Quote from: Trebor on March 30, 2013, 12:45:05 PM
Many happy returns to Mrs. TCS

From me too 

Don't "LoL" so fast!!

You compound ONE of your many session banks (first bankroll), which explodes its unit VALUE, while adding base value banks in between you and the casino at a higher rate. If your strategy is truly solid, building multiple banks with your compounding strategy is more important to stay in game than depending on a single bankroll not to have bad luck.

I *do* hope you manage to have a great time amidst those huge progressions and huge draw-downs .. Now, the strategy I'm talking about here is firmly grounded in that "Win more when winning, lose less when losing" motto; concatenated winning transactions (sessions) explode the unit value on chained winning sessions, yet in concatenated losing sessions you give the casino minimal value units

i.e. What you make in a single session with inflated units, might take the casino ten "sessions from hell" of minimal units for them to have it back. You are creating a disparity in units during the strategy's good times, aiming for it not to equate to what the bad times can take in the same playing length. All geared to maximizing profits as well as your chance to stay in game, beyond an unique bank's fate.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 28, 2013, 04:48:47 AMWe are not into Hogwarts school of magic.

Are you sure? The simple fact of declaring an officially unbeatable game as beatable is considered to be an "out of proportion magic" itself.

As to whether it is feasible to start with plenty of small units, compound Interest does the trick.

http://news.morningstar.com/classroom2/course.asp?docId=142858&page=2&CN=

The beauty of small banks is you have more cushion. 1000 = a single gaming unit. Inflexible, harder to compound. 100 units = 10 gaming units to use, adapt and act as cushion in between the player and the total risk or ruin. Furthermore, it is quicker to multiply base unit banks with smaller 100-unit entities. In gambling having bankrolls is having oxygen. If it were for me I'd use a bankroll of 10 units to compound... (but I'm using single-number strategies, based on 36 unit cycles as a minimum).

...When compounding, more frequent is better. Gladly, in this scenario a transaction generating interest isn't a year of wait as in a bank or 1000's of units to be built, but rather single entities which can be played within shorter spans (within the day), giving the player a better chance for adding up net gains by the compounded interest at an accelerated pace.

"Would you rather have $10,000 per day for 30 days or a penny that doubled in value every day for 30 days?"

Those who don't choose the penny may need to seek other venues

QuoteYou can not chose a "better" betselection

We can agree to disagree here.

I've seen with my own eyes bet selection makes a difference. "Farting" numbers versus carefully choosing bets according to current conditions certainly contrast.

Any case, I'm about to "dance naked" for the public eye to see with my betting tool. Everyone can see if flat has advantage under this light or not.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 28, 2013, 04:24:00 AMIf u  want to earn a million with a real holy grail, you need to risk at least half of that from your own pocket.

Our ways to face the game are certainly different. It is my opinion the better your strategy, the lesser your initial bankroll should be.

If your strategy works, you should actually start with the very very minimal unit, then start compounding in the grounds of your positively crafted bet in order to make your base unit grow over time.

Risking half a million to make a million doesn't sound like a solidly based strategy to me.

Well, in any case, there's enough "space" for all approaches. Each person comes closer to the tree (strategy) that gives the best shade according to him/her. We all know "best" is quite subjective. To some people "best" even means risking all your lifetime bankroll in one single roll. Let's be smarter than that when making our strategic play. Picking your bets can make a difference. Compounding and smart inter-session money management can make a difference too.

Unless you have the "motor" of the operation right (your bet/selection) the rest will have it quite hard to work on its own. Even when you have a solid progression/money management, you can always help it perform more fitting with a better-delivering selection; don't scratch smarter betting at once.

Regards.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 28, 2013, 03:02:59 AM
Victor, in my humble opinion:
1) It is not possible to keep on winning with flat bet only.

Dear Sumit, thanks for your participation.

I agree all single triggers per se are completely doomed flat betting them mechanically.

This fact does not rule-out a flat betting strategy based on timing. Having all the degrees of freedom the unfolding game might need, exercising the right to modify your bets under a conscious way, in real-time.

Nobody forces a person to continue using what isn't delivering at the moment.

In this short-circuited game when a certain something is not appearing even once, it means something else is appearing twice or more.

The smart strategy accounts for this fact, even the one that is flat.

Also, it should be possible to play on any roulette wheel in the world.

A true holy grail should based on solid, universal principles

Walter, exactly what do you have in mind?

If it's a section for people to teach and ask, we already have one (rarely used, but there).

I don't know about the money part yet chances are the fellows will be happy to assist you for free.

..."ask and thou shalt receive"...

1) Powered by a Flat betting advantage.

2) Humanly playable sessions.

3) Never 4, 5 or 6-figure draw-downs in one go.

4) Small banks.

---

Regarding to #1: it should be able to be compounded inter-session. Also you should be able to throw in a positive progression to compound in-session, by the power of the already-present flat betting advantage.

Regarding #2: This slicing into humanly playable chunks allows for re-evaluation and adjusting.

Regarding #3: Large drawdowns are a no-no. Otherwise it wouldn't be a "grail".

Regarding #4: Keeping bankrolls small allow for adding cushion in between the player and the total ruin. If you need +100 minimal (base) units to have another bank in between you and the casino it is better than having to build a 1000-unit bank before enjoying the "cushion".

---

I'm not claiming to own a holy grail, I'm just vouching for it to be determined within realistic boundaries.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 25, 2013, 03:32:28 AM
RNG casinos can cheat you easily, there can be no doubt in it. Most of them operate from remote locations totally untouched by any regulating agency or govt. If you have doubts about RNG, better play with live dealers.

+1 for live.

If you want to ponder suspicion, there's always the question of why do certain casinos known to be rogue with their payouts ban people from live roulette while allowing/inviting those same users accused of having an "irregular game" to their RNG games.


[attachimg=1]

This topic has been moved to Online Casinos.

http://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=1451.0

I suggest you read the fine print very carefully before taking any bonuses.

Some casinos won't want you to use any type of methods on their facilities. Basically anything other than blind-folded chip scattering is forbidden.

QuoteAny winnings made using advantageous betting methods (including but not limited to systematic bets on roulette) will be considered as fraudulent and will immediately become void.

On the bets they consider "OK", you get only a tiny percentage of them towards clearing the bonus (i.e. 2%)

http://en.offsidebet.com/en-GB/netent_splash/info/casino/terms_and_conditions

---

Other will flat exclude roulette and other "even chance games":

Quote4. Due to “Even-Chance” betting possibility, all Roulette wagers are excluded. Craps, Baccarat, card wars, video poker games/ poker, Sic Bo and all variants of Black Jack games are also excluded for this bonus.

https://www.1bet.com/EN/promotion.html?id=27

---

I would advice against taking a bonus unless you do understand fully what you get into.

If unsure, you can always pass the casino link around for peer evaluation/opinion.

Best.

Think of it in terms of the market.

#1 = you stock your store with a single product and pray for people to like it.

#2 = you do extensive market research, pick products wisely according to current market trends and you are constantly evaluating how are sales going. While you don't attempt to have every product in the world, you do give your store a range of flexibility. Re-stocking what is selling while it's selling, and not putting more shelf space on products which stall. You implement the policy of perpetually adapting to market conditions as they appear and change your store accordingly to reflect this new reality.

---

While it can be true people actually like the single product of your store, and it can happen your sole product stays fashionable for centuries, expecting the market to buy your product just because it's your personal choice... not a good idea. Like the game, the market moves on its own. It is the store owner's duty to adapt. We don't see many shops for train's spare parts these days...

While there is never 100% certainty, you maximize your chances by adapting, both in the market and in the game.

Quote from: Razor on March 24, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
I don t believe in randomness flows(that can be trapped) so I guess no 1 is the best way in my opinion.

It is all a matter of personal taste.


1 = Single Plan. "Plan the play and play the plan"... stoically. To the end of the bankroll if needed.


I've seen it so many times with other players. I even fell for it myself at one point.


This is what fuels: "There have been already 13 blacks... it can't go another one".
It ends with "if I only had another step in my progression" 


2 = Multiple possible plans. Pick the plan according to what's showing.


In here at least you have a shot at matching what's happening as it changes. Since change is the only true constant in the game, by means of "peaks and valleys" cancelling each other perpetually.


Of course, you stick to what is working for as long as it's working. it's not just change for the sake of change, but consciously adapting.


In here you aren't stubborn to the point of sticking into one ship till it sinks. Specially when you can jump to another ship that is currently looking better. Even if all ships can be sunk, at least you are picking on the one that is rising.


It can mean maximizing your chances of survival in the short period of a session's game-play.

---

It isn't a matter of absolute truths, since nobody has it. It is more a matter of doing our best to keep in game to have a greater chance of "being there" for the time of our success.


You aren't trying to TRAP random, you are trying to match random... 

#2 is the most propitious way according to yours truly.

I like the names:

Situational play
Strategic play
Adaptative play

It requires several ways in your gaming arsenal. Your game as a player is to evaluate current conditions, use the one method which matches it the most and test the validity of its continuation.

If it continues, you stick to it for as long as it is delivering.

If it doesn't, you go into "evaluation mode" again.

Curiously enough this methodology can be perfectly automated via software.

There are two ways of facing "the game":

1) Expecting the game to suit your ways.

2) Adapting your ways to suit the current flow of the game.

Only one of the above makes sense. Which one are you using today?