This is just one method among many you can use.
This one is based upon the law or series and the law of correction.
This one is about small series contra larger series.
To find a qualified signal it has to appear with at least 16 outcomes, that's rule number one.
It has to appear within 50 outcomes, that's rule number two.
You don´t calculate the singels you calculate the series of 2 contra larger series into the window you find.
When you hit a statistical ecart of 3.00 or above you can start to play after the first serie of 3 appears.
20070103
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R -------------- 14/2 a statistical ecart of 3.00
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
B
B
B ------------ a serie of 3
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
20070102
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R ------------- 17/1 a statistical ecart above 3.00
R
R
R ------------- a serie of 5
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
Cheers LS
LS,
Thanks for posting your example. I need some further explanation before I can understand it though.
R -------------- 14/2 a statistical ecart of 3.00
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
B
B
B ------------ a serie of 3
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
In this sequence, do you start betting immediately after "a serie of 3"? what are you betting on? I can't figure it out from the W/L sequence.
Very Interesting LS ;)
Pls keep em coming & I will try and understand it.... :-[
many thanks Guys....
BTW, is this something you only use for even bets???
Hi and thanks for your kind replys, here is some more ex...
20080718
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
B
B ----------- 15/2 a statistical ecart above 3.00
B ----------- a serie 3
R
B
B
B
B ---------- a serie of 4
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B ----------- a serie of 4
R
B
B
R
R
R
R ------------- a serie of 4
20080719
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R ------------- 16/2 a statistical ecart above 3.00
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 7
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 4
Cheers LS
LS,
You said:
QuoteWhen you hit a statistical ecart of 3.00 or above you can start to play after the first serie of 3 appears.
That much I understand, but in this sequence:
R -------------- 14/2 a statistical ecart of 3.00
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
B
B
B ------------ a serie of 3 -
so we start betting here, but on what? and for how long?R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
There is a march for 3 intervals to get an hit, I maybe tell you more about that later.
R
R -------------- 14/2 a statistical ecart of 3.00
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
B
B
B ------------ a serie of 3
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
R
R ------------- 17/1 a statistical ecart above 3.00
R
R
R ------------- a serie of 5
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 6
B
B ----------- 15/2 a statistical ecart above 3.00
B ----------- a serie 3
R
B
B
B ---------- a serie of 4
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B ----------- a serie of 4
R
B
B
R
R
R
R ------------- a serie of 4
R
R ------------- 16/2 a statistical ecart above 3.00
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 7
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie of 4
20080717
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
B ----------- 14/2 a statistical ecart 3.00
B
B ----------- a serie 4
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
R -------------- a serie 5
Cheers LS
Tangram now you know how to find series of 4 or above.
Just want to add that some times the series can come like this 33438.
Cheers LS
Here you have a chart for the statistical ecart. At the top you have the underrepresented figure, event.
At the left side do you have the overrepresented figure, event.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg229.imageshack.us%2Fimg229%2F1018%2Fecartmb6.png&hash=4be884fb845e30932808f869eab02491810e7c39)
This is how you caculate...
Now the first thing is to get the difference between this events, the absolute ecart:
14 - 2 = 12
Now we whant to get the statistical ecart so we add
14 + 2 = 16
Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4
And finally we divide the absolute ecart whit the sqr
12 sqr 4 = 3,00
The Statistical Ecart 3,00
Cheers LS
LS.
Thanks for the info, but
I still don't know where you actually place your bets when you have a trigger, I already know how to measure the deviation.
Does anyone else not get this or is it just me? ???
What is the bet selection when the trigger shows up?
QuoteTangram now you know how to find series of 4 or above.
Why do I need to know that? you said in your first post that you bet after a series of
3You said in an earlier post that not many have shown an interest in your method, well it's not surprising because they probably don't know how it works...
Ok, as far as I can see you bet FTL after the first series of 3 following a deviation of 3+
It's not clear how many bets you make though, in your examples it shows only one bet per signal. What is the stop loss and stop win?
Cheers.
LS,
Since you haven't bothered to confirm the bet selection, or answer my other questions, I assume you don't want anyone to know the details of your system, but if that's the case, why bother to start the thread in the first place? You're just wasting my time and yours.
I've noticed the same pattern again and again in forums over the years. Anyone who claims a winning method never shows in explicit detail the mechanics of how it actually works, because if they did it would be shown to be a loser. It's almost as though people would rather remain deluded, they get attached to their pet theories and couldn't bear it if they are shown to be fallacies (especially if they've put a lot of time and energy into them), this is just human nature, and it's not going to change.
Quotebecause if they did it would be shown to be a loser
Okay I don´t want to brag but if you want to know, then the 5 session I show you made 54 units flat betting.
540$ using 10$ chips 5400$ using 100$ chips...
Tangram.
Now you are polite, I like that, so if you want we can move this part of the dialog to a private place.
Now if you read my first post at random section, I told you that I would show you how to find series of 4 or above.
I did not tell you that I would give you a complete strategy to rob the casinos with.
Tangram.
Every system or strategy that exist will fail. That is not a secret.
The only way to beat the game is to know how to win more and break even more then you hit your loss limit. That should not be a secret.
Tangram.
To get result like this flat betting is hard work.
+14
+3
+14
+3
+14
+3
+14
+14
+3
+14
+14
There is many different ways, lets assume you only would use the one above then you would get 11 QS in 20 000 outcomes.
The thing I don´t like is that many members want things served on a silver plate, get some one else hard work for free with out studying it by them self.
So what is the conclusion here... I tell you... you give me 20 QS and I give you the march with intervals to hit the correction.
Then you can find out the truth by your self and see if you can make it work or if you think its crap and based upon a fallacy.
And remember I did not tell you that I was going to give you the holy grail, but I can tell you that you want find a strategy on internet that beat this one, so if you show me some real intresst to this, we can work as a team and get some large sampels of statistics regarding this one.
Cheers LS
You can use TRNGs because if you beat them you will beat any-thing regarding 1/2.
You find a sticky post at baccarat section TRNGs and a Program to use them with.
Cheers LS
LS,
I assumed from your comments in the random section that you would be giving full details, because you said it's up to me to prove that the system fails. However, it seems I misunderstood - no harm done.
Quotewe can move this part of the dialog to a private place.
Is there a PM facility on the forum? I didn't realise.
Quoteyou would get 11 QS in 20 000 outcomes.
So I assume you must be using multiple bet selections which give you more opportunities, otherwise this method is hardly practical is it?
QuoteThe thing I don´t like is that many members want things served on a silver plate, get some one else hard work for free with out studying it by them self.
Ok, fair enough.
Quoteyou give me 20 QS and I give you the march with intervals to hit the correction.
And if I do that you will fully explain the method so I can do my own testing?
What irritates me is when people give "hints". Not because I'm lazy and want it given to me on a silver plate, but because there are a huge number of possibilities to choose from. The number of combinations and permutations of systems are endless. (the truth is, all these apparently different approaches amount to the same thing, but no-one want to hears that.). A hint is only useful if there are a limited number of possibilities and some are more logical than others. But, since every system is based on faulty logic, it follows that any arbitrary set of rules is as "valid" as any other, so the only thing you can do is keep trying different approaches. It's really like trying to "prove" that 2 + 2 = 5 - a fruitless exercise.
However, I
would like to understand your system so that I can give it a fair trial.
LS,
I will use numbers from random.org and send you the QS in batches, are you ok with that?
was it something I said? ??? ::)
"It's almost as though people would rather remain deluded, they get attached to their pet theories and couldn't bear it if they are shown to be fallacies (especially if they've put a lot of time and energy into them), this is just human nature, and it's not going to change."
To me, in my lil' ol' opinion, this is one of the greatest truths I've ever read on a roulette forum. I once read a book, POSITIVE ILLUSIONS, because of a person I knew who was constantly under some illusion or another and I found that I was under illusions---we all are! And, like Tangram says, we'll thank you to keep the truth away from our illusions.
THIS WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT AND NOT DIRECTED TO WILDCARD OR ANY ANYONE ELSE.
Samster
Hi Sam, i really enjoy reading your posts and thank you for mentioning me ;D
However, i´m a little confused here, - sorry - can you please elucidate me ? I know it was a general statement and you didn´t mean to direct it to me, but ... are implying that i might be living an illusion and would rather remain deluded ?
If that´s the case, i have to tell you that i have a hard time recognizing how mistaken i can be over something, but once i "digest" it, i am very pleased someone showed me just that... Makes me (if nothing else), a little smarter and a little humbler.
Sometimes we need to be reminded of how "small" we can be ;)
Cheers, amigo !!
Wildcard
No, I was not speaking of you specifically but of humans in general. I have a little book called YOUR OWNER'S MANUAL. It is a good read for a rainy afternoon. The author says when we believe something, we unconsciously seek evidence to prove our belief while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary. Since this is an unconscious activity, we don't even know we're doing it.
From my own experience, when something seems to be going far too well, I recheck my figures and find I've left out a bunch of losers. Then reality sets in. And the truth is my mind overlooked those losers to support my belief!
A bit of TwoCat philosophy........
When one develops a system he should want someone to do their best to tear it down and prove it doesn't work. If the person does just that, we save money. If the person can't tear it down, we all make money.
Have a prosperous day!
Samster
QuoteWhen one develops a system he should want someone to do their best to tear it down and prove it doesn't work.
That's a great attitude Sam, it's a shame more people don't share it.
@ LS,
I take it that you've changed your mind about giving the details, no problem. Good luck with it anyway.
Quote from: Tangram on July 23, 2008, 09:01:54 AM
QuoteWhen one develops a system he should want someone to do their best to tear it down and prove it doesn't work.
That's a great attitude Sam, it's a shame more people don't share it.
@ LS,
I take it that you've changed your mind about giving the details, no problem. Good luck with it anyway.
Hi Tangram,
If you have the time, the patience, the guts and many more good attitudes, study Marigny the Grilleau and youll have complete response to all questions you adressed Lucky Strike.
Best regards,
Carlos.
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the tip, but I investigated Marigny's methods a long time ago, plus variations, and found that they didn't work.
I'm not going to put any time or effort into researching these methods any more, they are based on the gambler's fallacy. If someone claims they have a winning system based on GF, I will challenge them, but I'm not going to waste any more time chasing highways to no-where.
No offense intended, these are my opinions and in no way reflect those of the management! :)
Hi Tangram,
If that's your position about Marigny no purpose to follow Lucky'thread cos it is based on his theories.
Regards,
Carlos.
Thats correct Carpanta.
CPM is based upon that.
Cheers LS
@ LS,
I was just going to respond to your post and now I see you have removed it. Are you going to give me the details if I send you the QS's, or not?
Well Tangram you say above that you know Marigny and thats the basics i wanted to show you, to start with, so know there is no need to do that, is there.
And if you know then you alredy know how to procide after a SE 3.0 or 3,5...
Cheers LS
LS,
I haven't read Grilleau's books, the only information I got was from win-maxx. They say -
QuoteGrilleau recommends to start an attack against appearances of single chances ( i.e. Isolated spins against Series, or Series of 2 against higher Series etc.) after the Estat has reached a value of 3 or more.
Which is basically the same method you use to find the QS. However, there's no guide as to what to do when you find the QS. I tried various approaches but nothing worked, maybe you have a variation which does?
As I said, I don't mind if you don't want to share, it's not a problem.
QuoteI haven't read Grilleau's books, the only information I got was from win-maxx.
Yes exactly and they havent try it because they don´t know how to.
It has been very difficult for me to understand the basics because it turns you around to see things that you never tought would work.
Tangram CPM is a hudge thing to understand and it gets more complicated to read about the new work based upon Marginys original.
Well I keep my word, I always do, so you send me the QS and I will start to introduce you to this world.
Cheers LS
QuoteWell I keep my word, I always do, so you send me the QS and I will start to introduce you to this world.
Ok, thanks. I'll send some in the next day or so.
I suppose all Grilleau's works are written in French? there's very little about him on the net in English.
Tangram i change my mind i will post this at system section, so there is no need to give me QS.
Then after i post it every one can try it for them self as it is or make it there own way.
It will take some time because i will track 2.5 - 3.0 and the 3.5 that Marigny use.
Cheers LS
Hey, LS, thanks in advance.
You know this roulette is like a jigsaw puzzle with the pieces in fifty countries. I am totally convinced it CAN be put together!
(And if I die and don't do it, well, I had fun!!)
TwoCat
Ok LS, looking forward to it.
Well I just made a short run using 3.30 or above for 20 000 TRNGs.
Won 181 units flat betting. 15 sessions. BR 90 units.
I lilke that 8 won sessions and you operating with casino money.
If we add the other 5 sessions to this we would have won 235 units.
Statistical Ecart 3.32
Window 38
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.32
Window 35
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.32
Window 32
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.46
Window 34
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.61
Window 36
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.74
Window 44
Result +4
Statistical Ecart 3.46
Window 40
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.61
Window 45
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.46
Window 42
Result +4
Statistical Ecart 3.35
Window 45
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.80
Window 40
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.50
Window 50
Result +11
Statistical Ecart 3.50
Window 50
Result +11
Statistical Ecart 3.32
Window 47
Result +14
Statistical Ecart 3.60
Window 48
Result +11
Maybe I should make it 100 session before I post it and use actuals.
Cheers LS
LS,
It must be taking you bloody ages to go through all those spins. If you like, I can knock together some code to extract the QS's from an actuals file I have. That way you might get some of your life back. ;)
By the way, at 181 units per 20,000 spins, it would take you 66 days watching 300 spins per day (what's that, an 8 hour day?) to make them.
If you can maintain that over 60,000 spins, betting £500 chips, you would have made about £100,000, and could take the rest of the year off. :)
It would probably drive you mad with boredom though.
Thanks Tangram for you kind words...
Its hell to make them by hand... :)
But how about this ::)
80 Sessions for 20 000
Some basics...
1) Singels contra series (two ways to do it...)
2) Series contra singels
3) Series of 2 contra larger series
4) Series of 3 contra larger series
Track all 3 EC for 4 hours using a team ??? I don´t know i just want to explore CPM...
Now lets make it deep water... and I told you it is huge...
Singels contra singels (series contra series of singels)
That's why my head is on overload, math, probability, statistics and specific measurements... ;)
And I already have the proof of various ways to make it but it isn't by my work.
I like to have my own statistics to base my opinions on, its a great way of learning...
Cheers LS
Could you code series of 2 contra larger series???
Cheers LS
QuoteCould you code series of 2 contra larger series???
Sure. In fact I could do much better and extract all the QS for each one in your list:
1) Singels contra series (two ways to do it...)
2) Series contra singels
3) Series of 2 contra larger series
4) Series of 3 contra larger series
The only one I'm not sure about is 1). But if you're only using 3) for this test it will take less time so perhaps I could write the code for it and add the rest later. Are you getting the same results for each of 1) through 4)?