I plan to open again the Belgian thread, but till then and because your topic reminded it to me, let me tell you what happened with Belgian.That is y, betting the most frequent winning range, is so important. A player should never allow an extreme sequence to ruin his entire bankroll. It's not a matter of "if" but when it will happen.
After much thought at some point, he started his system with like $100 and very low denominations ($0.05 if I remember correctly). His point was to increase the base bet as his capital increased. He had tremendous determination. He played over 10 hours a day, every day for weeks.
The system produced profits, but as he gradually increased the base bet to like $10 then the sequence from hell came and he lost all his bankroll. This happened again and again. After much effort he multiplied his starting capital, only to be wiped out, at some point by an extreme sequence.
He was very near to the point of total nervous collapse. His wife was worried, but she supported him morally. In the end he succeeded. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he managed to turn $100 to something like $2000, which is 20 times your initial total bankroll. Then he stopped and said he would never try this again. The mental, physical and nervous toll he had to pay was too much.
Betting the most frequent winning range (something that takes some serious testing to determine), guarantees that you will only be betting during the "advantage range". If you don't hit in that range , you quit and try again under a new trigger.
Which brings up the next issue.
The fact that consecutive short range failures are much more rare to happen, than a single failure comprised of an equal number of total bets that would've been placed in several short range bets, each under a new trigger.
That is a fact.
So when you test to determine the success statistics of a particular system, players should also test to determine the most frequent betting range, within which, success occurs.
A 99% success rate, impressive as it may seem, means nothing if when the 1% failure rate happens, it takes down the entire B/R.
Here is an example to make the point understood.
Instead of betting indefinitely (or as far as your B/R can take you), on an 8 spins missing dozen,
it's much better to bet just 3 spins, and stop if no hit.
Next time around it is unlikely, that under the same conditions, the missing dozens will escape a hit in those 3 bets. And certainly not the third time around.
Where a non stop betting spree will succumb, when that missing dozen decides to go all the way up to its missing limits. Or the B/R will run out long before a hit comes along.
I hear what you're saying. Do you have a suggestion of how to determine that range?
My thinking is that the reaction of a player is keyed to if they are winning or not.
You win certain small amounts. But when you are losing, you are hoping to recoup and you
"hold on, hold on, hold on". That is a sure bet for the house. So ALL your losses are catastrophes
from panic and fear, and the wins are whatever you figure is all you can get. Cut off.
One time I parlayed a good one at the craps table. The crowd was out of control like you imagine
with the pictures of those mugs on books. Yelling and cheering. I can still feel it. And the look
of apprehension/fear of the box man who consistently pushed my winning back, and I pushed
them back on the line.
So my thinking is to put yourself in the shoes of the house. You are playing as the house.
You react when losing (and are actually winning) like you would in fear (of yourself).
My favorite scenario for this is a fib series. When you win (and you are the house and lose),
you go up the fib ladder. According to standard rules. You won, so you bet the 1 unit bet.
Then the 2,3,5,8, etc. That is the parlay for you.
Being the house, if you win (lose) one, you go back 1 bet. 2 wins resolving the series.
If you get it (as the house) you resolve your sequence and 1 unit is all that was at stake.
Of course there may be the series of losses, that get you up the ladder. Up the ladder more
that you'd be comfortable betting if you were losing (but you're winning).
And you are chasing the fib series as the house, as if you are losing. And then you make the
choice to stop. You stop out of fear (as the house and as you might if actually playing).
But you made a profit. From the inevitable sequence from hell (that are not all that uncommon
with the fib). And you rake in your profit. The only wild card is when you stop. But there's a lot
less at stake and a lot less angst when you are winning. Playing psychologically as the house.
And giving up your losing fib progression. (For you to keep the winnings)