from you that they are living in a fantasy world and should only declare 5% earnings on their books. Let's see if that will fly.


Who's still grand standing? I'm also sorry, but your soapbox is burning.

Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 04:09:03 AM
A skilled guesser huh?   

Here is how the final resolution of your question will work itself out. Someone or team will validate the skilled guesser method with real peer reviewed data, actual results, or we will argue until that research is done in a real research experiment. The notion of losing at the expectation rate is forever history, just an old belief that is now and forever deFunct. In the words of hipster type people, you are no longer Funky.

Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So I hope that those with savvy gambling introspect noticed what just happened when this thread was posted? I wonder if Albalaha would like to give credit to an originator or author of this logic or stand for the claim of it's origination himself. Because the world changed forever. All I see is that Al, the great AL, has brought it to my attention. I consider it the most profound revelation in the past 200 years of gambling logic. How the heck would I know that anyway, I'm just 60+ and have not read every gambling book through the ages?


I have been running tests where, with the bone headed plan to just bet on the red numbers, all 18 of them, I end up with a large number test result of almost breaking even for the number of sessions won vs the numbers of session lost. Sounds good, right? But when I use a stop loss, set at the exact same level as a stop win, and add educated guessing to the effort, it changes. I get 3 losses to 7 wins. Now further testing will show a big number value for this ratio. All it takes is a skilled guesser, with the knowledge of coincidence distributions, a coined phrase now, with the ability to exploit randomness changes that offer advantages over an otherwise mathematical expectation or outcome. It's a way to see past the probability expectation of the house's advantage, a once accepted rule, now just a favorite axiom. YEP!. the world has changed. I'm so glad that I saw it. This thread is history being made or it is something that someone else has already made a notion about. I wonder where it originates from?

Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 02:34:04 PM
Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.

It took a lot of work to just have two characteristics programmed with several variables, including making changes caused by the effectiveness results. It changed bet sizes as well as bet locations. This was all programmed in Object Oriented Programming classes. Big problem though. I'm not motivated at this point to go back into it and keep going with many more characteristics and pattern recognition where the software actually learns on its own. It's kind of fun to teach the program to program itself. For example pattern learning lists. I'd only do it if I'm convinced that I've done it enough in a casino as to eliminate a lucky streak as the cause. I can use a little more for retirement too. Once those two hurdles are done then it makes sense to validate it. It would be easier to write a book and have many others attempt to validate it by using it in a casino. Counting cards was easy. Variable Change was a real concept that could be proved by showing examples of it. This must be executed by people that have self control. I'm sure a test model could be set up as a form of a confined set of conditions.


It's just too soon. But variance and size of bankroll have a huge consideration in writing any book.

Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
Gizmo,

I can see the patterns all right. But now what?

My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?

Your proof starts here. 

For you the way I play starts here. That will not be the proof. I just explained it a little in my previous post. This is how my school worked. I gave examples and students asked questions and got answers. The point is to gain experience in seeing any characteristic that continues. You see these characteristics continuing. You would need experience in exploiting them. I give examples. Then I give out practicing software so that you can gain experience and actually improve your skills. This is not meant to pull the wool over unsuspecting student's eyes as some form of overloaded information bombing. It's meant to take the students to the next and final level. The bet selection method produces the data track for the variance being experienced. The true trend that matters is the effectiveness trend. It's the only place that you can validate the method. It appears to be the real ground at which any claims can be authenticated too. I teach how to live with the results of your guesses. That is a skill.


Big problem though. School is out. I don't teach anymore. I don't give out practice software any more. I only did it to prove to myself that it could be taught. Just because you want proof does not mean that I must give it. I decide if I want proof out there in the public domain. I decide when. I decide when to shake up the addicted gambling treatment world.

Quote from: greenguy on June 04, 2018, 01:08:52 PM
Gizmotron, I like reading you charts.

Working with the ECs's I see a black dominance early, but then red takes most of that back. Evens does take over but black is strong too so only a few spins to take profit from an even dominance. From there a little choppy, but red takes a good hold in the second half of the spin file to ensure a positive result.

Leastways that's how I read it, or would have played it.

You read it like a genius. It's easy too. The trick is in noticing that the characteristic, which you noticed, jumps around. Every ending means to jump too. That is because you are noticing a characteristic in dominance. You can't predict where to jump. But you can use a factor of 4's for an example. You ask yourself if a factor of 4's works. You can know if it does just by betting on it. You will get your effectiveness chart just based on your attempts. 4's are any already existing 4 in a rows. Perhaps 3's are better. You can test the water for that. It's just a guess. There is no magic or claim of it working. But it will result in a data track that represents your real variance. And my method is to just get two net wins resulting in three units up. It's so close to the even point that it's a fraction of occurrences that most gamblers need in order to succeed. Nobody is agreeing with me that 3 units up is enough. It's human nature. They all want to summit on Mt. Everest. They just don't want to freeze to death on the Hillary Step.

Quote from: alrelax on June 04, 2018, 12:54:55 PM
I remember several downfalls and negative "such and such's" someone named Mark admitted and faced and it was on this board, no?  Which to me, for whatever it is worth to anyone else, awards huge credibility, credence and experience(s) of great value from the Yale or Harvard equivalent of the 'University of Hard Knocks & Value'.  Double period.

I've not forgetting my failures. I remember almost all of them. I've moved away from needing 20 to 40 big wins in order to have a winning session or day gambling. I know that just 2 net wins resulting in 3 units won is enough for me now. So far it works. Still waiting for that eventual crash that makes the (must have an edge group) so stalwart. Added to my technique was the realization that I should try these micro movement tactics on even chance bets and no longer chart the dozens anymore. You know that quote "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment." I have had a problem with self control that I now self regulate thru discipline. Many here would relate to it as MM. It could be that alone but it is massively improved by situational awareness and improved bet selection.


You know that the human factor is the real culprit in gambling issues. It's all throughout your writings. I have played a strategy that descending does not matter because the upward kill sequence will disintegrate the draw down. It's a bad tactic for me. I know others on this forum use it, even now. Perhaps they just do it better than me? I don't care. I was a mediocre top level rock climber for my period in that sport. I was one of the very best extreme skiers in the world. I just never put any of it on film. To get good at just those two things I had to fail a lot. And I did. That is why I'm not afraid to admit that I failed at my previous strategy and was very close to quitting gambling. But to have an obnoxious participant here thrive on punkish remarks by attempting to throw this back at me only demonstrates his obvious blind spot. I like seeing this guy in his regimented world of limited introspect. He has boxed himself in and controls all that is in his self made safe zone. He reminds me of Snowman from GG.

"I know you are but what am I." -- that's it? Yikes. Are you enjoying the implication of the other thread? They completely impeach decades of accepted thought in that discussion. Your edge argument just dried up and died on the vine. It's fun to see a good logical argument refute past dogma. You can no longer demagogue your saintly position. Your tower is crumbling. nanner nanner nanner 

Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
... Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.

And that advantage play could be situational awareness.


| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  3
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  5
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8

Can you see it? There's a dominance of repeaters in the even chance variance of this past spin chart. That dominance caries on for quite a while too. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that a player might time all their bet selections perfectly in order to lose every bet selected. And that actually happens too. But it happens very rarely. Most of the time a skilled player will capitalize on a stretch like this because the bets only need to win once in a row to balance every attempt after that in a repeating sequence. And there are for more streaks that go beyond one repeat in a row. There is a huge absence of singles if you jump around to other bet locations.

I'm suggesting that if variance is the culprit that creates the end-of-year bottom-line for the casino's earnings then turning that variance to your advantage is the winning key for the player. It's just a matter of properly evaluating the situational awareness and having a knowledge of expectation that fits these situations. To me that is a skill. I'm saying that this skill can increase your win rate and you could call it an edge. Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge. I don't want to put all that into a massive algorithm. I did create a simple AI project that makes independent decisions. It just takes a ton of work to make all the choices. The human brain can do all that easy. So a large sample is the only true test. This is a tried and true method of validating research. And it's purely a set of data based on numbers too.

It shouldn't take long to change the world that has already been changed since yesterday, in my opinion, because of this thread. The implication already implies that more chapters are required now in every gambling addiction and treatment book that I have ever read. And it gives a mathematical reason for understanding a gambler's mind set, when they gamble, as now a necessary part of any effective treatment.

Today's resets:



-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 48 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ 84 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ 48 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- W  ( $ 84 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  5
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  21 -- W  ( $ -6 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 42 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 78 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- L  ( $ 60 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- L  ( $ 42 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- W  ( $ 60 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 78 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- L  ( $ 60 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ 78 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- L  ( $ 60 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ 78 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- L  ( $ 60 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- W  ( $ 78 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ 96 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  30
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  9
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- L  ( $ -60 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- L  ( $ -114 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- W  ( $ -60 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- L  ( $ -114 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -168 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- W  ( $ -114 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ -60 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- L  ( $ -114 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ -60 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- W  ( $ -6 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -60 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -114 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -168 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -120 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- L  ( $ -132 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- W  ( $ -84 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- W  ( $ 72 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- W  ( $ 48 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ 80 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ -6 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- L  ( $ -66 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- L  ( $ -126 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- W  ( $ -78 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- L  ( $ -138 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- W  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ -42 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- W  ( $ 6 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ 60 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 92 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ 86 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  3
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  21 -- L  ( $ -108 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- L  ( $ -108 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  29
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ 48 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  21 -- W  ( $ 84 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  29
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 48 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- L  ( $ 12 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- L  ( $ -24 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- W  ( $ 12 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- L  ( $ -24 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- W  ( $ 12 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- W  ( $ 48 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- W  ( $ 84 )


-----------------------------------------


| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  5
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- L  ( $ 14 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- L  ( $ -22 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- L  ( $ -58 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- W  ( $ -22 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ 14 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ 50 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- L  ( $ 14 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38 -- L  ( $ -22 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37 -- L  ( $ -58 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- L  ( $ -94 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ -58 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- W  ( $ -22 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ 14 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ 50 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ 86 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- L  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  3
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -60 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- L  ( $ -120 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -24 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38 -- L  ( $ -84 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- L  ( $ -144 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -204 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ -156 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -108 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -168 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ -120 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ -24 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- W  ( $ 24 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ 72 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  3
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  30
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 90 )

Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 03:22:39 PM
I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.

It appears so. Most gamblers lose as they walk in the door and open their wallets. They all have an amount that they are willing to lose. They can say it is the cost of entertainment or that they owe the casino for that fantastic looking chandelier. They can pay $50 to get $1 worth of comps. It's all a game to get them to sit down and stay. And it is totally the bankroll that takes them out. It's smaller than the variance, based on table layout minimums. As soon as they hit their limit they pull their parachutes and out the door they bounce, happy as a sucker for a happy ending in a chic-flick.

Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:29:08 PM
Good criteria about problem gambling!  Thanks.  How about including not following a preset plan?  Include making bets higher than the method requires (I am guilty of that on occasion).  I call that plunging or tilting.  Included would be staying longer than expected.  Stuff like that.  Disicpline.

I never said that the people that came up with this actual diagnoses tool ever really understood any type of gambling strategies. In fact they know about as much as an excited newbie that just discovered the power of the Martingale. They deal with people that are crashing or about to crash. What's the funniest about this is not in recognizing that a person has problems but that the only advice that they ever give is that "you can't win." They pull some kind of statistical house's advantage spiel. Then assume that this was so convincing that any further discussion is moot. That doesn't cure anything. It hasn't helped us wackos for decades, yet I doubt that there are that many problem gamblers here as classified by the DSM-5. Your suggestions about actual causes for failure, or problem gambling's causes is a great point. I have failed to influence the mental health industry in getting therapists to actually make a more convincing argument concerning expectations. I fear that all they end up doing is degrading the client and angering them. That's a bad way to start and a great way to get the client to stop listening.

Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Spot on right. The whole posting was great.


Now for some arithmetic 101. If I bet only on the Black, I'm betting 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers that I will win on each spin. But I will only get paid back 1 to 1 on that bet. Example $10 wins $10. The greens give the casino offering the game an advantage. Perhaps this is more "bonehead" arithmetic in nature. That advantage is that they won't pay back on the true odds. Thus the reference to "paying rent." This could be shortened to PR. ... and that could be misunderstood as propaganda. Just digressing. ... or is that de-greasing the dressing?


All this makes it clear to me that if I play 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers I should have a win to loss ratio that favors the casino's side of each of those bets. But variance allows for that ratio to fluctuate a little in the sort run irregardless of the imbalance in the payoff ratio. It will do this without the influence of that edge too. I mean the ratio will change as the session goes on. I don't mean that the influence is gone. Randomness is the influence that dictates what variance will produce. So it is easy for me to figure out that I must play a strategy that attempts to process that variance by analytically detecting that relationship between randomness and variance. I can't change the imbalance ratio of the payoffs in the casino having an advantage. But I can react to the difficulty in accessing the current state of variance. That is a thing that I can become skilled at doing. And that is the ground that I am defending. I'm only wasting time if the arguments always fall back to the house's advantage. That is already a stipulated point.


Can a player ride the waves of variance? Can variance be seen as waves? Does that even exist? I not only say that it does, but that it can be an acquired skill.

Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

      Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.

Loved it! A wonderful display of logic.