I fool around a littel and test a simple march with only four attempts wish has to overcome the gain of +1 unit.
Then you know advance betting strategy where you can use seven units as flat betting size and lower the bets and never lose once you gain +1 and in the same time get two to four free rides to gain a total of 8 or 11 units.
The rules are as follows.
The software capture STD at least 3.0 or above with minimum 16 events to 50 events.
Playing model is to track only one even money position every day and that the STD has to app er within the first 100.
The March that i fool around with wish is effective and simple.
Every attack is to bet twice.
There is a total of two attacks wish give us four attempts.
The math is simple that +1 unit has to overcome the amount of four attempts flat betting.
The March is to only play does sequence where the STD at 3.0 or above only have singel events present as underrepresented formation.
That means that among all does singels being overrepresented there is only allow to have singel series present as this is about singels contra series.
The first attack is made after two series chop RRR BB or if the distribution start to hovering RRR B RRR.
If first attack fails you attack after the first singel sere appears and play until +1 or -4 units.
In next post i will show you some samples.
This is the perfect sequence but not the perfect march wish is a littel different then the basic one i mention above.
O_o
Here is some short sampels.
R/B 20100731 R org
*****
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B <<< +1
R org
20100730
R/B
*****
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B <<< +1
*****
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
B
R
R
B
B <<< +1
*****
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
R -1
R +0
B
R -1
B -2
R
B
B
B
B
R
R -1
R
B
B +0
R
R <<< +1
If you run a quick test for 20 and you will find +20 or +12 enjoy and have fun.
O_o
0729 R org
*****
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
B <<< +1
*****
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
B -1
R -2
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R -1
B
B +0
R
B -1
B +0
R
B -1
B +0
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
R
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
*****
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
R
B
B
R
R <<< +1
*****
The fun part is Number Six that even I post this not many will know how this is any different towards all the stuff there is in this forum.
11/0 and so it keeps holding up 26/4 and so on.
You could test with 7 and after +7 lower for one more attack with 33 then if +3 attack once more with 11 ...
You will find the following results.
Units.
+1 +1 +8 +11 +8 +1 +11 +11 +11 +1 +1 +1 +8 +11 +8 +1 +1 +8 +8 +1 +11
Bankroll can be 28 units x 3 wish should put any one on the positive side of things.
O_o
Quote from: I have cookies on August 23, 2010, 04:41:56 AM
My humble opinion is that apply math and probability based upon 37 or 38 degree of freedom is a waste of time as fluctuation come and go in various ways wish we can not predict or can we ...
O_o
You posted the above
BEFORE you started this topic.
How is that you changed your mind in >15 minutes? ???
I have not change my opinion as i know corelation of correction exist not raw correction and i assume all does who use math and probability to play with or against events will allways fail.
End indication play wish give tendency towards change is present and real.
Series contra singels ... for does who enjoy this ...
*****
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B <<< +1
*****
*****
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
R
B
B
R
B
R
B <<< +1
*****
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R -1
R
B
R +0
R -1
R
R
B
R +0
R -1
B
B -2
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R -3
B
R -2
R -3
R
B
R -2
R -3
R
B
R -2
B -1
R +0
B <<< +1
*****
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
R
R <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R <<< +1
*****
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B <<< +1
*****
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
B <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B <<< +1
*****
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R <<< +1
The difference with this post is that i can prove corelation of correction exist with significant statistics based upon math and probability and any one is free to prove me wrong.
It does not get much better then that.
It is not many who can measruing there knowledge with or against me.
O_o
I've tested your theory (singles versus series), but I didn't get better than expected hit rate. Maybe I did something wrong, I dunno.
What do your statistics show? What is your edge according to it?
Quote from: mistarlupo on August 23, 2010, 08:03:21 AM
I've tested your theory (singles versus series), but I didn't get better than expected hit rate. Maybe I did something wrong, I dunno.
What do your statistics show? What is your edge according to it?
Well a test is simpel thing to do and if you did feel free to show us wish march you use.
Show us for how many attempts you attack with rules.
Then show us how the attmpts did overcome the amount of gain +1 or advance +1 +8 +11 ...
When you done that I will show you some real statistics.
The question is if you in the open let three even money position fluctation to be present or if you isolate the play.
The Perfect March is different then using basic methods.
I can also mention that we get STD of 2.5 and 3.0 with every sampel of 10 000 trails flat betting.
O_o
Well, it was a while ago, but I think my test was based on one attack only after indication->indication->tendency.
Gambler's fallacy.
Word :haha: and prove me wrong that corelation of correction does not exist :lol:
Betting on these "corrections" or whatever doesn't work. I really don't know why you keep going back to this over and over again. You should know better.
Ah well.
I tried this some time ago and, like mistarlupo, didn't get any better results than expectation. But, this time around, results are better, possibly because I'm waiting for the "correction" to begin before placing a bet. I'm not coming to any firm conclusions yet but I can confirm that I'm getting about the same results as IHC (2.5 - 3.0 SD).
Rather than gambler's fallacy, I would suggest reversion to the mean (nolinks://nolinks.financialwebring.org/gummy-stuff/coin-tossing.htm), although you shouldn't be able to make a flat bet profit in the long-run merely from this.
Gamblers fallacy NS? So much for AP (cough), thats off the list. :give_rose: Ken
Quote from: Bayes on August 23, 2010, 11:14:30 AM
although you shouldn't be able to make a flat bet profit in the long-run merely from this.
Well, I agree with that. My findings from this type of bet are varied. Firstly, yes, this "correction" certainly does exist but by using only the SD as a benchmark the results seem random. Also, a bet can remain in negative fluctuation for hundreds and sometimes thousands of spins. This throws a monkey wrench in the works. It either means a lot of waiting around or a lot of bets lost and fundamentally makes it no different to any other system.
What I have found with the SD is that it moves in exactly the same way as the event itself. This seems obvious but it's not that clear cut. What I mean is, for example, in a measured sample you'll get 100 instances of 1.0 SD, 50 instances of 2.0 SD, 25 instances of 3.0 SD, 12 instances of 3.0+ SD etc., so there's really no difference between recording the SDs of an event and simply counting the event itself. So if you waited for 3.0 SD before an attack, half the time the SD will decrease, the other half it will go up. The upshot is that there is no advantage in using the SD in such an organised way.
I think you would need some secondary reference as an extra benchmark, some sort of criteria around which to base the attack. Again it seems obvious, but the way forward would be to lower the number of attacks needed to gain a profit, and that profit should be adequate to cover losses. For example, winning one unit per attack is not feasible since the hit rate will be 50%. You would have to ride the wave for as long as possible, as long as it's going in the right direction. Again, though, you're faced with certain impracticalities. You can't stand around and play thousands of continuous spins.
NS you can not blame me for having fun and waste my time with 2.5 and 3.0 STD as result after every samepl of 10 000 is just plain and simpel fun - don´t you agree.
4 attempts with 700 Eruo wish becomes 1100 Euro and 5000 to 7000 Euro in 4 weeks play.
:lol:
Sure, it's fine to play with some ideas for fun, I'm not saying you shouldn't do that. :)
I'm basically just saying that this is the gambler's fallacy, and whatever your criteria is for betting on Red/Black, it's the same as betting randomly. No, I won't prove you wrong, you prove yourself wrong. I just hope it won't happen to you while you're at the casino betting €100 chips. I also just hope that you don't really think that 2.5-3.0 SD after 10k bets is statistically significant, it's weak and can/does happen by chance.
Give me the SD you got after 50k flat bets, and then we'll see if you have something.
One sampel of 10 000 hahaha come on NS I have run so many sampels of 10 000 I lost count :biggrin:
And correlation of correction is not random as it has to happen after 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 no matter what you say my dear friend and you can not change that or sience :biggrin: is part of nature :girl_wacko:
You can even observe a std of 100 000 it does not matter as corelation of correction will apper no matter you like it or not ...
To capture corelation of correction is to argue and say fallacy and its random.
But to claim that you would get all reds for one year at the same tabe 8 hours a day with out black balance out to certan degree i would not agree.
It does not have to become even and it all has it up and downs and red can be ahead for a long time or for ever with out black ever cath back to even or get overrepresented.
haha ok. :)
I really don't feel like explaining to you why betting on "corrections" can't give you the edge and is gambler's fallacy (and by the way, I'm not the one defying science and nature here). The fact that you don't know already why it doesn't work from a betting perspective says it all and goes against your statement that:
Quote from: I have cookies on August 23, 2010, 07:48:13 AM
It is not many who can measruing there knowledge with or against me.
Also where did I say that 1 year of Reds is normal? The chances of that happening are next to nonexistent. Can you use these statistical facts to get an edge? No you can't.
As for the test, are these samples of 10k bets or spins? (I sure hope it's the former)
Also what's the SD of all of the results together? That's what matters, not the small separate SD's of separate samples.
Quote from: NS on August 23, 2010, 03:03:08 PM
Also what's the SD of all of the results together? That's what matters, not the small separate SD's of separate samples.
I don't agree. Technically no system can ever be categorically proven to be effective since you can't test it enough. It has to remain consistent with reality. Beating 10 billion bets would be nice but is unecessary and pointless. Even 100k or 50k bets is pointless, because if it's the real deal it would become apparent long before you reached that milestone. Here I'm talking about flat betting, strictly. If you ran four or five samples and the bet selection reached 3.0 SDs in each one, then it's pretty safe to say that is the real deal, a proven long-term winner. This could happen in the space of only a few thousand bets, thus a major simulation of a flat bet is seldom required. Of course, the test has to be valid, you can't be changing the goal posts from sample to sample, which is what most people do.
It would still be better to know the SD of the overall test (no separate samples). Let's say you have 14 SD after 50k EC flat bets. Well obviously in this case, you got a holy grail. But let's say you play up to 10k bets and stop whenever you reached 2.5-3.0 SD, and repeat the same with different samples. In this case you can't be as certain because 2.5-3.0 SD can and does happen (especially if he's using no-zero actuals which he probably is).
FIRST get the overall SD to know your chance of randomness. THEN you can divide your test into smaller samples to see if it's consistent (though if the overall SD is high enough, there is no need to do that because it can't get that high without being consistent).
So again, let's see the SD after at least 50k placed flat bets. Until then, this is all déjà vu BS.
"Give me the SD you got after 50k flat bets, and then we'll see if you have something" >>> Guys like you crack me up NS. You'll rip methods and thats fine, I dont mind but if something is SHOWN to you to be 'good', then you're on board. :girl_wacko: Choose one or the other NS, either rip methods or dont rip them but you cant have it BOTH ways. Ken
Well lets have fun :lol: as the casino has no house edge against this way of play - any comment - I feel there is love in the air :wub: well here is a red rose to you all that belive observation of corelation of correction is a fallacy :give_rose: as we all know the future hand it over for us as we only have to observe and see how it unfold it self :biggrin:
The thing is, certain people call anything they DON'T PLAY, gamblers fallacy. AP (cough) is just as, if not more of a gamblers fallacy, good luck with that. :sarcastic: :sarcastic: Ken
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 05:18:49 PM
Guys like you crack me up NS. You'll rip methods and thats fine, I dont mind but if something is SHOWN to you to be 'good', then you're on board. :girl_wacko: Choose one or the other NS, either rip methods or dont rip them but you cant have it BOTH ways. Ken
What? ;D
Go back to your beer Ken. You probably don't even know what SD means.
Quote from: I have cookies on August 23, 2010, 05:19:45 PM
well here is a red rose to you all that belive observation of corelation of correction is a fallacy :give_rose:
1) You keep twisting my words. I never said correction itself is a fallacy or doesn't exist. I said the
bet selection you're playing is gambler's fallacy. Like it or not, you're really no different than that guy who waits for 8 Reds then bets Black.
2) What "correlation" are you referring to? In statistics, correlation is a measure of dependency between two random variables.
"You probably don't even know what SD means" >>> I like how you conveniently jump around the point, typical NS. Always trying to fool people. Be consistent NS, either rip methods but DON'T wait around for someone to SHOW you something. Use your AP (cough) powers and be on your way. :haha: Ken
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 05:42:57 PM
I like how you convieniently jump around the point, typical NS. Always trying to fool people. Be consistent NS, either rip methods but DON'T wait around for someone to SHOW you something. Use your AP (cough) powers and be on your way. :haha: Ken
You really are desperate to fire at me. Glad to know I got to you this much. ;D
Ken is bitter because the rest of us actually play regularly and win in casinos. Something he is unfamiliar with.
Exactly.
Got to me? lol I'm sitting back drinking a Coke and chillin. :swoon: We ALL KNOW how you operate by now NS, its no mystery. Enjoy your AP gamblers fallacy! :sarcastic: Ken
Why do you come watch us lose in AC? Come on Ken! Come to an actual casino for once!
Quote from: Davey-Jones on August 23, 2010, 06:21:09 PM
Why do you come watch us lose in AC? Come on Ken! Come to an actual casino for once!
As in leave his keyboardz and his internetz, grow some balls and come walk his talk in a real casino like a real man?
lol, don't hold your breath. ;D
Is it a diet coke? The usual ones have too much sugar. But then again artificial sweeteners arent that good for you either.
Ken is not the only one removing personal attacks. I suggest everyone just get on with things. When I see personal attacks, I remove them myself. If you have a legitimate gripe about ken, fine but dont make it personal.
I got nothing to say.
Just posting to get more exposure for my new avatar!
Hahahaha!
legitimate gripe...!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 05:18:49 PM
Guys like you crack me up NS.
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 11:24:35 AM
Gamblers fallacy NS? So much for AP (cough)
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 05:42:57 PM
typical NS. Always trying to fool people. Be consistent NS
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2010, 06:18:27 PM
We ALL KNOW how you operate by now NS, its no mystery. Enjoy your AP gamblers fallacy! :sarcastic: Ken
I sure got to the poor guy. He's trying too hard. ;D
Quote from: Steve on August 23, 2010, 09:38:40 PM
Ken is not the only one removing personal attacks. I suggest everyone just get on with things. When I see personal attacks, I remove them myself.
Funny how Steve always misses Ken's posts while deleting my or Davey's "irrelevant" posts, or "personal attacks".
Quote from: bombus on August 23, 2010, 09:57:05 PM
I got nothing to say.
Just posting to get more exposure for my new avatar!
Hahahaha!
:lol:
But i have some-thing to say and NS is my buddy but i cant help it to have some fun.
1. Next i will pick any bet selection and use the same beginners march and show how NS is correct :girl_wacko: when he say is the same no matter what you bet - its random :thumbsup:
Hey NS, I think you need to understand the definition of 'personal attacks'. Check into it, thanks bro. :thumbsup: Ken
Drone Ken will be along soon, no doubt. He's been online for 8 days solid, what's another 24 hours slashing into a bucket and sleeping on the keyboard?
"Drone Ken will be along soon, no doubt. He's been online for 8 days solid, what's another 24 hours slashing into a bucket and sleeping on the keyboard?" >>> This is cool, not a big deal. Ken
Why did you delete my post about freedom of speech only lasting on VLS for 15 minutes Ken?
It's was the truth! Leaving it up would have made me look like a whiner. But please continue to censor my non-offensive posts according to the fourum rules.
"Why did you delete my post about freedom of speech only lasting on VLS for 15 minutes" >>> I dont answer to you. Ken
Patrick,
What I've tested is basically:
1. Track singles vs series only.
2. Wait for strong Ecart (>3.00).
3. Wait for three indications.
4. After the third one (which shows tendency), we bet.
I think this is one "attack" only.
I'm happy to share my results with you, but I need to know is this "march" good enough? Any tweaks or recommendations?