A loss yesterday overall but the two matches I did lose on were third bets in sequences. Now from the years of research I have done of results, three losses happen quite often, it's four losses of this set sequence that is quite rare.
Now due to my slight overstaking due to the minimum bet I will have to break these two sequences down now and recover over a series of bets. I could risk a bit more to recover right away but if one of the rare 4 loss sequences happens now then it will be a bigger chunk of the bank gone than is ideal and I have to look long term.
Your two statements that "three losses happen quite often" yet "four losses are quite rare" is misleading in that it implies the probability of that fourth loss is less than a first, second or any loss. If the probability of a selection losing is say 1 in 3, then three losses will happen every 27 sequences, and four will lose in a row every 81. (1/27*1/3). Whether 1 in 27 is "quite often" or 1 in 81 "quite rare" is subjective, but as all outcomes are independent, those fourth losses will come along as expected.
ReplyDeleteFair comment Cassini and everyone knows past results do not represent future results. When I said that 4 losses in a sequence were rare that was going from past results of around 7 years.
ReplyDeleteThat is thousands of matches and I only came across 4 losses in a sequence I think around 5 times. 3 losses I came across many times that I didn't keep count, I just took a mental note as I was sifting through the results.
A 4 bet losing sequence would not be too damaging to the bank, as long as the bank is big enough (I am currently still slightly over staking due to minimum bets of £2) and could be broken down without fuss.
I am currently breaking down after 3 losing bets to be a bit safer protecting the bank until it grows a bit more.
It would be much much clearer if I could just say how my criteria finds the selections but for obvious reasons I cannot do that just now.