There are two images in the opening message in this topic:


http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/hitting-at-a-200-odds-bet/


Can you see the BetVoyager table in full? How about the betvoyager balance one?

Thank you.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 06, 2013, 02:27:14 PM
I can see all of the white sheet he posted but only the top inch of the colored one.

Hmm, we'll need to run a poll to know if others are experiencing a similar behavior with the two images.

It is interesting indeed. If it's our (server) side it sure will help to debug this.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 06, 2013, 01:24:32 AM
Thanks for splitting this off from the other thread [...]

It was a fellow moderator!
Would the real thread splitter please stand up?! please stand up... please stand up

哇。拉尔夫，你是一箱惊喜！你在中国很长时间吗？

学习很好的一课。

Quote from: sqzbox on January 04, 2013, 06:00:11 AM
Is there really any difference?

Long-term = no, according to math.

Short-term = yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.

Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives

Ah! What's revealed in dreams is what's truly inside the mind...


While I can't give you an exact answer on what's better since it would likely had to come from testing, I can suggest you to try to "evolve" the pool of available combinations by the triple felt matrix.

You can find the support button at the forum's footer.

@sqz

http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/(manrique)-a-chip/

Agreed!

Here's a light-hearted article from the bookie's perspective on arbitrage :

http://www.bettingexpert.com/blog/why-was-my-betting-account-closed

Thanks for sharing it with us dear AMK.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 02, 2013, 02:08:36 AMEven with an advantage, turning this into a profit requires efficiency because playing inefficiently will swallow up the profit in the blink of an eye.

Very thought-provoking post.

This efficiency topic reminds me about this: even with the positive edge, the player will face drawdowns.

Then we can argue the most efficient way to bet is to use bankroll and unit-size management in order to optimize the winning runs in such a manner that they overcome the negative ones in order to help to the keep player afloat.

This implies rising the betting unit with casino's money.


In gambling the bankroll is truly the player's oxygen. No bankroll = no game, hence every step for ensuring bankroll preservation while risking should be at the top of the smart bettor's list. Rising session units from the player's pocket is a no-no. A consistent method should be good enough to rise the units on its own. Ideally starting with the very minimum base unit allowed, growing to the highest unit table maximums take.


The most efficient for bankroll preservation and multiplying is then identifying the most appropriate times to bet and maximize profits there (i.e. say for a single number, statistics might show clumps at a certain range of spins, this statistical attack zone should be squeezed for as many units as possible), as well as identifying the worst times to bet (this implies evaluating when the number is a sleeper and "letting it go to sleep" as much as it dares to go prior to resuming active bets).


There's no difference between a unit won and a unit saved in the monthly balance.

Maximizing profits goes hand in hand with maximizing savings for increasing efficiency in the bankroll.

Thank you dear Max, you're well versed in these topics.


We're lucky to have you here.

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 03:59:33 AM
You can not compound on negative progression because negative progression relies on earning 1 unit somehow like martingale or grand martingale. If u say start with even 100 units and with grand martingale got to 102, what kind of compounding do u expect to do from it?
                              Asking this question is like asking how to spread fire by sprinkling water on it? 

Hello dear Sumit, you CAN compound the unit size 

Please check out the investopedia definition. It is very clear:

Quote
Definition of 'Compounding'

The ability of an asset to generate earnings, which are then reinvested in order to generate their own earnings. In other words, compounding refers to generating earnings from previous earnings.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compounding.asp#ixzz2Getz4p42

Even units won with good ol' martingale can be compounded

We're always used to compounding in the positive progression sense, but recently I've been bugged by negative-progression compounding.

What I mean is:

- Using large "divisible" units (at least divisible by 10)

- Using negative progressions such as the Grand Martingale.

- Re-investing units earned to grow the base unit in order to derive larger net returns on the positive runs, while keeping the bad runs losing units at the regular (not inflated) rate.

I know the long term is against, but we can make MM schemes such as to last longer under "regular" game conditions, and/or use it as part of other strategies (i.e. acting as very defined recovery for another method).

---

Before embarking in such exploration myself, just wanted to tread the waters for previous work -if any.


Anyone?

Thanks for sharing Biff 


Happy new year!