I know many of you think that if you could overcome the worst possible scenario in terms of results then you would consider it holy grail.
But ask yourselves, even if there was such solution, would that be something that you likely follow precisely?
Don't hurry to answer...!
I bet 95 % of you wouldn't apply the solution, you see it's in our nature to idealise situations, persons...etc
The way we consider about something is better than how actually is, that's why.
Actually the solution of overcoming 135 loses with just 65 wins regardless of the even chance you select or the distribution of the loses/wins within the 200 results, has been given more than a century ago on the book "10 days at Monte Carlo on the bank's (casino) expense"
Take a look on the following progression:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
A total of 360 units are sufficient to overcome even the session from hell or any black swans you might encounter.
The key is to understand that actually we don't have to overcome 135 loses, but 70.
What really matters is the difference, deduct 65 from 135 and there you are 70, but I'm going to make it "quarters" for you.
By using the progression above, with each and every win we are canceling 1 loss, so whether we experience 10 wins and 10 losses or 1 win and 1 loss it doesn't really matter because are canceling each other, also it doesn't matter in which order are going to occur.
The above progression is quite simple, after 10 MORE losses than wins you add 1 unit to your bet and so on...
I want to repeat the word 10 MORE, because it means that it doesn't have to be 10 losses in a row, it could be 7 wins against 17 losses.
So after 70 more losses, you need 45 more wins in order to come on top.
Since 65/135 is the worst possible scenario,after those 200 spins the things can go only better, in other words regression towards the mean.
How long it could take till you have 45 net wins it's completely another matter, it could a few hours, many hours or even a day!
You may encounter very long results like this: L L W W L W L L L W W W L W W W L L W L...and it goes back and forth, back and forth like a pendulum in a perpetual movement!
For me would be like a torment, I would wish to lose 10 times more in order to raise my bet and get over with it!It's amazing to me how those people a century ago could actually apply such method!You could spend the whole day inside the casino, literally!The aftermath is:Even if it's valid and completely possible, does it worth your time??Personally speaking, someone must have nerves of steel, PLENTY of time and PATIENCE must be his middle name!I have to admit that I'm not that person!Some VERY valuable feedback provided by the user "UK" on this topic
what is the most negative expectation we can encounter in 200 spins?
It is always possible to get the permanence of horror right from the start.
The program so far will answer the first question and also address the 2nd point in that it will tell you what % of sessions will start of with a loss and never get to a ve balance throughout the session. The program simulates even money roulette (betting on red) and the le partage rule (1.35% edge) with 100,000 sessions of length 200 spins.
For flat betting:
number of sessions always in a net loss = 6553 (6.55%)
average peak gain within a round = 9.44
average peak loss within a round = -12.11
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 58.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -62.50
So 93.45% of the time you can expect to quit at some point within the session with a profit - even if it's only 1 unit.
The second figure (average peak gain within a round) would suggest that if you get a profit of 9 or 10 units in the session and continue to play on you are making a bad bet, statistically speaking.
The final figure (actual peak loss within a round) suggests that a bankroll of 60 - 70 units is sufficient.
The program is work in progress and I intend to add more analysis including the number of "reversals" within a session, a reversal being a swing from ve to -ve balance or vice versa within a session. In theory by knowing the average number of reversal for a system you can then keep track of them and quit on a ve balance if you have "used up" your reversals in a session.
I've experimented with various systems and the best so far in terms of being able to make a profit at some point (ie; the lowest % of sessions without making any profit at all throughout the session) is the Maxim principle. Note that according to the author this is only meant to be used for craps and also I haven't simulated any of the exit points.
Using a maximum stake of 50u:
number of sessions always in a net loss = 261 (0.26%)
average peak gain within a round = 63.98
average peak loss within a round = -156.53
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 122.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -1692.50
A 99.74% chance of quitting with a profit, but of course this is offset by the hugely increased bankroll necessary and attendant risk involved.
For a maximum stake of 10u (ie; the progression is 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and start over when you get to the end.
the results are:
number of sessions always in a net loss = 1131 (1.13%)
average peak gain within a round = 43.46
average peak loss within a round = -64.63
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 121.50
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -412.00
From my testing so far it seems that most volatile systems (those that offer more "reversals") are those that incorporate both -ve and ve progressions (like the Maxim principle)."
Very valuable information from user "UK" and I'd like to thank him for sharing with us, but someone named obviously Max or Maxim or Maximilian stole that progression from the book "Monte Carlo anecdotes", see the "Fitzroy" system on page 141.
"Maxim principle" has been (e)mailed across US as sure win method several years back, someone stole the intellectual property, rename it and tried to sell it as holy grail.
But the most disappointing is that this progression rather than system, has been made MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO like the first on the beginning of this topic!
My conclusion is that we are recycling VERY old knowledge/information and my question is:
Is there any progress to our practical knowledge and methods since a CENTURY ago??
Or we just recycling the same as "new"??
The game and its rules have not changed, have we?!