could have beens....

Waiting for a selection to lose or win a particular number of times in a row is just another form of gambler's fallacy. The odds for a particular outcome in the next game are exactly the same as in the previous one.

Probably a better idea is to wait for a number of losses in a specifed number of games, rather than consecutive losses. So for example wait for 20 losses in the last 30 games and then start backing the selection in the hope that a mean reversion is due - but again this reversion could occur over the next 30 - 100 games.

As I've mentioned a few times recently - positive progressions could be a better way of staking. So increase stake on a Fib. sequence after a winner and set to base stake again after a loser.

I must have about 200 different x-feeder triggers, too many to describe on here. If you want to try something I probably already have the trigger. lol

Dont be so sure Grun, my mate. I have had to have my laptop wiped clean twice now cus of the amount of memory hundreds of triggers were using, lol. Very sad but true. Ironically waiting for a selection too lose a certain amount of games during a certain period is a strategy I'm testing at the moment. Worked well in poker, lay the hand thats wins is the maximum during last 100 games but the trouble is then you can also catch a hand that has lost an exceptional amount of games say over the last 500 games and is in the process of 'catching up' (only my opinion, lol). Testing now to see wether or not the winningest hands cards/odds play a factor, only ever layed in rd1 so far. Do you think waiting for a player in bj to lose 5 consec would work better if that same player was also behind in it's anticipated win rate over a broader period of games, i.e if it had lost 15 out of the last 25? Or do you think that is still gamblers fallacy on my part? I know you like positive progressions, have you got very far with that approach yet?

If you're always betting the same amount in the same set of circumstances, that is waiting for a certain number of consec events to occur, or increasing your bet by a certain consistent amount if the previous one loses, or are always resetting a positive progression at a certain specicified time etc etc, then you will always lose long term.
Perhaps it might be easier to understand in the following way.
All these bets at these times could equally be made in the opposite direction, as the wheel or cards have no memory.
That is you could equally as validly beat on the dealer at these times as bet on the player.
Now obviously that won't win long termeither, for exactly the same reason betting on the player won't win long term.
Because either way you are betting at below value.
Grunweld is correct in saying that you have to ry to wait to try to identify some longish trend where the variance from the norm has gotten statistically very large, and then start betting in the
opposite direction.
But these opposite type bets could equally be expected to be required of you for an equally longish period too.
I'm talking here about cycles that can run for days in either direction.
That's what you have to try to identify.
Very difficult, if possible at all.

Hi Slaxon, I believe the recycling of failed strats was something I suggested way back (but I probably got it from someone else, haw haw). Like Grunny I have tested hundreds of strats and the only ones I have seen making good money over thousands of games are the long odds shots, such as the 515 5CC when it arises in blackjack. The drawback at £2 minimum bet is the sometimes huge drawdowns while waiting for a lucky break. If BF are less rigorous now about kicking out sub-min bettors, it may be worth a try again with a bot.

Surely the whole downfall behind each strategy or system is that you are betting on something where the odds are against you. The house/bookmaker whatever you want to call it, has an edge in the odds of each outcome. Therefore whatever system or strategy you have will never achieve success long term. This is becuase you're really just taking multiples of bad bets which can never be turned into a good bet. The doubling up system at roulette appears good because you win for long periods but here are some sums below.

% chance of red coming up 48.648% but you only get paid at even money, a 50% chance.

so doubling up starting at 1 up to 64 (purely for this example only can go on and on) I have given the stakes needed, the chances of not winning 1 bet, 2 bets, 3 bets etc in % chance and in decimal odds.

Stake / % chance / Odds
1 0.513513514 1.947368421
2 0.263696129 3.792243767
4 0.135411525 7.384895757
8 0.069535648 14.38111279
16 0.035707495 28.00532491
32 0.018336281 54.53668535
64 0.009415928 106.2030188

Therefore after 7 consecutive losing bets you have staked the sum of the total stakes ie
1+2+4+8+16+32+64=127

So you are constantly staking 127 to win 1
But the true odds(1 in 106) mean you should only be staking 105 to win 1

Therefore this system, is effectively just making bad bets which will lose in the long term.

Every system can be broken down to see what is being staked and to win what. Then this can be compared to true odds. If the odds are out of your favour to begin with then there is no way to manipulate them into your favour.

Never say never.

Impossible to manipulate bad odds into good odds

If you say so.
Personally I don't have enough hubris to make such an unconditional statement, particularly in connection with a man made RNG.

well good luck to you

And to you.

You've just said it twice.

I similarly have a hard-drive full of triggers, and am a big advocate of "the fallacy".

My thoughts have always been that with consecutive wins, the penny will eventually drop - there's no roulette wheel spinning constant red results. ;)
However, I'm sure we've all seen the hideous runs and amazing statistical results, so it's nothing to bank on.

Grunweld.....could you contact me regarding the x-games.

I've set up a new e-mail:

dejavu@live.co.uk

ta

Could have beens? The games are sooooooo fixed. Try playing hi lo when nobody else is, which seems to be most of the time. In test mode....up and down. In real mode........wipeout. Ruthless, efficient and total robbery.

Poor old Jazza.
Still flogging that dead horse.

Anyway Jazza you're probably better than most of us, who don't even get the ups and downs in test mode.
Being serious, I never really experience any material difference between test results and live results.
If I ever do it is generally due to the sample sizes being too small.
I think you may be always looking at these things far too short term.
Just my useless opinion.

Each to our opinion. I appreciate that. Mine is based on my experiences and won't be changed. Just wish I'd realised it long before I did.

anyone come up with a system yet? :)

Jazza FAFH.GRUMWELD,BATTYBOY seem to think that any "opinion" that goes against there`s is wrong.They come back with some kind of aggressive answer.The sooner they realise that forums are for "opinions" the better

Couldn't agree more.

Flat stakes Grun?

Good on you Grunweld.