Educated Guess

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:42 AM 2012

Following Pattern 4 thread...

Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 07, 09:09 PM 2012

This guy, (with all due respect) also mentioned the following several times, and i learned a lot from him and i share many opinions about roulette...

Lets say we clustering patterns of three RBB wish can come in 8 combinations.

Now if we play the same as the previous 3 then we have 1 in 8 to fail - pretty simple math and odds.
Now if we play the opposite as the previous 3 then we have 1 in 8 to fail - pretty simple math and odds.

Due to the small size equilibrium will create some heavy fluctuation and string of losses.
Then we can delay equilibrium and fluctuation.

Once in 1 million do we get 1 pattern out of 8 repeating 8 times in a row.

Now if we see the previous three as i mention above and the first colour of our previous three is the same as our first future outcome we play opposite.
Now if we see the previous three as i mention above and the first colour of our previous three is the opposite as our first future outcome we play same.

Then we have 2 in 8 wish appears to repeat once in 500.000 and we only have to place two single bets.
I don't be live any other patterns become much better then that - no matter if you play with or against or trending.

That would at least delay long strings wish would make staking in different levels make you take andvantage out of periodic distribution.

... To make things real and not just empty talk i decided to post a test of 100.000 placed bets on the above, so people get a clear idea of what they are up against with this. I used TRNG from Random.org, from the 1st of june until today. in batches of variable size. So the thing is the personal permanence and not the Hit & Run, skipping tables, etc...
This is Flat Bet.

there you go. For anyone interested i post pdf bet by bet.
cheers

[attachimg=2]

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:53 AM 2012

So I go to Random.org, and get 300 spins for each day, starting from 1st of may.

[attachimg=1]

albertojonas · Jul 08, 11:04 AM 2012

And here are the first ten sessions.

[attach=1]

[attach=2]

[attach=3]

[attach=4]

[attach=5]

[attach=6]

[attach=7]

[attach=8]

[attach=9]

[attach=10]

albertojonas · Jul 08, 11:34 AM 2012

*****

NOTE: balance1 is what would have happen if you attack after LL

Carsch · Jul 08, 02:17 PM 2012

Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?

albertojonas · Jul 08, 04:19 PM 2012

Quote from: Carsch on Jul 08, 02:17 PM 2012
Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?

There are at least ten examples posted above...

I wouldn't play with martingale as it is not needed to win.

One option is to set a limit, like -5 and start recovery from that point.

GLC · Jul 08, 04:28 PM 2012

Alberto,
looks like without the LL filter, it's too dangerous. With the LL filter we could set a win target of +5 and a stop loss of somewhere around -5 and once we reach +5 play until we have lost 2 units and quit up +3 or if we continue to win we set something like a 40% loss from our high bank as a stopping point. That way we limit our losses to -5 but our wins can go much higher.

Does you response to Carsch mean that you play virtual until you are at -5 and then start playing real bets because most of the graphs with LL filter don't go much below -5?

GLC

GLC · Jul 08, 05:20 PM 2012

This LL filter seems to be pretty powerful. Why is that? I'm starting to wonder if every e.c. system can be improved using this LL filter.

albertojonas · Jul 08, 06:24 PM 2012

Quote from: GLC on Jul 08, 05:20 PM 2012
This LL filter seems to be pretty powerful. Why is that? I'm starting to wonder if every e.c. system can be improved using this LL filter.

On logic if the bet is balanced you would get 50/50 % L & W. If you play after LL you are reducing deliberately that percentage and it can go wrong when LL cluster together, but then you would have a huge STD.

From my observations it depends on the bet, believe it or not. However, it performs better than playing it raw, in most cases.

About progression, i was mentioning if one must use it it could be when balance hits -5 and play flat all the way above that point.

=)
Cheers

GLC · Jul 08, 08:04 PM 2012

So, let me rephrase you.

I play a flat bet as long as I am above -5. Any time I get below -5, I can play a simple D'Alembert of +1-1 until I get back to -5 or greater then back to flat bet.

Correctamundo mate?

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:17 PM 2012

YES. all correct. Except personally i prefer another offset in D'Allembert, i like to increase one unit when L and stay at same level when W.
It would be nice if someone could post some more tests. i will post 10 more tomorrow.
Cheers

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:24 PM 2012

Quote from: Carsch on Jul 08, 02:17 PM 2012
Alberto, can you show with an example how you play this?
And could this use a progression such as 1,2,4? or 1,2,4,8?

I am sorry Carsch, you were correct, there is no clear example there. i will post one now.

I Believe that with this and the explanations from the first post you can figure it out.

On the first 3 columns were you see 1 & 2 it is the same as R&B or L&H or O&E or B&P, etc...

Hope you can get it. Any doubt shoot.

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:27 PM 2012

The following 10 sessions

Robeenhuut · Jul 08, 10:37 PM 2012

Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 08, 06:24 PM 2012
On logic if the bet is balanced you would get 50/50 % L & W. If you play after LL you are reducing deliberately that percentage and it can go wrong when LL cluster together, but then you would have a huge STD.

From my observations it depends on the bet, believe it or not. However, it performs better than playing it raw, in most cases.

About progression, i was mentioning if one must use it it could be when balance hits -5 and play flat all the way above that point.

=)
Cheers

Hola Alberto

U dont have here balanced bet.

Balanced bet played continuously would end in 0 balance. EC bet like this R or B is not balanced. D distribution balances itself out but in a large sample. When i go online 2 play n look at past results chart from 185 spins i hardly ever see even balance between any EC's. But its another story. F u saw heavy dominance of lets say R would u bet in d next 185 spins on reversing of this trend? Most people probably would. And clusters of LL dont
constitute large STD. U got mixed results in yr charts using straight bet or LL filter mostly favoring LL filter betting. Its 10 samples. After 1000 samples d results will even out. But i like that u seem 2 always be at some point in positive territory.

Regards

albertojonas · Jul 08, 10:48 PM 2012

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 10:37 PM 2012
Hola Alberto

U don't have here balanced bet. Balanced bet played continuously would end in 0 balance. EC bet like this R or B is not balanced. D distribution balances itself out but in a large sample. When i go online 2 play n look at past results chart from 185 spins i hardly ever see even balance between any ECs. But its another story. F u saw heavy dominance of lets say R would u bet in d next 185 spins on reversing of this trend?
There are ways to measure imbalance, wait for indication and tendency and then bet for correction.
Most people probably would. And clusters of LL don't constitute large STD. You can measure Ecart (STD) for any event you want. so if you get many LL after LL it constitutes one measurable STD where LL is the overrepresented event.

U got mixed results in yr charts using straight bet or LL filter mostly favoring LL filter betting. Its 10 samples. After 1000 samples d results will even out. What counts is the number of placed bets to see how it holds up. Also i posted 10 more sessions =). All the sessions are verifiable if one goes to random.org and uses the same dates.

But i like that u seem 2 always be at some point in positive territory.
And that is a fact that helps a lot ini developing any playing model doesn't it?

Regards

News:

Educated Guess