Quote from: maestro on October 25, 2013, 04:55:17 PM
@Sam if you need to risk 1000 to win 100 a week that is not good..my opinion

Maestro, 10% return is a good ROI on any investment.  Why do you feel it's not good.  Would you mind explaining. 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 25, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
This is no criticism. 

Sam, The reason I post is to seek inputs and feedback. Mankind would not be where they are today, if they didn't learn to accept feedback and continuously improve in the journey towards perfection. I welcome your thoughts anyday being a big fan of yours.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 25, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
I once wrote a piece named "New Eyes On the Marquee".  (I can't find it!) 

How can I forget it Sam. Here it goes for others who doesn't know what it means.

---

What are new eyes on the marquee?  It is simply another person who sits down quite some time after you do and he sees a new perspective on what is happening.  My ideas are these, and I'm not sure I'm willing to accept them as truth, but here goes.
There are two times when your system will fail.
1.      When the new eyes, playing exactly by your rules, finds a bet you must pass on.
2.      When the new eyes, playing exactly by your rules, does not find the trigger which caused you to start betting.  (I will say, I am used to seeing ten to twelve numbers on the marquee at Dublin or Riverbelle or CasinoWebCam.  A person who tracks for himself is a different story.)

A woman once asked me how to people could play the same system and one win and one lose.  I think this could answer it in part.  One might be betting and tap out while the other is waiting for a trigger.

This phenomenon happens in many systems, but never in one where you are waiting for red to hit five times and then start betting black.  Everyone sees a bunch of reds, even if the whole marquee is red and they would start betting on black.  Just a silly example, you know!

---

There are lots of your theories I just adore, another example of Two Cat Universal Profit theory if you remember it.

Coming back to the point, as you have described in the last paragraph above Sam, there are some systems which are immune to this theory. But I hear your point loud and clear. As I am still in the process of developing this, I will have to take this point on board to see how it impacts the results. As it stands now, it might look like, to a certain extent it is immune to this, which you will see when I describe the re-entry signals. The reason is because, I am trying to capture a dynamic pattern in an attack and not defined numbers. So barring the first dynamic pattern, both Tom and Dick in the example should converge at some point. But you are right, there are times when it falls for it. I need to look at this a bit more deeper to see how it impacts and how we can adapt.

Another interesting thought,
Trigger - An event that precipitates other events
Signal - An indicator
There is a borderline difference between them. The reason I used signal to get in and get out, instead of Trigger is because of this reason. I am not using the "first to reach 2" as a trigger for Reds to come. I am just using it as a signal to assume it might be the start of a Red dominance in this attack sequence.

Finally, it doesn't make any difference to my session, if I use a signal to get-out and I travel back spins to locate whether there was a signal to get-in so that I start in the next spin. But it will be my next attack. So just going back to the example, BRRB, one attack is getting in at BRR and getting out at B. The next attack will start at RRB and will continue until there is a signal to get out. Hope this paragraph specifically answers the query that you have raised Sam.

[smiley]aes/beer.png[/smiley]

Out of curiosity, does "ALBALAHA" mean anything?

I received some good feedback on how to make this section better and appeal to a larger audience. I am currently working on the feedback to make it better. Hopefully, should find time to incorporate them by next week. Essentially, am thinking about 3 separate threads.

1. Daily picks, without much of commentary. This is going to be quantity for people to look at with a medium to strong choice of winning.
2. Spotlight - Specific matches, that I would like to discuss in detail and for indepth betting.
3. Against the odds - Again specific matches, where I will be betting against the bookies.

Every thread will have its own history, so that you can see the performance, both overall as well as streaks and rolling 4 week history. This will all be collated as results under 1 thread. Hope you will start liking the new format when I start next week. Looking forward for more feedback.

Quote from: Turner on October 23, 2013, 09:43:33 PM
But ...David Luiz is dodgy at best.

My money is on your team Turner. Lets see.

A recap:

5 on Mancity -1.0 @ 2.24 - Money back
5 on Shaktar +0.5 @ 2.05 - Lost
5 on Real win @1.6 - Won
5 on Kostas Mitroglou scoring a goal @4.3 - Lost
Total 2 units in the negative.

Overall profit in 5 days a little under 14.

Quote from: Rouletta on October 24, 2013, 05:24:36 PM
Assuming there are 3 consecutive wins, I think we can let the winning streak going  on.....; No need to get out as long there is no loss yet;

Quote from: Sputnik on October 24, 2013, 09:06:36 PM
Many don't know that you need to win two in a row to get +1 unit flat betting as each sequence end with a loss.
That is one reason Regression is superior ... you win once and you can not lose it all back ...

Rouletta, I think Sputnik indirectly answered your question. Essentially to win in flat betting, you need more than 50% wins if you are playing ECs, more than 34% wins if you are playing dozens and so on. So for ECs it boils downs to 2 wins every 3 spins to be able to get ahead in the smallest attack possible.

The reason we are going one ahead and stopping at 1 loss after 3 wins, is because we don't want to lose the advantage we gained in this attack sequence. We want to win as many attacks as possible to be able to end the session in a plus.

Now, the question is why lose when the EC you are betting is dominating and giving you series while the opposite EC is giving single. Very thoughtful question. We will talk about it in a bit more details when we talk about re-entry strategy. But as a preview, just think about tracking for a signal to get in after we have stopped on a single loss. You will realize that you will keep getting on to the same dominating EC if it has been streaking continuously. More when we talk about re-entry points.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 24, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
A lot of work on your part.  Thanks a ton.....

Thanks for the kind words Sam. Very negligible compared to the dedication and time you devote to the game.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 24, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
BRR – R dominates and we started betting Red
Next spin B – Stop betting. One signal, dominance ended.........you wrote..

Now if B comes it looks like this B R R B.  Since the last three are dominated by red, why do we stop?
And why did the dominance end?

Sam, A very good question. At the moment am looking only into a quantum of time. Am not going just 3 spins back to understand the dominance.
Taking the example that you have mentioned, B R R B. Let say two people enter the casino Tom and Dick. Tom enters first and sees the numbers from B, R and R. So he will start betting on Red as the dominant and continue betting until the signal to step out. Once the signal to step out comes along, he stops and will look for the next signal to get in. So when B appears next, he is having 2 reds and 2 black, so no clear dominance from one colour. He steps out and tracks spins for next signal to get in.

Dick enters the casino a little late, when R spins first. So the first 2 spins for him are RR. R is dominating, so he starts betting R. Next spin B. None of the signals to get out is visible yet. R is still dominating, so he continues R. Now if the next spin is B as well, he will step out and wait for a trigger to get in again. If the next spin is R, he continues betting R.

So, instead of overlapping quantum of times with a ladder based approach, am looking for a fixed quantum of time once I get in till I get out, for this study. The dominance is considered for this quantum of time and it is not considered for a fixed 2 spin or 3 spin period, but dynamically over this quantum of time. Hope I answered your query.

Very nice Drazen. Do you have experience in playing it? How do you think it adds up? Do you just go on increasing or do you have any reset points. What is the worst drawdown you faced if you play this.

I know lots of questions. But I am keen to understand how this performs as I have never read such progression anywhere.

That was all about a simple step-in. When we are talking about step-out we will also talk about when to reenter once stepped out. But at the moment, just a recap on step-in, when an EC hits twice (not necessarily in succession), assume that EC is dominating and step-in with bets on the EC that reached two times first. As easy as drinking water.

Step-out
Now things get a little complicated. We have now decided to put our head inside lion's mouth. Despite you having years of practice in circus, if you are not taking the head out at the right time, you might lose your life. Now there are three options that are possible. There is chance that you keep on going inside the mouth and you might choke the lion to death. Other outcome is you get swallowed.  And the final one is you take the head out before getting swallowed and feed the lion a little to make it happy and keep the circus going. My Choice is very simple and it is the 3rd one, everyone is happy.
This is the approach that we need to do. Don't go for the ultimate jackpot, don't go for the ultimate death, play safe and steady.

When you step in, as we said we are making an assumption. How do you know your assumption is right or wrong. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Don't get fooled if someone says they can predict outcomes. So what are we going to do now, how do we know what to do?

We wait for three signals.
1. The dominance to end
2. There is a double loss
3. After 3 wins (not consecutive) there is a loss.

Let me explain better with examples.
RR – we assumed R dominates and enter the fray with bets on Red.
Next spin B – Continue betting on Red as none of the 3 signals came into picture
Next spin B – Stop betting. Two signals, dominance ended, there is a double loss.

BRR – R dominates and we started betting Red
Next spin B – Stop betting. One signal, dominance ended.

RBB – B dominates and we start on Black
Next spin B – Continue
Next spin B – continue
Next spin R – Continue, as none of the signals came into picture
Next spin B – continue
Next spin R – Stop. One signal, After 3 wins, there is a single loss.

RBR – R dominates and we start on R
B – Stop, One signal, dominance ends

RR – R dominates and we start on R
B – Continue on R
R – Continue
B – continue
R – continue
B – Continue
R – Continue
B – Stop. One signal – single loss after 3 wins

RBR – R dominates, so we start on R
R – continue
R – Continue
B – Continue
B – Stop.One signal, double loss

So the step out is not only to correct when we incorrectly went in, but also to automatically limit on not going too much that the balance starts to appear and you always end up in negative outcome.

As we incorrectly stepped in, we might as well incorrectly step out. But that's part of the game. As you can see, we are trying to accommodate most of the patterns that appear and disappear in a very dynamic manner. We are trying to accommodate a chopping and streaking table. We are trying to accommodate singles and series of 2 or more. We are trying to accommodate hot and cold patterns. We might miss some, but the key is we must catch more than we miss.

We have to treat every entry point as attack. And then whether we fight the battle depends on whether the battle field favours us. If it doesn't, retreat gather and reattack. If it favours, go until you lose your energy and then retreat. Any session will contain a number of attacks and retreats before we call it a day.

Any questions ask, as this is not the end. Once we understand step out, we should talk about re-entry signals.

Thanks for the time Sam.

Just had a question to ask you.

When would you think one should consider they are deep into the hole when playing D'alembert?

Is it between 15th and 20th level?

The reason I ask is I am seeing that the recovery is very slow when we get higher and higher the progression level.
As per the hiccup effect if we are at level 1 and 2, then every lose and win bet we gain 1, which will reset any losses quickly.
But if we are at level 9 and 10, every winning bet is giving  as 1 unit, but a losing bet takes 10 times of that win.
This is why I wanted to know from your experience till when would you consider safe to continue on the D'alembert steps.

Other question that I had was, have you ever considered a percentage increase instead of a fixed 1 unit increase and decrease.
For example, after a losing bet we increase 25% of the unit size.
So, if am playing 1$ units, if I lose my next bet would be 1.25$, I  lose this, my next bet is 1.6$ and so on.

Now that we decided to capture dominance on ECs, the big question is how do we do it without facing those challenges we discussed about. As Sam mentioned earlier, the key is to understand when to get in and when to get out.

Lets talk about the signal to get in.

Signal to get in
As described in our ground rules, we can't afford to sit endlessly in the table waiting for a signal to come through. Reason – We would not know whether the signal is an indication of good things to come or it is a false signal. I am sure the "most read about topic" in this forum, talks about this (Hit and Run) and it is proven that such hit and run signals end up on a false note and they are not workable as a long terms solution. But there are also people who talk about waiting for a desired SD and then start attacking for a balance, in the next set. And there are reports that people do that with some significant success. How do we turn this on its head and identify a signal almost every other spin? Is it really possible at all?

Let me throw an idea that will help you cut the chase. You observe for a maximum of 2-4 spins. The first time an EC hits 2 times (not necessary in succession), we consider that as the signal to get in. We ASSUME that the EC which hit 2 times first is the dominant. Of course, it could be a false signal, but that we will worry about when we get to our signals to get out. It might be confusing to follow, so let me explain with examples.

RR – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
RBR  – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
BRR – Signal to get in with an indication that Red is the dominant. So start betting Red
BB – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black
BRB  – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black
RBB – Signal to get in with an indication that Black is the dominant. So start betting Black

Got it? What happens when zero comes up? We just ignore that it appeared eg –
0RR - we read as RR ,
R0BR – we read as RBR
R0R – we read as RR
00RR – we read as RR and so on.

Now the funny thing is once we decided something is dominant, we keep betting on the same side unless the signal to get out comes through. For simplicity sake, I have used RB, needless to say that you can apply it against High-Low, Odd-Even, 3v3 lines, 6v6 streets and so on. It is essentially 18 pockets vs 18 pockets in the roulette.

So far so good? Will leave yourselves to ask any questions and absorb this completely before I pick the next post when we discuss about the signal to get out. This is where we will talk about what if it's a false signal? What to do when in doubt? What to do when the rain gods are showering? So on and so forth.

Sam.  Very nice.  Two questions if I may.  What is cut-off? And what is hicup effect. 

Now that I decided the first one am going to use is ECs, how am I going to define the selection. DOMINANCE.

If at all this is a perfect world, we would be having all numbers striking atleast once in a 37/38 spin cycle, a table that chops consistently. It is not. Random plays a huge part. So we know by experience, inside and outside casino, that a random outcome is supposed to be random. If you toss heads and tails, we may not get head and tail alternatively, but in pockets. At times the head outcome will dominate and tail other times. They may be in perfect balance at some point or the other, but not always. This is an event that happens every spin and we don't have to wait for 10s and 100s of spins to see this phenomena develop.

Taking this clue, we are going to use DOMINANCE for our bet selection. We are attempting to try getting in with red when red dominates and get out when it doesn't. We are going to attempt to get in with black when it dominates and get out when it doesn't. Easy said, difficult, very difficult to execute.

A simple thing that people practice is race to 5. The claim is the fastest to reach 4 is the fastest to reach 5. If you see red reaching 4 first beating black, then red will reach 5 as well first. That's a way to tap dominance. But assuming the theory is true, the issue with that for me is it is not at all affordable flat betting. Let me explain why. Consider the following possible outcomes, considering Red is reaching 4 first and will reach 5 first as well.

4 red and 0 black
4 red and 1 black
4 red and 2 black
4 red and 3 black

The best case scenario is the next spin is red and the worst case scenario is you have to wait for 4 spins to get to red. Flat betting simply doesn't hold up, as you are talking not about a 50-50 chance here, but 25-75 chance. I have ignored the cases where black will also reach 4 and eventually 5.

The other practice people follow is look at the marquee. Red is dominating, continue betting on red. Not bad, but I don't have real control over when to start and when to end and I don't really know whether the domination I saw in the marquee is the end of a standard deviation or the beginning of an extreme deviation.

One other thing, which I used to practice was, treat the outcomes in blocks. Look at the last 5 or 10 spins. If red was dominating then bet for or against the dominance for the next 5 to 10 spins depending on your block size. Very good method to trap dominance and reduce your risk profile. The problem here for me is that I am blocking myself for a series of spins. I am restricting to a pocket of 5-10 spins, whereas the pattern packet may be for a larger or smaller number of spin sets.

Yes, I find something or the other challenging in these methods that try to trap the dominance and bet for or against the dominance to continue. But the concept of dominance is something that has remained and will remain very attractive. Now the question is what is the effective way to trap it in a negative expectation game?