If you use the law of series based upon Marigny - then two things happens.
When it stop growing it more times going into hovering state or a direct draw-down, then it fall back to back and start to grow again.

That is my experience with sequence around 3.0 STD.
Even if i know the bell curve has no limit.

Cheers

Good question.

I find out is not so much about where you bet that is crucial - it is not that who result in a winning session or a losing session.

I start testing John Patrick's and Brett Morton's Money Management strategy's with out any specific system, just testing Follow The Last and avoid playing when the table is choppy.

I win two out of three and four out of five sessions.
With different set ups of MM plans.

Some is harder and some are more easy to achieve.
Its about finding the cut point between win goal targets and stop loss amount.

-

Confusing is that some think they will double or triple there daily bankroll, that is nonsense.
Then it boils down to the easy path to aim for a small % and you end up with the 20/100 flaw.
Where you have to win more then five session in a row to hold a profit.

The blending edge is to build up your MM between does fallacy's.
Then you might win two out of three on regular basis or four out of five.

It was just for fun, no need to test it for any larger sample, as all bet selection lose in the long run.
That i old thinking, you can not beat the game based upon larger sample when testing bet selections.

I just experiment with repeats using the principal of 1/3.
I use the formation of a dice with four patterns/formations.

XXX
XOX
XXO
OXX

I did never get 4 loses during 300 trails with today's random org file ...
That is pretty cool.

2    2    1
2    1    2
2    1    2 W
1    2    2 L
2    1    1 W
1    1    1 L
2    2    1 L
2    1    1 W
1    2    2 W
1    1    1 W
2    2    2 W
2    2    2 W
1    1    1 W
1    1    2 L
2    1    2 L
2    1    2 W
2    1    2 W
2    2    2 L
1    1    1 W
2    2    1 L
2    2    1 W
1    1    2 W
2    1    2 W
1    1    2 W
2    2    1 W
1    1    1 L
1    2    1 W
1    1    2 L
2    2    1 W
1    1    1 L
1    1    1 W
1    1    2 L
2    2    1 W
2    1    1 L
2    2    2 L
2    2    2 W
1    2    2 W
1    1    2 L
2    2    2 L
1    1    1 W
1    1    2 L
2    1    1 W
2    1    2 L
2    2    1 W
1    1    1 L
2    2    2 W
2    1    1 L
1    1    1 W
2    1    1 W
1    1    2 L
1    1    1 L
1    2    1 L
2    2    2 W
2    1    1 L
2    2    2 W
2    2    1 L
2    1    1 W
2    2    1 W
1    2    1 L
2    1    2 W
2    1    1 L
1    1    2 W
2    2    2 L
2    1    1 W
2    2    1 L
1    1    2 W
1    1    2 W
1    2    2 W
1    2    1 L
2    2    1 W
1    2    2 L
1    2    1 W
2    2    2 L
1    1    2 L
2    1    2 W
2    2    2 W
2    2    2 W
2    2    1 L
2    1    1 L
2    2    2 L
2    2    2 W
2    1    2 L
1    2    1 W
2    1    2 W
2    2    2 W
1    1    2 L
2    2    1 W
1    2    1 W
2    1    1 L
2    1    2 L
1    1    2 W
2    2    1 W
1    1    1 L
1    1    1 W
1    1    1 W
2    2    2 W
2    2    1 L
1    1    1 L
2    2    1 L
1    2    1 W

I will set up a paper test using dominant trends as selection.
Next i will set up MM based upon Brett Morton's principal.
I will also set up MM based upon John Patrik's principal for comparison, as there is a little difference between them both.
Will use the following regression method 20 10 15 20 30 40 50
Attack window for each betting series will be three attempts.

The aim is to see what kind of variance we will deal with, when we aim to win two session out of three or four session out of five - that is in direct contact with the set up of MM strategy ...

Cheers

First i would like to state that there is many other ways that is much smarter then JL method's - so why would some one continue with this challenge.
I don't see that JL is even close to be a smart gambler or trying to become professional.

It is just that his method's is the issue, they are sloppy and fuzzy with very little math and probability behind them.
All i seen and read about JL is nonsens based upon my opinion.

I just can't see why one would put effort and time into this topic or challenge.

-

That is physics my friend, the only way to get advantage and an edge over the house.

Quote from: Ralph on February 27, 2013, 10:19:33 AM

Still we can lose badly. Things has changed with internet casinos. The old classic methods were not for all players designed to have a larger bankroll.  It is possible for more to use a bankroll of 100000 on a penny casino. And then try to ride out difficult swings. A loss is still possible, but you do not need  to be billionare to give it a try.   Myself think it is dangerous to leave the pennies when ahead, just rise the stake to 10 cent is tenfold, and a bad streak will fast take back all winnings. Better test the luck using higher first, and then reduce the bets.  I have got impossible runs RFH three times this year losing  about 200 Euro, and have a net of 3800 Euro. If I had rise the stake to even 0.1, I have maybe still been in plus, but the loss had been 2000 Euro. I may have lost more session as it may be hard to have a stoploss at 1000 Euro or more. I think we can win for a while, sometimes a long while, but not forever.

You mention regression, cool ...

Quote from: albalaha on February 26, 2013, 08:33:06 AM
keep playing even in your best day and you are bound to come home empty handed.

That would take for ever if you win two out of three or four out of five ...
With some variance of draw downs, but you still stay ahead overall ...

I test a raw selection with the regression plan and push with up and pull.
Loss limit -60 and win target 40 ...

Just for fun i run 300 trials with today's random org file ...

65
45
-60
45
40
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
40
-60

I think if i would add Brett Morton's MM to this, we would had higher win targets for a second and third rung with higher peaks as we would push more ...

I made a twist towards Lanky's old EC method ...
The LW-Registry look like this:

WL
LLW
WWWL
WL
WWL
WL
WL
LW
WWL
WWWWL
WL
WL
WL
WWWL
WWWL
WWWWL
WWWL
LW
WL

Quote from: wannawin on February 26, 2013, 02:30:51 PM
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have here a lot to study and learn.
The fact that you took the time to answer is greatly appreciated.

Walter

Hello, simple rule is to remember the 20/100 Flaw ...
You have to have flexibility ...

What would you say is a good read - roulette book !

Cheers

-

As i see it you catch it with three attempts or you are done.
The losing tail is around two to three depending on staking plan.

This is how i see it ...

rrrr BBB rr BBBB rBrrr BB rrr BBBBB rBrBrB rrrr BBB rr BB rrrr BBB rrrrrrr ...
RED

WWWL
WL
LW
WL
WWL
LW
LW
WWL
WL
WWWL
WWWWWWL

BLACK

WWL
WWWL
LLL
WL
WWWWL
LW
LLW
WL
WWL