Roulette Albalaha, about Equilibrium ?

Thanks for responding and replying to my ideas. I do have some more depth to my thoughts on
this. Like my original they all seem a bit like mis fit puzzle pieces that would work if they
could fit together.

Having said that, those "streaks". Well a "streak" is a "streak" based on any methodology
that you are using to choose bets. That is kind of obvious (I think). I also think that in
terms of common sense there could be some factors that are important.

Years ago I had this method "Mr C's craps business plan". Mr C was real. "Al Coggins" his name.
Spoke to him on the phone a couple times. Made his living playing craps. The method involved
a "movie test" of the table to get initial read. Then the method itself was waiting for 2-3 don't passes
then playing for a pass. That's 90% of it. Lose a couple units, change tables or quit. Etc. And said
he made his substantial living (paid my electric bill) for many years. There was also this notion of
watching dice and how they were rolling. On your living room floor. There were times when I could
predict the next roll. You could tell. Takes an enormous amount of mental energy.

In the end, aside of getting all anal you end up getting a little too technical and not being
able to see how it should work.

But it did seem to me that part of what he was doing was to eliminate "noise" of the "single events".
and going for the next level of meat in the results. Even though he never said it that way.

So the next observation I have is that whenever I see a martingale bashed, it is always in the
context of weather a person saw 10 or 20 or 30 black in a row. And never a creative selection
theme. I know that personally I can't even recollect seeing what looked like a winning streak
of 20 in a row. But there's never a shortage of losing ones.

Having made that point. Sometimes I look at the path like the cones on an obstacle course.
Most of the activity is not 20 in a row. Most of the activity is shorter term. Like the Mr C stuff?
Like the guy on here who mentioned that half of all EC results are single events?

So even with my idea of "next to last" getting the streaks and the chops, half of that
are the transitions back and forth from one to the other. And perhaps looking where
the benefits or problems are...... where the "action" is occurring, will help narrow
down and define how to address the problem.

Certainly taking it out of crazy progressions is a good start. I like the beginning idea
where you are in a goove of staying relatively even and working from that.
From there, developing something that is simple and natural would be helpful. A method
of play that doesn't leave you emotionally exhausted and in a cold sweat, and focuses on
the "meat in the middle" rather than hope or fear of the streaks. No matter how you define them.
OR even look past just red or black as a streak. Maybe find some winning ones.

 

SO I think that maybe my idea, based on the other big lecture that I gave,
was to try to work with and understand what the basis of logical outcomes
or results. It is NOT just betting red or black.

It is a combination, which also includes the aspect that shorter runs are
more common. Sit out the long ones. Then looking for that "swing" back
and forth to keep the rhythm. Half of the results of "next to last" are the
transitions between them. And when I tried it, the slow variant that happened,
for "next to last" went against me slowly. So unless you get many hot streaks
on something, the "norm" is going to be those transitions. The "double" groupings
would be the worst. And how long have you seen those streak?

HA!!!! If you did, good for you. Rememeber the "Mr C" method? 2 don't and a pass?
He'd have a great winning day. Just the other side of looking at the transitions.

 

Dear Albalaha,
My Guru, never want to talk about
the grail's progression.
That Old Man, just wont talk....
no matter how I harass him emotionally,
or torment him physically....
like by stomping on his belly,
pull his goatee, or ,or..
oops! I a dead-meat,
if that old man read this..
Lucky me, he doesnt read English...or else...
.heheehee.

And my thick skull, but pea size brain,
cant think out any progression
that could "plug-the -hole"
of 5% deviation, which I think ,
is impossible for me to solve.
Maybe, u could at least show me some example?

Thanks.

Hi Mogul,
Thanks for your thought,
may u please show some example of your bet selection.
Thanks.

 

Well as I originally said, the "next to last" selection was my first choice.
I am not, and never will be willing to have some of the conversations
to infinity, about mega tests. In actual fact I have found or seen things
that seem to "work" in ultra long testing which have horrific downturns
and whatnot. So the payback just isn't worth it, no matter what ending
number you are talking about.

Next to last covers both streaks and chops. Doubles are what hurt it,
and of course, half the results in "next to last" are losers, which even
the results out. So, if you will, "opposite of next to last" is equally as valid.
And as I said, from my few live tests it always walked me in a negative
direction. My feeble hope was it would be positive. So perhaps "opposite
of next to last" is as good or better.

I feel like any adaptation made would end up canelling out. One thought
I had was, when you have a change from a series to a chop, that your
next bet would be for a double. There by offering some chance to switch
to the doubles setup.

It seems to me like there is something philosophically incorrect about
tethering yourself to some recent thing for a choice of bet. Like
next to last. But also it seems odd when you lock yourself into a progression
that changes directly based on the last result. Like a loss. It seems like the
beginning of the recepie of disaster. That is where it always starts.

I guess that's where some of the "up 1 as you win, stay the same on loss"
come from.

I don't have the whole formula, but I'm analyzing many of the situations where
we begin our decent. And at lest seem to had a weak starting point of even
with that bet choice.