I like Cosmo a lot too.

Blue stay at the Cosmo instead of TI.

Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:37:56 PM
So, yer sayin that 1175 shoe constitutes the "long run", hey hey?

No that's not the long run, but it's more statistically relevant than just a hundred!

Bellagio is ok, it's not great because it has so many immigrants that smoke like dragons.  The smoke makes it unbearable at times.  The Ven and Pallazo are nicer rooms in my opinion, you don't have the piss all over the bathroom floors, and the machines are cleaner. 

The math doesn't lie, but gambler's sometimes do. 

Blue,

TI is good pretty good choice.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 09:12:59 PM
I've never suggested to wait for the maturity of chances, why are you putting words in my mouth?
I see no point in waiting for something when there's always something else going on.
If you had to choose the best value for money which one would that be?


1. Stratosphere
2.Treasure Island
3. Venetian Palazzo
4.Bellagio

Value for what?  Are you coming to town and you want to know where you should stay?  Are you renting a car?  Etc...
When are you coming? 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 03:01:20 PM

Luck, or randomness if you prefer, has limits.
For example you will never see a number missing more than 666 spins, we could extend it to the rest of the bet selections/probabilities:


666/2 numbers = 333 spins maximum absence
666/3 numbers = 222 spins maximum absence
666/4 numbers = 167 spins maximum absence
666/6 numbers = 111 spins maximum absence
666/12 numbers = 56 spins maximum absence
666/18 numbers (EC) = 37 spins maximum absence

If in some way you could surpass those virtual limits then you would be always victorious.

Blue,

Your virtual limits are utterly worthless! It's as useless as waiting for ten blacks to hit before betting on red.  You can't use the statistics to try and side step the probability of winning.  The payout will always be short of what the probability of winning says is fair.  It doesn't matter how elaborate your progression is, it simply won't work in the long run.

QuoteThere are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.

So?  What's your point?    A progression alone can not turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  When the player has the edge the best progression is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin or hand.

QuoteWhat you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work  this way...

You're obviously looking at very short term results based on your limited experience, rather than extended periods of time.  The optimum strategy is as I've stated.

QuoteWhether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.

Sorry, but based on the replies that you've written it appears that you have little experience in dealing with progressions when the player has the edge.

Xander,

Quote-Blue Angel The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.

The best progression is a modified Kelly.  Edge/expectation x confidence level in betting conditions

Quote1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.

The progresson to which I'm referring, which is like the Kelly, enables the player theoretically indefinitely subdivide their bankroll if they encounter long losing stretches. 

Quote2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses

.

Up as you win provides the largest possible win over basically all scenarios.  I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression.

Quote3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.

Flat bets open the door for larger losses during draw downs caused by variance.  Again, betting a percentage of your bankroll as I described earlier in the thread is vastly superior.

QuoteWhen you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!

No that's ludicrous.  I'm talking about when the gambler has the edge.  You appear to be talking about something else. There is a correct answer.  And the correct answer has to do with the probability of ruin, and what provides the opportunity to win the most while risking the least amount of money.  An up as you lose progression, mathematically doesn't make sense when compared to betting a percentage of your bankroll when the gambler has an edge.

QuoteThe main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.

I'm not completely sure what it is that you're trying to say in the phrase above, and it appears that you don't know either.  The cut and paste job from the article you copied it from doesn't exactly fit in the discussion.

QuoteThe same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 

Again, there is a correct answer for this as well.  The answer is, on how many numbers do you actually have an edge, what is their edge, and what is their effect on variance.

QuoteOnce again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!

Again, your using words that don't fit the discussion.  "Synchronisation,"  "swimming against torrent???"   

What matters is winning as much as possible while risking the least amount of money.  In the end the correct answer is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin using the progression that I've described.

Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PM
You obviously don't play and it's good that you don't.  Quite correct, cannot avoid variance.  But there is two aspects to it.  One is short term and the other long term.   Here is a bit of short term variance from couple days ago:  LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.  Well that just means the casino owes me some wins.  When you're down that low you generally will come back a good bit to at least 45% but if yo just get back to the expected EV you're gonna recoup.  It took another 100 hands to get back up but it did prove to be profitable at a net of $420.00 with no higher than $50.00 bet.  I had a profit as soon as I hit 49%.   Fortunately the VARIANCE goes both ways!

I chose that session because it has such a low swing.  That's unusual but it does happen oon occasion.

Your comment doesn't even make sense.  And "LLLWLLL?"  This is tracking nonsense.    There's no value to it.  It's just leading you down the path of gambler's fallacy.  There is no expectation that you will recoup anything.  The random walk just dictates that moving forward your expectation is to just lose at the house edge, not for events to catch back up or to make up for some kind of loss.  I hope you're not implying that it will.

Quote from: Jimske on May 25, 2018, 12:11:18 PM
Of course.  I always expect to return to the law of large numbers.

What is it that you expect the law of large numbers to do for you?

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM

Xander, I get it. You are selling having an edge while dismissing anything else that you can be categorized as not having an edge. Ten reds in a row are not a "zero sum game."  Perhaps we should move on to word games like zero some manipulations. I'm fascinated by your anal retentive perpetuation of this world of having an edge. It's like confirmation bias meets the Grand Inquisitor. You are officially labeled the "edgeNatzi." It's great to belong to a club, don't you think?


There is no chance in ell that you are concerned that I will be disappointed without your caring warnings. So, why are you here? We are all dummy dicks on a puss farm full of cats. Are you the gambling savior? I just don't get it?

I have nothing to sell anyone. 

Ten reds in a row is meaningless.  It's no more relevant than a bear pattern in the clouds.  I don't know why you're enamored with it.

Gizmo,

Winning is not a mindset.  The game doesn't care about your discipline.  It doesn't care about how many games you're trying to win or what your money management is.  What matters is whether or not you have the edge.  If you don't have the edge, then your expectation moving forward is simply the sum of all of your bets multiplied times the house edge.   Along the way to the long run you'll of course contend with variance (luck) bobbing up and down, but it's a zero sum game that's merely a short term distraction.   

If you really want to win, find a way to get the edge.  Everything else, like the money management part/gaming discipline is just noise.  Everything that needs to be said about the MM can be stated in just one paragraph.

I don't know of the site.  I wouldn't pay a dime to visit it either.

Like it or not, though, the math doesn't lie.  I find that the people that disagree do so because they don't comprehend the effects of variance.   Variance isn't something that you can avoid with gaming discipline.  It just is what it is, "luck."  Variance is accurately described mathematically, and when you have the edge, it's nothing more than an annoyance at best. 

QuoteYou can and will stay ahead of the game by far, if only you can truly control, recognize and be fully 100% consciousness of your emotions, desires, visions and thoughts.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not true.  The house edge doesn't care about your emotions, desires or thoughts.  Like it or not, in the long term you can not win or lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.

In order to remain a consistent winner over a long period of time, you must have an edge over the game, and unfortunately discipline doesn't provide it.