Quote from: NathanDetroit on June 14, 2016, 03:53:55 PM
Play short term. Win goal 7 -10%.

Thanks Nathan, but, honestly, I have never could control well my short plays (sessions) with wintargets. Sooner or later the cut-off winning bets could not cover the inevitable occuring and increasing loser bets. Sooner with a badly choosen win limit. If we are in the ,,black hole" already, there is no escape (almost impossible) from the deep.
Based on my experience.

Quote from: Mr J on June 12, 2016, 11:39:39 AM

    I'm not the best at wording things but I'll give it a shot. Playable at a REAL casino? (no air ball)

    Lots of talk at other boards regarding "great" methods. Over the years, my definition is slowly becoming part of the minority, not just yet but its getting there. The trend seems to be these "great" methods played at HOME, playing *MANY* numbers, with a progression, usually RNG, keep track of the trot (lol), use the latest/greatest software and of course your bot. (I could make a song out of all that)

    Where have the REAL MEN (and you ladies) gone in regards to actually going to a B&M casino...study the dealer a bit, watch the ball a bit (I never play at a table with the little beebee ball), use no progressions, a smart BR and have a VERY DECENT bet selection? Where have these threads/posts/ideas/members gone to?

    This is NOT todays roulette message boards, which is unfortunate. I'm speaking in general terms mind you, there are few exceptions. The old GG and VIP (and even RF in the EARLY stages) were *NOTHING* like it is now.

    The best of the best (imo) don't post any more (can't say I blame them) but I refuse to believe they have QUIT playing the game. Some maybe but certainly not all. The new board leaders (cough) are so far out of their element, they have NO CLUE what a DECENT method even looks like. KTF is a joke. GUT is a joke but because the members are so green, they don't see it.

    Some will say, the bottom line is your net profit. Really?

    Meaning, take one of these goofy home systems.....we'll say Joe has played it and has netted $400 for the day. Bob goes to a casino and grinds it out, nets $300 for the day. I'm sorry but the $300 is more impressive and that's not counting Bob has to drive to and from the nearest casino.

    Also, many of these home players (cough) are really only testing/practicing these systems, laying very little of their hard earned money on it. This is a holy grail, that's a holy grail, this is a holy grail...but in the end, nothing but hot-air. Sell everything you own, go get some loans and go to a REAL casino with your HG(s) and make thousands and thousands weekly !!!

    You can't have it BOTH ways. Talking s**t but risking very little. Real men get out there, grind & hustle.

    They don't wait for more "applauds", chase the smarter guys off boards and sit around patting each other on the backs. Rookie players do that, not men.

Ken

Altough I agree what you tried to communicate for us, I could not be so hard against the online playing and the Excel testing. Because what if there is no real casino in our country close to our place of residence...? And Excel...my conclusion shortly: any form of the representative long term simulation, is simple our destiny. And I like to know the destiny of my risked money, my hard-earned money. Others may not. That is their business. My business is simple: if I can not reach some "edge" in my given long term tests repeatedly(!) /and without impracticable DD swings/ with my strict mechanical rules, I will not risk with that any cent neither online or live. I do not like to trust in luck.

Novak Djokovic will be able to complete his carrier Grand Slam on clay now?
After his year of greatness (2015) Novak balance was 82(!)-6 (W/L overall, with 3 Grand Slam victories, etc.) and the French Open is his only missed Grand Slam title for now. It would be real historical opportunity in the Djokovic-Becker (and Vajda) team's life. I will be in Paris in the next few days, I'd like to watch the men's matches in live from the semifinals, especially Djokovic and Wavrinka matches (without Nadal and Federer). There will be someone who will watch the matches in live too?

Quote from: Nickmsi on May 11, 2016, 02:16:48 PM
Hi Plolp. . .

Yes, you always get a winner in 9 spins but you don't know if it will be R or B.

There are 2 parts to Non Random systems:  Math and Statistics.

VDW is the math part, it is up to us to find the Statistical part.

Cheers

Nick

Hi Nick,

thanks all of your effort in order to better understanding and the shared Excel sheets.

Because 50000 spins never can "calms" me, I've tried some longer run simulations with your VDW No Zero tracker. Unfortunatelly I could not maintain any edge in the longer term. I know, I understand what you said, we need some statistical advantage regarding the mutual bets. Like you said, maybe we can substitute these situations with another VDW APs like dozen cycles, quad cycles, etc. The complete elimination of the mutual bets (without reasonable substitution, because we will miss some important Ws) is not the right direction, I think.

So, the mentioned martingale type of progression (set by the divisor) resulted what I expected, sooner or later it burned the whole bankroll. No need another 10 million spins test, because I know well what will be the results: (more) frequently bursting. And especially one more back-to-back bursting and we will forget the gambling forever - I guarante. The core problem is again: we do not know absolutely, what would be the next result tomorrow morning within the first 10 minutes. Yes, maybe bursting immediatelly, maybe not...If it can burst today at PM 22.00, then it can burst tomorrow AM 9.00 too. In my experience, this is basic truth in a random world. If we are running quite much long run simulations, we will see some surefire unevitable facts. 

Flat betting. The main problem is same. The graphs speak for themselves.

Perhaps I will try this with other progressions like Sumit's hibrid type progressions (like standard hybrid, unbeatable hyb. or unbeatable ultramild hyb.) with or without base bet increments, substituted with load balancing, load shedding. But it needs "heavy duty" Excel coding. More time. If it can survive more random spins without complete bankroll annihilation and/or unmanageable DD's swings...I do not know at the moment, but as I see Priyanka's cleaver approach is worth the exta effort - particularly in relation both of the better progressions and the statistical advantage of some mutual bets. 
Regards

I do not know what (and why) should I reveal after 8 posts, ... and after more than 2 years very hard work and simulations. Nothing. For now. Only some principles. I will think about it...

Btw here it is the 3rd type of result, with the potentially (by me) minimum placed bets with one new applied rule the load balancing with base bet increments. But the 1st horror sequence's distribution was not 'enough' for the slowlier and less agressive type of progression...within 222 spins.
Sure, also with continous betting (substituted with flat betting) like earlier;
Max. bet sizes:
1st seq.: 28 units
2nd seq.: 9 un.
3rd seq.: 24 un.
4th seq.: 60 un.
5th seq.: 60 un.
6th seq.: 28 un.

Identical sequences with partially same main-rule (regarding the pauses) as before, but substituted with flat betting...so with continous betting. The highest bet was ~400 units in the session 3, but in most sessions was below ~250 units.

Btw there is no progression or generally money management (yet), (at least I have not found) which can handle all distributions. So these type of "tests" better than nothing, but not completely relevant. I think.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 24, 2016, 07:42:52 PM
Please illustrate your way.

I tend to choose the option "B" (for now). 

If the strict rule based pauses are allowed, then a few mild progressions with low stakes can survive these horror sequences with tiny profit. Flat betting is not enough for all of 6, especially in the 4th session - with my rules. But if the expectation is continous betting, then it is a different story.

Hi, I'm long time reader; the older version was better for me, more clearer, more transparent, it was easier to navigate...
Sure, it is just an opinion. (Sorry for my not too good English.)