Roulette Forum

Roulette Forum => Gambling Philosophy => Topic started by: kav on August 26, 2014, 11:09:52 AM

Title: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: kav on August 26, 2014, 11:09:52 AM
I think that one of the reasons that gamblers lose more often than they win is that there is some amount of arrogance embedded in every gambling acttivity.

Two arguments.

Gambling is based on the notion that randomness or luck or fate will (eventually) sooner rather than later will come in your favour. This mentallity is a show of arrogance and ingratitude. Because luck has been already in your favour since you are alive and have been the lotto winner of the millions of sperms that tried to impregnate your mother. You are lucky beyond measure just to be alive.

Furthermore, gambling is an arrogant activity because you dare challenge randomness. You must be stupid not to see that luck (the big Unpredictable) is powerful and beyond anyones control. Physical phenomena, life changing events, biological characteristics... almost everything of importance is dependent on luck. Yet you try to beat that master of the universe in the controlled (?) environment of the casino in a seamingly simple and understandable game called roulette. What a recreant fool you are!

You deserve to lose.
Because knowingly or not, you lack the humility, the respect and the awe of the deeply self conscious player.

This is what Kavouras told me.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: albalaha on August 26, 2014, 01:11:10 PM
We lose only because we do not understand the randomness. Every bet gets good, bad, average, very good and worst times. Trying to win in every scenario makes mostly a loser. Those who do not want to understand all these, may take their bad luck or their entry or late exit at wrong moments as the  reason.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on August 26, 2014, 03:53:58 PM
It is fair to say, and makes sense too,  that good luck and bad luck each have a probability of exactly 50%. At least for the game of roulette. There is no proof that one  can be more than the other. In the long run of course.  The problem is that even with good luck (hitting the target number), you still lose units. You only get paid for the winning number. The rest of the chips, on all other numbers, you lose. On the other hand the casino even with bad luck still gets paid. It pays out one number and WINS with all the other numbers. With many players at the table, it turns out that the amount of chips shoveled into the collection slot are usually more than the chips paid out for one winning number. Sometimes the payout is higher, but overall they collect more than they give away. The 2.7% or 5.26% HE is a very small guaranteed profit, compared to the huge quantities they shovel into their bank. Spin after spin after spin.

So if a player bets 10 units and wins, he doesn't win 36 units. He wins 25. If he bets 20 units he wins 15. If you do the math, the price you pay to win, is a lot more than the HE. Only by playing 1 number you deal with the HE alone. In all other cases there is price you pay in order to win. All it takes is some bad luck to come along  to wipe out all the winnings and/or your bank roll.

LUCKILY, roulette is the type of game, where you don't have to participate in every spin. Theoretically, if you place a bet  during your good luck period you  win. And during your bad luck period you  lose. Playing non-stop it will surely lead to loss. Not only due to the HE, but also due to the lost units, even under winning conditions, because since good/bad luck are at 50% odds, it's not hard to figure that. You lose some even when you win (good luck)  and you lose it all when you lose (bad luck). The question is do we know when is the time for good luck and when is the time for bad luck? Advance knowledge of luck is impossible. But that doesn't mean that we can't create CONDITIONS to make this parameter known. What is known is the fact that good/bad luck is a self balancing process. In continuous play this balance results in a loss (for reasons mentioned above).

However, if we force BAD LUCK, but COST-FREE, in a series of continuous events, it's only logical that the as the series continues, GOOD LUCK will definitely prevail over bad luck, especially if we only target 1 event only, where the winnings are higher than the expenses. Then we start the same process again.

For a smart member/player it's not that hard to figure out how to create COST-FREE  BAD LUCK so that good luck will be guaranteed when we actually enter the betting.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on August 26, 2014, 04:31:33 PM
I'll give you a hint:
Over many years now, I have developed a hobby which has become my obsession. Whether on the road, at home or work. When not at home I always have with me a few roulette cards with numbers from live casinos. My obsession is to bet randomly an EC number (B-R-O-E-H-L) in my mind and then check the card to see what came. (of course I block the numbers with another card to hide them and only expose one at a time). To this day after many years of playing with my hobby, I have never guessed the wrong EC 10 times in a row, or 9 times in a row. Or 8 times in a row. Even as I write this post I have  the DUBLINBET online casino open and do this at home (in the test mode, with play money). In only a few rare occasions I lost 7 times in a row, which I can count in my one hand's fingers. Almost all the time my guess was correct within 6 spins. Not necessarily the 6th spin. Even that was very rare. Always the right guess in less than 5 spins by at least 99% of the time.

How can anybody explain that? And how can he use it to his own advantage in a real situation?
If someone comes back with something like 18/37 is ok. The question is y it doesn't happen in real life? Should I trust what should happen or what really happens?
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Real on August 26, 2014, 10:18:57 PM
Randomness is randomness.  To claim otherwise, or that you can read randomness is an oxymoron.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on August 26, 2014, 11:43:36 PM
Randomness is randomness.  To claim otherwise, or that you can read randomness is an oxymoron.
That's exactly the way I was thinking in my first roulette days, especially after talking to long time players (long time losers), where they made everything sound so grim. But as I experimented with many ideas, certain hypotheses proved to be a lot different, than what probability had predicted. So rather than going crazy trying to figure out why, I simply accept the real facts. Posting in the wizardofvegas, won't get me convincing answers, other than repeats of what you have said many times. Maybe a philosophy forum it's a better place to get answers to why EMPIRICAL studies are proven to be  more powerful than probability predictions
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: albalaha on August 27, 2014, 05:58:06 AM
Palestis,
          Your way of guessing the next EC and why doesn't it lose 8 or 9 or 10 times a row is simple. It is about sequential probability.
If you guess one decision, it has 50% chance of winning and losing
if u guess two successive decisions, it has about 25% chance of winning and losing in succession.
if u guess three successive decisions, it has about 12.5%.........................................................


and so on, so chance of losing 8 or 9 or 10 times, in succession is very low,although not impossible.  Similarly chance of winning 8 or 9 or 10 times in succession is very rare, although not impossible. Since u have random judgement of what to bet next, unless u accidentally strike the exact pattern that beats you, right at that time, u will keep winning. Mathematically, it is same as keeping a constant 10 steps pre decided bets but you know, it is real tough to get 10 random picks of an EC getting annulled by 10 random results.
           
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on August 28, 2014, 12:58:26 AM
Finally  I get an answer that not only makes sense, it is also expressed with the right words.  it is real tough to get 10 random picks of an EC getting annulled by 10 random results. Very convincing. Of course I don't expect to win the entire series because it is just as hard to lose the series. The keywords here are:
RANDOM JUDGMENT
RANDOM EVENTS
that share almost the same probability.

The problem is, would the same logic still apply if in 10 random judgments I decide to bet the first 5-6 bets  with the absolute minimum, or you can say a virtual bet (betting but not actually placing money) and then concentrate in the last 4-5 bets with my usual bet amount with some progression, aiming to win just 1 time only, and then stop. It could be the 6th spin or it could be the 10th spin. The point is I stop as soon as I win.  The condition is that the first 5-6 bets have to be losing bets. Otherwise if I win during the virtual mode the mission is accomplished but with no gain. My goal is to win in one of the remaining 4-5 bets when I actually place money on the table. The reason for that is to avoid risking too much money if in the first 5 bets I lose with actual money. Hence the virtual loss. Then with progression it gets too risky to continue all the way to the 10th spin.

In other words will the INITIAL SEQUENCIAL PROBABILITY no longer be valid after the first 5 virtual losses and will  be replaced by another probability for the remainder of the planned spins? I know the basics of probability, and that after 10 heads in a row, the next coin flip is still 50% H or T.

Simply stated, in many years of testing random EC betting, it's not very tough  to guess wrong 4 times in a row. However from that point on, to guess wrong again for another 4 times it almost never happens. Probability theory says when I lose the first 4 times in a row is A PAST EVENT. And has no influence in what will happen next. If that's true, then it should be just as easy to lose the next 4 guesses, as it was when I lost the very first 4. WHY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN?

My common sense tells me that the initial sequential probability still has some power over the results. How much I don't know. Some members have advised me  to learn basic probability, which I know, but that's doesn't answer my question.

From 1-4  guesses I can be wrong relatively easily.
But after these 4 wrong judgments, the next 4 from 5-8 it never happens. There must be a reasoning for that.
Is it a philosophical issue rather than a math issue?
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: albalaha on August 28, 2014, 04:51:33 AM
It is  off course a mathematical thing and no philosophical thing work in where we talk of gambling. We can rather get emotional but not philosophical.
           Palestis, You said that u do 5-6 bets either with very small units or virtually and after their virtual failure, you place upto 4 actual bets. Here, I would like to clarify a few things mathematically.
First, if you decide to bet after 5-6 successive failures virtually, u may need to wait for about 50 spins to get one opportunity to put a real bet, averagely. At times, you may not get even one such failure (virtual one) for pretty long time. This makes such betting practically impossible, unless u do it on a very fast RNG. Otherwise, in a real casino, after playing 3-4 hours, u may end up with winning 2-3 chips only.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on August 29, 2014, 12:22:31 AM
It is  off course a mathematical thing and no philosophical thing work in where we talk of gambling. We can rather get emotional but not philosophical.
           Palestis, You said that u do 5-6 bets either with very small units or virtually and after their virtual failure, you place upto 4 actual bets. Here, I would like to clarify a few things mathematically.
First, if you decide to bet after 5-6 successive failures virtually, u may need to wait for about 50 spins to get one opportunity to put a real bet, averagely. At times, you may not get even one such failure (virtual one) for pretty long time. This makes such betting practically impossible, unless u do it on a very fast RNG. Otherwise, in a real casino, after playing 3-4 hours, u may end up with winning 2-3 chips only.
Yes, definitely it's a time consuming process, but I was only trying to get a possible explanation as to why this phenomenon happens.
I don't actually play that way because of the reasons you just mentioned. Furthermore I'm not too enthusiastic playing 18 numbers with 5 -step progression. The whole thing was just a scenario to figure out what really is going on, from a math/probability point of view. But this scenario can be scaled down to a more practical level. Like 3 virtual loss bets and 2-3 actual bets. Not as certain as 10 bets total, but still within an overwhelmingly winning range. And without the dreaded progression.
Getting back to the 50 spins average, that it takes to reach the 5 virtual loss bets. Let's  say you walk around the casino floor observing 10 roulette score boards. Most likely you will see somewhere 5 black or red in a row or any 5 EC's in a row. Do you think that this qualifies as a 5 bet virtual loss, so you can commence the 5 bets on the opposite EC immediately? Thus saving a lot of time.
Well, in my lengthy studies I found that using "ready made virtual losses" yields different results than the ones you get by being present in one roulette where your "random judgment"  starts from spin 1 to spin 5.  5 EC's in a row somewhere on a score board was the result of the thousands of combinations that can happen. It didn't happen during the random guessing process. And that's the only explanation I can think of.
So based on your previous post, I assume that you too believe that the initial sequential probability for 10 spins in a row still has influence even after the first 5 results (the 5 virtual losses) are known. I'm not sure if that sequential probability is compromised after the first 5 known results. Or is it cancelled altogether? Or is there an "annulment limit" somewhere, which a powerful 50% random judgment must finally obey by 99.9% of the time? Mr. Real will not agree of course, as he never did in similar posts in the past.
But the fact remains as I posted it. Random guessing from spin 1 to spin 5  you can lose, though not easily. But given that the first 5 spins were lost, it becomes even harder if not realistically impossible to continue losing the next 5 spins. Even though probability treats spin1 to spin 5 the same as probability of spin 6 to spin 10 (given the results of the first 5 are known).
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Real on September 04, 2014, 03:25:16 AM



Quote
So based on your previous post, I assume that you too believe that the initial sequential probability for 10 spins in a row still has influence even after the first 5 results (the 5 virtual losses) are known. I'm not sure if that sequential probability is compromised after the first 5 known results. Or is it cancelled altogether? Or is there an "annulment limit" somewhere, which a powerful 50% random judgment must finally obey by 99.9% of the time? Mr. Real will not agree of course, as he never did in similar posts in the past.
But the fact remains as I posted it. Random guessing from spin 1 to spin 5  you can lose, though not easily. But given that the first 5 spins were lost, it becomes even harder if not realistically impossible to continue losing the next 5 spins. Even though probability treats spin1 to spin 5 the same as probability of spin 6 to spin 10 (given the results of the first 5 are known).

I had a turkey sandwich and chips for lunch,  that will have the same effect, on the odds of winning, on the next spin, as your virtual losses will have on the next spin.


Why do you keep insisting that all of the mathematicians and gaming experts are wrong about the virtual bets?  The maturity of chances/ gambler's fallacy has been tested time and time and time and time again.  Build on the knowledge of others and escape the confines of your cage.


-Real

Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: palestis on September 04, 2014, 10:34:23 AM




I had a turkey sandwich and chips for lunch,  that will have the same effect, on the odds of winning, on the next spin, as your virtual losses will have on the next spin.


Why do you keep insisting that all of the mathematicians and gaming experts are wrong about the virtual bets?  The maturity of chances/ gambler's fallacy has been tested time and time and time and time again.  Build on the knowledge of others and escape the confines of your cage.


-Real
I'm not challenging the math experts. I'm challenging the randomness in roulette spins. Gambler's fallacy refers to PERFECT INDEPENDENT EVENTS. Regression to the mean implies not perfectly independent events. The question is. Are spins independent from each other? Unless the ball is spun in outer space, there can never be perfectly independent events.  Even a tiny speck of dust in the ball track should render a wheel biased. Add to that heavy smoke around the wheel, some moisture from differences in temperatures, tiny wears and tears in the wood, vibrations of the table as people push to place their bets,  and you can't take randomness for granted. On top of that you have dealers glued on their signature for some periods of time. My question is, can WHEEL BIAS( caused by external forces) and INDEPENDENT EVENTS coexist? Definitely not. Both conditions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Therefore REGRESSION TO THE MEAN is very much in effect. No wonder it is proven all the time with no exceptions. While gambler's fallacy it's not. And taken from the wizard of Vegas I have to add another variable which I find very powerful  and very appropriate. That is RANDOM NOISE. None other than the element of luck. So in reality there is always bias (not sure how strong to be taken advantage of), but strong enough to challenge the issue of independence.
But one thing you have succeeded in doing throughout all those arguments, is to convince me that there is WHEEL BIAS. Something I never thought it existed in modern wheels.
Coincidentally this very fact, strengthens the argument against spin independence.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 07:30:29 PM
I might as well air out the elephant in the room here, since its the only way to advance the argument in my mind.

The argument against the benefit of waiting for virtual losses is:

1) Probability dictates how often the virtual losses will occur and all of those waiting spins apply against us, for the times when we do have the virtual losses

2) The wins that we would have gained while waiting for the virtual losses apply against us because we did not gain them into our bankroll

My counter-argument is:

1) Many betting losses also occur that are completely avoided because of the virtual loss criteria, that typically represent a much larger chunk of money than the wins missed (probability demands this will happen)

2) Because these losses were avoided, the additional risk of successive drawdowns is also avoided

The final argument against this is:

You can't sidestep probability, your received odds and profits will nullify out to the house edge.



So far, my thoughts about this are:

Deferring losses by betting when probability indicates that losing is less likely is only one part of an overall strategy and it takes advantage of short-term variance that is available to us in our sessions. 

Other steps can be taken to furher benefit from short-term variance such as bet selection & recovery acceleration.

We must apply as much technique as we can to our entire betting process because we cannot avoid the fact that we will constantly lose more than we win and we must be able to consistently make that up regardless of how bad it gets.     
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: thomasleor on December 02, 2017, 08:12:55 PM
because we cannot avoid the fact that we will constantly lose more than we win a.   

I have noticed throughout most of your posts that this dictum plays a central part in the basic matrix and construction of most of your platforms. It is in a way a subconscious expectation you have on anything close to an acceptable "system" and consequently you create your own reality of said preconditioned expectation. Your platforms are merely a reflection of that reality.

Because this fact seem to dominate your mind, you are unable to see the other side of the coin which is of course the reality where you have more wins than losses.

One who approaches the dynamic number generator we know as roulette from this POV and thoroughly applies a platfomr that uses an algorithm with a formula calculating the right factors and variables needed to make such a positive POV happen, will eventually succeed. It is simply the positioning of the Mind in a positive expectation of a given problem.

My own Team and the platforms it uses generates more wins than losses and are in themselves  a living testament of said fact. Let me show you what one of the team members wrote recently:

"Hi, I just mentioned to Thomas that I have reached a milestone in my testing. After testing and recording 427+ sessions I so far have reached  100,000 units recorded as won.

Of course the vast majority being virtual wins in the virtual money mode, but wins nevertheless. I joined the test pilot team back in June 2016, Since then we have tested many, many different platforms each with slight variations looking for improvement. Some just didn’t work well and were withdrawn.  But others when tested showed good promise.

For my own experience In testing I came to favour a few later models : namely VR 60 Fulcrum, Floating Trigo, FT7722 and now Greyhound GWX and the latest Fulcrum Star. My thanks go to Thomas for his determination to progress through these changes and his innovative platform designs and updates.

For tools to access funds from live online tables we have the best right here."

Other pilots have of course made similar profits but entirely in real money because that is how they approached the game.

As I have said before on ths forum. I do not sell my platforms for money. I am not interested as I have no need of such money, because what my test pilots have helped me do, is provided me with an opportunity to develop platforms that win more than they lose, and consequently enabled an earning I am fully satisfied with beyond the pleasure of this game and passion we have come to know as Roulette.

I truly understand your dilemma,  and I also see where your fault lies and how you could change your future in that area. But before that happens you really need to change your mind set. It is too deeply invested in this negative expectation crap dominating most roulette forums,leaving no room for the mind to do what it does best when it is free, and set to solve a problem according to conviction and knowledge.

The latter, if not there in the beginning, will most surely be available once it is sought for with the assisting energy of the former.

All the best.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 09:14:58 PM
Are you sure its just psychological and therefore implementation based?  Don't we have to admit that with a negative expectation game, our losing amount will be greater than our winning amount?  Isn't it better to be aware of this terrible reality that we all are up against, no matter how we approach the game?

We WILL lose more than we win -- ALL of us.  Its an undeniable fact.

If we don't approach the game with this extreme caution and necessity for constant recovery in mind, we will not be profitable.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: thomasleor on December 02, 2017, 09:28:38 PM

Do you see? You just made my point from my previous post. Your mind is so deeply invested in that idea, that it excludes any and all other possibilities.

There was once this little boy who guarded his fathers trees. Every morning he went out and took care of them in the way his father had taught him. He knew them all by heart and had even given them names. One day a stranger passed by and looked at the trees and the boy that took care of them.

"That´s one mighty nice forest you have there, son, he laughed."

"What forest? The boy replied. I only take care of the trees." ;)
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 09:47:50 PM
Ok.  So you claim that your winning amounts are greater than your losing amounts?

I should like to see the amounts say, for the last 2 months.  Every time you accept a loss as an end to your betting session, add that to your losses.  Your overall profit will simply be what it is.

So after 2 months, your losses are less than what you have won?  If so, I would love to see those figures.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: thomasleor on December 02, 2017, 10:26:44 PM
In my platforms a loss IS NOT an end to a betting session.

Every session has a target to be reached. Once this target is reached (usually informed by the platform shining a green lamp), the session stops. Our platforms have win loss indicators informing the user of actual realtime status on won and lost bets. So far the won bets dominates the lost ones. If anything I showed you a small draft from one of my test pilots.

Usually a test session is about 60-100 spins where the placed bets measure somewhere on average between 30-60 bets. The average W/L is around 55-60% won bets.

Max dip...that is max consecutive lost bets, are on average around 2-4 i.e 28-56 units during a session in a period of negative bet selection variance.

Profit in units per session was with the initial platforms around +100 units, it soared at peak record levels of +300 to +600 units per session during development of the Fulcrum platform and then when later models were developed, consolidated at a more normal stable level of +200 to +250 units per session this autumn.

Not once since the beginning two years ago did a single test pilot blow his entire bankroll or even went negative more than -70 units (the standard bankroll being 300-500 units (there to cover at least 3 sessions before bust).

I enclose a small part of our testledgers just to show you the testresults from two different platforms, TRIGO and Xtreme Alpha that implemented two different sector predicting algorithms. As you see, you find only ONE losing session that ended in a minor -55 units game bfore the test pilot decided to eject and live to fight another day.

I am aware I don´t need to show you this as the burden of proof is not on me. It is up to you to find a way to get out from that mental cage you have created where you believe in that losing dictum you keep posting and waste so much good energy on that I am sure would easily be capable of creating something really great once you rewired that brain of yours.

I don´t think I can help you see the light out of that dilemma you presently abide as long as you persist believing what your mind stubbornly thinks is the absolute reality of roulette.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
Thank you for sharing your information.  I think its very important and I appreciate it.

There is a difference between averages of individual sessions and total results over an extended period.  I know you must have losing results from your own sessions.  We all have to be honest about them because we cannot avoid them.

I realize you don't have to accept any "burden of proof" and provide actual evidence of your assertions.  I just wanted to be clear however about what we all deal with.



Just had a particulary poignant example of betting in the "theoretically correct" manner without using a trigger:

I went up 129 base monetary units in a single session BUT if I had bet straight through in that session I would have had TWO successive losses and ended up being down over 1200 BU!

Instead I avoided both losing sequences, profiting on each one. :)
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Mike on December 03, 2017, 10:01:32 AM
My question is, can WHEEL BIAS( caused by external forces) and INDEPENDENT EVENTS coexist? Definitely not. Both conditions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Palestis,

This is wrong. Bias and independence are not mutually exclusive. It's largely for lack of understanding this why people continue to work endlessly on systems which use past results, "virtual" wins and losses etc
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: LiveRouletteOnlinePlayer on December 03, 2017, 12:43:32 PM
Excerpt VRTech ledger Trigo and Xtreme test sessions.png (https://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=134.0;attach=4278)   Looks like all wheels are quite much landbased casinos wheels not live roulettes from some studios
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: thomasleor on December 03, 2017, 01:04:15 PM
Excerpt VRTech ledger Trigo and Xtreme test sessions.png (https://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=134.0;attach=4278)   Looks like all wheels are quite much landbased casinos wheels not live roulettes from some studios

They are from landbased Casinos that are connected to a HD video feed via the Casino in cooperation with Online Sport betting companies like Unibet, or online portals like Leovegas Dublinbet etc or Landbased Casinos  that have their own feed, like Portomaso Casino or Draghonara in Malta.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: LiveRouletteOnlinePlayer on December 03, 2017, 02:07:57 PM
Yep thomasleor but when roughly all games are played just in those landbased casino roulette tables I assume on this basis that you like more a landbased casino roulette tables prefer a gaming place than just a live roulette made in some of the studios in England or Latvia or Malta .etc Immersive Roulette Live and Extreme Gaming golden ball and sizzling hot Roulette .etc
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: thomasleor on December 03, 2017, 03:27:47 PM

Yes, that is true.
Title: Re: Why we lose - a philosophical approach
Post by: Jesper on December 05, 2017, 05:47:33 PM
Sometimes we lose, as I the session is extended, a modular way try to catch.  I have got a grand loss 4 times, and never it outrange the win. On zero or Noz.  I got a devil run today, went back 100 Euro on a cent play. (this happen)
I carnage the method, but not to take it back fast. At  no I am at 67 Euro, the back not lifetime. I try to take it all back, but we should never, never feel sure.   We lose and we win, touch wood I still win.