Parrondo's Paradox

[GARNabby]

Turning losing bets into winning ones is a another good perspective.  Winning the (potentially) bad bets amounts to ending up two steps ahead of the one step back.

Some bets are also pivotal.  e.g., if you spend a little more time to, and do, win the first bet, you will be somewhat-more likely to win over that session.  (Primacy-and-recency effects, however you want to look at it.)  Another ex, intentionally losing a bunch of cheap bets in quick succession, and "hammering" the good one.

[flukey luke]

You can take 20 - 40 very complex patterns and rotate their use randomly after each win. It's  harder to hit a moving target. The point is to attempt avoiding the killer sequences that can kill any one of these 20 - 40 complex patterns. On their own these patterns are already difficult to hit with the killer sequence. By not using them back to back it makes it way more difficult to match  up for a loss. Obviously a progression is the best way to use  this moving target method.

Bravo Gizmo,

Probably the best explanation of defeating randomness that I have ever read on a public roulette forum.

[GARNabby]

Probably the best explanation of defeating randomness that I have ever read on a public roulette forum.

No.  Any number of disjoint, or overlapping, systems played at the interlaced "same time" (, or each together,) amounts to each played separately.  To realize this, sort the plays into rows of ten columns, with each system's bets downward in each column.  The more systems, the less the chance of an overall loss from some specific one, but the more systems with which to lose.

From "reverse engineering" some long-term past outcomes, it's soon realized that the "nemesis pattern" could've been avoided were it PROPERLY, directly changed here-and-there, perhaps even throughout.  But only allowing for the possibility of "squeaking through" by changing it up isn't enough.  In fact at some point, the complexity/randomness of the change-factor of such a system (, which is only another system after all,) defeats the purpose of achieving this potential benefit in a methodical, optimal manner.  Given, of course, at least one valid strategy for the game, itself, to which to apply this, or amplify.

The good news, if any, is that it's these games which are stationary (targets with small HE's).

[iggiv]

What makes this work for long stretches is that it takes a very complex segment of spins to kill it. This losing  segment is also a moving target.

You can take 20 - 40 very complex patterns and rotate their use randomly after each win. It's  harder to hit a moving target. The point is to attempt avoiding the killer sequences that can kill any one of these 20 - 40 complex patterns. On their own these patterns are already difficult to hit with the killer sequence. By not using them back to back it makes it way more difficult to match  up for a loss. Obviously a progression is the best way to use  this moving target method.

sooner or later roulette is gonna kill all 20 patterns of yours if u play long sessions. 20 patterns is too simple to defeat roulette on a long run. Maybe on a hit-run only.

[Gizmotron]

sooner or later roulette is gonna kill all 20 patterns of yours if u play long sessions. 20 patterns is too simple to defeat roulette on a long run. Maybe on a hit-run only.

right you are. The problem with negative progressions are that they pay so little for
all that risk. System play is for beginners.

[GARNabby]

The problem with negative progressions are that they pay so little for
all that risk.

No, those pay exactly as supposed to over the long-run.

Generally speaking, if there's no strategy to win more, then there's no strategy either to lose more.

[Gizmotron]

No, those pay exactly as supposed to over the long-run.

Generally speaking, if there's no strategy to win more, then there's no strategy either to lose more.

You really are full of it. I'm done with this forum. You are crazy. I wouldn't share with you if your life depended it.

[vile]

Back to GG...where all desparate are,including our Mr.J...So there you can argue
with each other all night&day long.Neither of you is real player anyhow,only lot of bla-bla.

[GARNabby]

I wouldn't share with you if your life depended it.

Well, guess that you can learn to win at blackjack, and use one of those bets alongside a bad bet at roulette?  (To stay on topic, at least.)