Something interesting I might have encountered. Taking two systems and comparing them, both with the same percentage chances of success results in more variance for the system with the LEAST number of spins to achieve the desired percentage.

One system wins 92% of the time within 16 spins while the other wins 92% of the time within 92 spins. Even though they both have the same percentage chance of winning, the first system encounters wild variance swings while the second system remains steadily consistent.

You know I think this is connected to the same principle that changes the expected odds when say, you simulate a single EC bet with 4 DS spins. The 4 spins have over a 50% chance of hitting BUT 6 times THREE equals 18 not FOUR; something changes with the odds when you change the win criteria on the felt??

I think the extra spins provides a "variance buffer" where the variance is lessened over the greater length of spins because each spin has less relevance to the odds of hitting.

Congratulations for discovering the undisputable truth, for example if for an EC can get as low as less than 70 hits out of 200 outcomes just imagine the proportionally equivalent for singles...!

It's becoming impractical in terms of time and money, EC's contain the most numbers one bet can have that's why even in the event of extreme deviations could be managed within 6 (222 spins) up to 9 cycles (333 spins) with a proper progression.

I have to admit that I truly believe that the most important element in a strategy is not the progression, but what I've posted on topic

fallacious holy grail proved me wrong, or at least proved that

**there is an exception to every rule!**