Why say progression system fails?

[psimoes]

I think what the OP means is "What use is there by saying such progression will lose because it didn't pass the 10 000 spins test, if I don't plan to play it for a tenth of those spins anyway?"...

I read this from time to time and I too thought like that in the beginning. Not anymore.

It was disappointing to read this kind of reasoning at some site that's supposed to know better.

Sadly we see the light only when we start to lose "inexplicably".

[MrJ]

Hello I am new here, everyone.
I know that kind of system fail in the long run the computer generated random number  test, but what is the point of it?
You are simulating a man playing a game 24/7/365 not stop but in real life that is not possible.
When you play just 1 to 2 hours even the classic Mar tingle system will get you a win most of the time will some waiting time (gambler fallacy?)
The main point is that most casino run 24/7/365 like the computer do but if real life we pay for a few hours and go out...
even for pro player. Most if not all the so call catastrophic "lose in row" are automatically dodged when we sleep.
And that is quite random.

How can someone say that progression system do not work when in math we cannot even take that into account?

Sorry if I am saying stupid words...I am a newbie here 

My comment really doesn't fall under the progression debate entirely. However, I half agree with a point you brought up. Regardless of playing a progression or flat betting, the string of bad numbers from hell does not even have to happen while you are asleep.

You have to be at that EXACT casino at the EXACT time, on that EXACT table playing a SPECIFIC method WHILE these numbers from hell are hitting. Impossible? Of course not, just saying. I have said it MANY times in regards to testing, not really sure anybody listens. Lets take 6 hours of playing, as an example. Test for 6 hours (we'll say 40 spins per hour). After that....note your stats.

Then, perhaps, test again 14 hours later (for 6 hours)....then four days later......then maybe 36 hours later etc. Make it as real as possible.

NOT USING (but noting) the other numbers in between the testing/playing gaps. If a HUMAN will not play for 100 hours straight, why use testing stats for 100 hours straight? I dont agree with it.

(and forget playing a Marty please)

Ken

[Dane]

 Ken: HUMANS
(and all ANIMALS too) are almost
unable to TRANSCEND TIME (and Space).

[Wally Gator]

If a HUMAN will not play for 100 hours straight, why use testing stats for 100 hours straight?

Perfectly said .... testing is a necessary evil, but it takes a person to make a decision at the tables.  As Winkel would always say, watch what's going on.  There are many doing well at many games, but most are working their craft, not reading and posting on forums.

[psimoes]

When some method fails after say, 2560 spins, it's not that it's scheduled to fail at exactly that time. All it means is there were enough losing runs that made it tank. And those runs don't need to come in the same order, they could arrive at you any day. Someone else testing the same system may find it tanks after 1000 spins, others after only 300.

There doesn't seem to be any consensus on how many spins should a system survive, however. Pelayo seemed to track for 2000 spins to detect a bias in the early 90s; I've read about 10 000, 500 000, one million... Whatever number there is it must be large enough to cover all possible situations.

[Dane]

Oh yes, Pelayo. I remember watching the Pelayo story.
The grand old Pelayo suffered a stroke and fell from his chair at the casino table, we were told.
A reminder to us all
that THE NERVOUS SYSTEM FAILS,
if we don´t take time and long term stress into consideration.

[Chris555p]

and always expect the unexpected.....lol lol

[vladir]

I don't expect them to show it ,,, becasue i know they can not show it even if they did want to show it,,, because you can not show something that does not exist.
They brag with empty words and are liers.

It is possible, with bonus bagging in the mix. It's a bit tricky and hard to do because of bonus restrictions - one has to read them very carefully and abide to them - and it is still a gamble in the end, but with a better, positive expected value at the end. Ill try to show why:

In bonus bagging, you make a deposit and collect your bonus to play with. You then bet the entire amount (deposit  + bonus) - attention, currently many casinos don't allow more then 10-20% of the bonus value in a single bet, or forbid you from playing table games at all while having a bonus -  on a low house edge game(EC in french roulette version get's you one of the lowest house edges, but you can play baccarat or any other low house edge game). About 50% of the time, you will double up the 200 to 400. If you double up, you play through normally using one system of your choice to clear the casino bonus. If not, you move on to a new site. For example, you make a $100 deposit and collect a $100 bonus with a 2000 wagering requirement. You wager the entire amount on the player in baccarat. You make a 9 and now have $400 in your account. You play through the $2,000 wagering requirement. Your expected loss is around 1.25 percent, so you will lose $1.25 for every $100 that you play. Your expected loss for $2,000 of play is $25, leaving you with $375. You cash out, clearing $175 of profit (after subtracting your initial investment and the bonus - most of the times the bonus is not redeemable). Next time, you bet the full $200 and the banker makes a 9, costing you $100. You are still $75 ahead. Since baccarat is only a slightly worse than 50-50 proposition, you should clear close to $75 for every two times you try this, on average.

The only down side is that you cannot collect a sign up bonus from the same site twice, so you will have to go through a lot of sites, or hire someone to go to sites for you. But it works - There, I kind of show you something that doesn't exist - and well, it's not the progression you use that matters much here anyway, but I sometimes find them usefull for going through the bonus requirements, depending on the required wagerings and other conditions.