Randomness can be tamed even in its worst forms

[Albalaha]

I was silently working on handling things that can not be done ordinarily. I found that flat betting is not a remedy and progression is a double edged sword, it might help in certain cases but has its own weaknesses that would kill us faster than a flat better in wrong moments and despite everything, wrong moments can not be avoided fully. That is the harsh reality of randomness. Then I came across this 800 trials session, offering all sorts of worst one can imagine. chance to get such a harsh session is once in a few million hands with Player being my bet. I got a VBA coded tracker to see how it does in all sort of cases.
              When I look at this 800-coup baccarat session, I see exactly what I built my method for.

I was playing Player into a really ugly shoe: 345 wins vs 455 losses – roughly 43.1% hits where the math says I "should" average around 49.3%. In statistical terms that's about a 3.5σ-bad run for Player. On paper, this is the kind of shoe that quietly destroys most progressions and slowly bleeds out flat bettors.

Yet, here's what actually happened with my approach:

 My worst point was about -80 units.
 My biggest stake was only 22 units.
 If I had just flat-bet my actual entries, I'd be around -27 units.
 Instead, I closed the session at +25 units.

And I did that without ever going into insane bet sizes or letting the drawdown spiral out of control.

---

### How I structure the attack

I use a domesticated Labouchere skeleton. I still write and clear lines, but:

 I cap line growth and reset before the list becomes suicidal.
 I accept controlled losses and restart at small units instead of demanding every last unit back.
 I let the system breathe – no "do or die" chases.

The result is that I get Labouchere's recovery flavour but not its usual catastrophic depth.

---

### My auto reverse "worse-filter" – always on, not just for disasters

The heart of the system is what I call my auto worse-filter. It isn't a panic switch reserved only for nightmare shoes; it's running quietly on every shoe – good, average or bad.

It does three main things:

1. It watches the score, not just the last couple of coups.
   When losses push too far ahead of wins in my active bets, the filter steps in. You can see it as long streaks of entries where:

    The outcome column still shows W/L,
    But the bet is 0 and the status is PAUSED.

   That's me tracking the shoe without paying for information.

2. It forces the shoe to "re-qualify" before I re-enter.
   I don't jump back as soon as I see two wins. I make the shoe pass a confirmation window: a fixed number of coups that must show a certain balance of wins before I'm allowed to resume. If it fails, a new window starts.
   This is why some of the ugliest draw sequences in this log happen while I'm completely sidelined: the filter decided "this is still worse than I want to engage with."

3. It blends with cushions and soft stop-losses.
   When things are bad but not catastrophic, I channel losses into a separate cushion structure instead of dumping them straight onto the main line. That stretches recovery gently over time.
   If the equity still sinks to a pre-defined depth (around -80 units in this session), I hit a soft stop-loss:

    I accept that hit.
    I reset back to tiny base units.
    I let the worse-filter and cushions work again from the new, shallow starting point.

Because this filter is always on, it doesn't just save me in rare superbad sessions. On good shoes, it simply doesn't have much to do: the lines clear quickly, stakes stay small, and profit builds quietly. On average shoes, it trims the rough patches so drawdowns don't become psychological torture. On bad and worst-case shoes, like this one, it becomes the primary shield that stops me from escalating endlessly into huge bets.

---

### What this session proves to me

In this 800-coup run:

 The underlying shoe is brutally hostile to Player (3.5 SD below expectation).
 Even on the 441 coups I actually bet, I'm still running cold. On those 441 entries: 207 W – 234 L → flat 1-unit betting would be -27 units, while my structure finishes +25 units. So it was not about being lucky with my filters alone. I still had too many losses than wins in my predefined betting window.
 Still, my maximum depth was ~-80 units, my largest bet only 22 units, and I climbed from that hole to +25 units at the end.

So I'm not pretending I've "beaten" baccarat or changed its maths. What I have done is design a structure where:

 I never need a crazy "rescue" bet,
 My depth is capped and controlled,
 And I can play good, average, bad and even extreme shoes with the same framework – the auto worse-filter just quietly adjusts how aggressively I'm allowed to participate.

It's not a magic trick. It's a refusal to let the shoe dictate my risk. This is something giving me goosebumps and could not resist to write this.

[Albalaha]

I saw this session and could not resist testing this too. 53 losses vs 37 wins. This ended with +15 units. Max bet used 3 units. worst balance = -3.
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
w

[Albalaha]

I did a 100 million hands simulation on playing Player bet of baccarat on grok and got this:

[VLS]

Congrats on your achievement, dear Sumit! 🎉 This is truly a remarkable feat, and your dedication shines through.

KUDOS and thanks for sharing these insights with our community.

Your accomplishment is quite inspirational! 🌟