There are two kinds of players in this world. By the end of this tome you will figure out which one of these types that you are. Any player can be known by how they act at a casino when they play. So let's start with the basics, that you should at least be aware of the odds. I'm going to use my own playing strategy to illustrate good odds management. Dr. Sir / Caleb / Snowman would say that my method is "Hit and Run," in other words, a claimer that short termed play is not effected by the long termed odds. So let's take a look at what must happen to my play for that to be true. I play to win $200 per session. I live in a world where Dr. Sir says that I will do just below the line of perfect balance, that being that for every five wins I must lose my $1000 bankroll on a sixth session. The real true odds say that I must lose an additional $54 when I aggregate my mathematical losses when I play. Now that can be by not making the full $200 on each winning session or all at once in a big loss session. Anyway, barring that real $54, I balance with five wins and one loss for every six sessions played. This never occurs as a perfect pattern or sequence like 200, 200, 200, -1000, 200, 200, like an exact 5 out of six. That should tell you something too. I mentioned two kinds of players in this world. There are the unrealistic players that try to get back to even in one session. Then there are the players that understand the odds and just play to get back in balance. They know that they must win several 200 unit sessions to bring themselves back into the long termed expected outcome of playing for a lifetime. That is why it is best to know the real playing odds if you gamble. It is also best to know that you must grind out your game just to stay close to balance, or for that matter, the real odds. So, assuming that the best you can do is the slow grind downward, for me, -$54 per average of six sessions at the stated values, this must happen. I believe that I can kill off the balancing act by shear willpower alone. For me to have a full $1000 losing session I must get 8 net losses in order for it to clean me out. But I play an awareness style where I recognize a very difficult session. I can opt out of those sessions and not take the full $1000 loss. Now I can still get ground down slowly for a full $1000 loss if I try to wait out the slow grind downward. And that would just be some kind of playing mistake. Because I know that such sessions will happen. I play the candlestick movements in my progress charts when I play any session. Even though there are slow grinds downward, there are also slow and fast upward trends too. These up and down movements are natural. I play to see them. When I see them and take action so that I am no longer a slave to participating in every balancing action. If you play blindly, or if you play to get back to even in one session, then you are going to have far more worst results than even playing the very difficult balanced game I suggest above. Dr. Sir will say that I can't avoid the losses by sitting them out. I know this because that is what he always says, even for the past 12 years. But I play a game that depends on fighting for each net win, one net win at a time. If it takes forever to get a single net win, then I determinate that I'm in a bad stretch. I don't play the bad stretches. The bad stretches are needed to bring about the statistical balance. I can't prove that I can do it and Dr. Sir can't prove that I can't do it. These forums are made up of noobs and very experienced players alike. Those with experience know what I'm talking about. They know what Dr. Sir says all the time. So my conclusion is that Dr. Sir is right about the odds but wrong about all sessions being connected. It's impossible to stay at a casino and play for ten years without interruption. If I use one single rule to play by, that I will not play during any difficult sessions, then I believe that I have changed the equation of balance illustrated above. I will predict the future though. Dr. Sir will both not agree with me and will also not defend his position. I don't think he can defend his position. The only way I can defend mine is to actually go out and do it. So that remains to be seen. I just feel that because I play so close to a balanced game that I have the best chance to outfox the odds. I don't believe in systems that just plod along following mindless rules and triggers. I don't believe in progressions either. Neither of these styles play close to a balanced game. I believe that is very important too.