Can someone post the mathematical formula of how to calculate the STD of the difference in an EC?
Eg 10 reds and 4 blacks ....what is the math formula to know STD between them?
I need this formula to add it in an Excel sheet.
Thank you
First I will illustrate this with a simple example.
You have to have a playing model to caculate.
Caculate black and red as they come have no meaning.
You use the observation of the law of series.
Cold be series contra singles or singles contra series.
So if you had 14 series and two singles you would have 3.00 STD or ECART
FORMULA
First you have to get the Absolute Std when you calculate.
Then you take 14 - 2 = 12
Now we want to get the statistical std so we continue with...
14 + 2 = 16
Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4
And finally we divide the Absolute Std whit the sqr
12 sqr 4 = 3,00
The Statistical STD 3,00
(link:://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1018/ecartmb6.png)
You could use it to aim for larger series.
Playing model.
Singles would have the value of 1
Series of two would have the value 0
Series of three would have the value of 1
Series of four would have the value of 2
Series of five would have the value of 3
And so on ...
There exist many different ways to caculate and measuring then does i mention.
Now you can measuring the random flow - the random distribution.
You can observe 123456 STD as the bell curve has no limits.
Thank you for your reply ego
You said :
"""""You can observe 123456 STD as the bell curve has no limits."""""""
So by saying this you have the opinion that no one wins in the long run with Marigny?
And I have a question for you ,because I have read some posts of yours and I have seen that you are an expert in STDs
Please read this and tell me your opinion:
Let s imagine that we are in the Casino and that we have 4 wheels that has those results:
1) 2.5 STD with less Reds
2)1.9 STD with less Reds
3)3 STD with less Reds
4)1,2 STD with less Reds
(I know that Marigny is not based on the amount and STD of the colors but please follow my example)
If the Casino manager makes a pack with us and tells us that we can bet on the RED (because they are less) and that IF even 1 of those wheels will spin a RED will win +1 chip.
So If the 4 of them spin Red we win +1
If the 3 of them spin Red we win +1
If the 3 of them spin Red we win +1
If the 1 of them spin Red we win +1
If all 4 of them will spin Back we lose this -1 chip....
If this pack could be done....would we have an advantage to win on the most situations like those
and make money on the long run?
And those 2.5 STD , 1.9STD 3 STD , 1,2STD are they being added?
(If any other member can answer this ...then he is welcomed)
thanks
-
Marigny does not play with or against anything - so it does not matter if you get 123456 STD
You would only play after there is a tendency ...
-
To your question i can only say one thing.
The first is that i read that one colour can stay ahead for weeks with out the other colour coming back to balance.
Imbalance and balance only works using tendency play.
My opinion.
Quote from: ego on Jul 15, 04:04 PM 2012
-
Marigny does not play with or against anything - so it does not matter if you get 123456 STD
You would only play after there is a tendency ...
-
To your question i can only say one thing.
The first is that i read that one colour can stay ahead for weeks with out the other colour coming back to balance.
Imbalance and balance only works using tendency play.
My opinion.
From what I know, Marigny is based on the 3STD...so it cares about an imbalance to start balancing.
And If imbalance and balance work using trendecy play then it can work with the amount of and ECs or with the Runs and the Changes of an even chance...mathimaticaly there is no difference, and roulette is a mathematical game.
my opinion
-
You measuring at LEAST 3.00 STD then from that point it can continue to grow to become 456 STD
and it does not matter as you would not play with or against it.
First you would wait for indication that the imbalance stop growing and after that you would wait for small tiny correction wish would be the tendency to attack.
Again - the bell curve has no limits.
I also would claim that you would need a working playing model.
That means that you know after observing millions of trails that you are correct with your observations.
Example and illustration.
If you pick a window of 50 trails where you have a 3.00 STD - then you can see it as one big loophole.
That means from that point you have your imbalance wish you where looking for.
Now you know that with the next 250 trails there will be correction.
It always is and will always come after imbalance for the next 250 trails.
But during the game a 3.00 STD can go back to back and hit 6.00 STD.
Wish means nothing as you would only attack when there exist indications and tendency for drawdowns.
The tricky question is what kind of MARCH you are going to use to capitalize on does small, medium or large swings of corrections.
They can come in any formation during the play.
All you know for a fact is that they exist and you know they will show in the future.
So lets assume you have 15 singles with series of two with your first 30 40 50 trails.
Then you know the future holds allot of series with the length 3 4 5 6 7 8 and so on for the next 250 trails.
Then when serie of three start choping you would know they indicate that the imbalance stop growing and a serie of four would indicate a small correction - tendency.
Or the shoping with many series of three would indicate and become the tendency.
I just trying to help and hope you will do fine with your development.
Just saying you have to have a working playing model.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 15, 07:12 PM 2012
If imbalance and balance work using trendecy play then it can work with the amount of and ECs or with the Runs and the Changes of an even chance...mathematically there is no difference,
That's true, but it seems to be easier to exploit the "correction" if using chops vs series rather than red vs black, especially if you also take into account the series vs higher series (series of 2 vs series > 2, series of 3 vs series > 3 etc) which also has the same mathematical relationship. But it can get complicated to track.
Bayes say the same thing as me - you need a working playing model.
PLAYING MODEL
1) Use math to measuring balance and imbalance
2) Set a bench mark for a window with underrepresented events.
3) Develop a march to capitalize on small, medium and large corrections.
To develop the above you have to know what is the "indication" that make the overrepresented events stop growing and what is the "tendency" towards the underrepresented events starting to show.
If you are going to use red contra black or black contra red.
Quote from: Bayes on Jul 16, 04:06 AM 2012
That's true, but it seems to be easier to exploit the "correction" if using chops vs series rather than red vs black,
Why do you think this is Bayes? as I have found that a related subject would be where, in a streaky set of spins there are times that OLD can outperform "betting the colours". in respect to the peaks and troughs.
here is an example of what I mean
I am going to bet that red will appear within 2 spins BR win and BB would be a lose as red didnt appear within 2 spins.
however if I am to bet that it will chop within 2 spins then the example looks like this BBR win and BBB would lose
In the second example you would require a series of 3 Bs to lose which is rarer than the 2 Bs in the first example, and consequently, maybe, less likely to fail so frequently
Is the above quote based upon your own empirical evidence? as that was a confident statement.
Mike
I can't grasp your post above as i find it fuzzy.
Why would some one chasing for events like that - crazy.
When do you bet - after what kind of "indication" and "tendency" ...
As we don't play against any events or with.
So where is the indication that the imbalance stop growing with your illustration/example and where is the tendency of draw downs.
Feel free to show us how a 3.00 STD looks like when red or black are ahead and show us how you know it stop growing with indications - also how the tendency's of corrections looks like.
What is the underrepresented event/events to capture?
re. Bayes/Shadowman
There can't be any real evidence for a difference between R/B as opposed to series of 1/>1 is there?
That would be amazing if it were true wouldn't it? & completely change how we should look at the game?
Quote from: ego on Jul 16, 08:11 AM 2012
Feel free to show us how a 3.00 STD looks like when red or black are ahead
For those who like a visual representation -
STD's of exactly 3:
9-0
14-2
20-5
27-9
35-14
44-20
54-27
65-35
Quote from: ego on Jul 16, 08:11 AM 2012
and show us how you know it stop growing with indications - also how the tendency's of corrections looks like.
What is the underrepresented event/events to capture?
Thats the tricky bit.
Quote from: Bayes on Jul 16, 04:06 AM 2012
it seems to be easier to exploit the "correction" if using chops vs series rather than red vs black
with regard to the first statement - if the 65/35 was R/B, could we really expect it to act differently to series of 1/>1?
-
Now when we discuss the best solution there is - the topic die ...
Advance high probability
First it does not matter where during the distribution you find a window with 3.00 STD.
As it does not matter from wish point we start measuring as we deal with independent trails.
But the 3.00 STD window with underrepresented events is not independent as you have a window of a very high imbalance that in the future will correct it self with small, medium and large draw downs.
Yes the bell curve can continue to grow towards 456 STD but as i mention before we would not attack or play during that situation.
So no matter what you argue so will we sooner or later see correction to emerge and manifest and then we would attack.
Conclusion is that we would only play when correction exist and are present.
First stage with indication that the imbalance stop growing and second stage when small, medium and large draw downs of correction emerge.
The future is our high probability area as we have the loophole who force certain events to show.
Its like having a crystal ball where you know what the future will produce.
The only issue with this playing model is to develop a working march wish embrace does small, medium and large draw downs of corrections.
So our future is our high probability area as we create and start from a loophole.
It as close you can get towards advantage play using even money bets.
As with visual ballistic you predict or estimate where the ball will end up - the high probability area.
We know that nobody has seen less than 43 red or black in 200 spins. Could we track the first 100, count and think we will know the minimum numbers i the next hundred?
That will be possible, but how to make use of it?
QuoteNow when we discuss the best solution there is - the topic die ...
Not dead, just sleeping. (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
@ Shadowman/monaco
There's no reason to suppose that using chops/streaks is superior to red/black, and mathematically there is no difference whatsoever, and anyone who has played the ECs for some time and bothers to look at the marquee will notice that after a strong deviation on one side, the other side will make a comeback, sooner or later. The tricky part, as has been noted, it how to take advantage of it. (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
The reason I find Marigny's stuff interesting is because there are a lot of dimensions to it. There are many valid ways of analyzing a sequence, not only singles vs series and series of 2 vs higher series, series of 3 vs higher series etc, but there is a regularity in other appearances too. e.g. - There are as many series of singles as there are isolated singles, as many 2-in-a-row singles as 3-in-a-row or higher singles , and the same goes for series of 2 (isolated series of 2 vs series of series of 2). All these appearances exist in a state of tension, as it were; they all have to conform to statistical laws. So in a sense, are spins truly independent?
Quote"IS EVERY ROULETTE SPIN NEW?"
Marigny de Grilleau
translated from "The gain of one unit on the even money chances at Roulette and Trente et Quarante"
One can hear that question in every casino everyday. The word "new" means according to the definition "which one yet did not see". In this sense each day is a new day. It is quite obvious that people asking this question do not realy mean "new" to express this natural truth. Their questions is badly formulated and surely they mean "new" in the sense of independent.
Thus they wanted to ask whether each spin is independent of the others, the previous or following spins. The above question should be asked as follows: " Are all appearances and are all spins independent?" In this formulation no wordplay and no wrong interpretations are possible.
Grilleau does not hesitate with a clear answer: "No, neither the appearances nor the spins can be independent, because everyone of them is a part of the whole. This whole is arranged and limited in all its movements and is subject to precise laws."
Each spin, while the ball turns in the wheel, carries in itself a certain quantity of independence and a certain quantity of dependence.
The independence results from the following:
every time the dealer rolls the ball, it is faced with 18 red and 18 black, 18 even and 18 odd as well as 18 high and 18 low pockets. Therefore the ball has the same chance to fall in one of the 36 pockets (we do not consider zero or doublezero this time) since each pocket indicates Red or Black, Even or Odd, High or Low at the same time.
The dependence results from
1. the Law of Deviation (Ecart),
2. the Law of Balance (Equilibrium)and
3. the law of the distribution of appearances into different accumulations or clusters and isolated units
Thus the mathematical truth of the independence of the spins is constantly in conflict with the statistic truth of the dependence of the spins.
If between two equivalent appearances none, or only a very small deviation exists, the independence of the two appearances remains retained in their fight against each other. But if the statistic deviation reaches a certain size, the size of this deviation more or less limits the independece of these appearances and spins. In this instant the dependence of the appearances on the laws of nature demands again its right, by limiting its freedom for deviation within the statistic average values, of which these never can free itself.
In our opinion neither a single spin nor an appearance can be independ in a roulette permanence of a certain length, for example within 1024 spins. The dependence of the spins which are affected by chance due to exactly defined laws, is a fact, which the usual gambler does not understand without difficulty. And because of this difficulty the gamblers and also the mathematicians believe in the independence of roulette spins. In reality each spin and each appearance has its necessary and mandatory function in the whole of a roulette permanence. Chance does not exist there, because all effects have their visible or hidden causes.
The dependence of the spins on the laws of nature becomes obvious, if we analyze a roulette permanence and classify the developed appearances. However we do not succeed in each case in determining this dependence, which must be present for all spins, if only small deviations occur, which do not exceed the average statistical Ecart of 1. We only succeed then, if we determine the partial return to equilibrium after very strong deviations greater than a statistical Ecart of 3.
The roulette ball cannot extract itself from the laws of nature. These laws force it into the pocket, into which it must fall, so that it can perform the necessary function, which it has to, in the statistic harmony of the whole permanence - like a note in a score. Chance can let many obvious, strange features develop before our eyes. But nevertheless, statistically seen, chance can not repeat these individual strange things too frequently, like for example a series of 25, which needs approximately 34 million spins to develop once.
I can just see the hard-core math guys chuckling derisively at this. Well, let them. To me it just seems like common sense, and common sense trumps any amount of fancy maths. >:D
I find that taking a "holistic" approach (looking at multiple stats and their relationships within a given sequence, then using ALL that information) is a pretty good way to select your bets.
If we can talk in cycles, with a cycle of e/c bets being 2 spins, could not a full cycle (2 of the least hit colour hitting consecutively), signify a 'possibility' of a beginning of a correction - worthy of a full cycle of attempts, maybe a cycle and a half, something like a 2-2-1 bet?
if lose, wait for another full cycle of the least hit (or 3 out of 4), and make another attempt..
maybe you can stick in 'wait for a virtual win' as a further indicator if its still not coming.
& then a positive progression upon hits.
I use to sometimes test BV NoZero, put 10 Euro in the game account, set the automatic spin on 100, 200 or 1000 and let it run with 1 cent on an EC. The result + or - from 10 Euro tell the differense.
I think I did it more than 100 times. Its not a large test yet. But I can see the waves.
In 100 it has been 28 more or less, and then it hover and goes opposite.
The gain of this knowledge is still minor, a few Euro running the whole day. Set 1000 spin before sleep, and check in the morning. (yes I am retired).
It's interesting that Ralph uses the word 'wave' to describe the observation of his results, but yet it can't be denied that spins are independent.
All spins are independent - but I think of them in the way I was taught about electrons back in school. Observing an electron, they can be viewed as having properties of an individual particle, but also possessing the properties of a wave, a duality - spins have this duality also, they are 2 things at the same time - an independent spin but also possessing the properties of a wave.
What's true for electrons in particle physics is true for a little ball in roulette.
{With regard to the STD, a deviation such as 3.00 means a more exaggerated wave of losses for one, and wins for the other. Exaggerated waves=easier to see=easier to act upon (or sit-out as the case may be).
It would be interesting to test if, once an STD of 3 had been reached, & once certain triggers had then been met pointing to a possible correction, a positive progression would then be profitable.}
Quote from: monaco on Jul 18, 10:32 AM 2012
It's interesting that Ralph uses the word 'wave' to describe the observation of his results, but yet it can't be denied that spins are independent.
All spins are independent - but I think of them in the way I was taught about electrons back in school. Observing an electron, they can be viewed as having properties of an individual particle, but also possessing the properties of a wave, a duality - spins have this duality also, they are 2 things at the same time - an independent spin but also possessing the properties of a wave.
What's true for electrons in particle physics is true for a little ball in roulette.
{With regard to the STD, a deviation such as 3.00 means a more exaggerated wave of losses for one, and wins for the other. Exaggerated waves=easier to see=easier to act upon (or sit-out as the case may be).
It would be interesting to test if, once an STD of 3 had been reached, & once certain triggers had then been met pointing to a possible correction, a positive progression would then be profitable.}
That is the core of Marigny theories. The point being made is that he applied it to the Law of series. (take a deeper look into Ego's posts).Then you have to develop a march to capture underrepresented events.
Example 1.
If you track Singles Vs Series:
you detect the 3.0 Ecart
then as you see a tendency for correction (2 series in a row) you bet series.
Example 2.
If you track Series of 2 Vs Larger Series
HOW TO TRACK
formation = value
singles = 0
series 2 = 1
series 3 = 0
series 4 = 1
series 5 = 2
series 6 = 3
series 7 = 4
...
then you may detect 3.0 STD in any window of spins
The MARCH
After a 3.0 STD you wait for a series of 4 or 5 to grow
if lost
wait for the next series of 2 and attack
This is one option among many.
Cheers. O0
here is a picture of Singles Vs Series
[attachimg=1]
this statistic is well known, what we have to do is to make any usefully way of explore it.
Singles contra series.
The Perfect March.
Attempts -attacks - 5.
X = End of day.
Travemunde Table 1
921101 Ecart 3.13 +1
921111 Ecart 3.00 +1
921112 Ecart 3.15 +1
921112 Ecart 3.64 +1
921114 Ecart 3.15 +1
921117 Ecart 3.00 +1
921120 Ecart 3.15 -5
921212 Ecart 3.00 +1
921215 Ecart 3.65 +1
921219 Ecart 3.29 +1
921221 Ecart 3.88 +1
921222 Ecart 3.00 +1
930113 Ecart 3.00 +1
930114 Ecart 3.15 +1
930117 Ecart 3.00 -5
930117 Ecart 3.90 +1
930204 Ecart 3.80 +1
930204 Ecart 3.00 +1
930221 Ecart 3.29 +1
930223 Ecart 3.29 +1
930301 Ecart 3.15 +1
930302 Ecart 3.05 +1
930304 Ecart 3.57 +1
930305 Ecart 3.00 -5
930307 Ecart 3.50 -5
930324 Ecart 3.00 +1
930326 Ecart 3.88 +1
930330 Ecart 4.01 +1
930331 Ecart 3.00 +1
930406 Ecart 3.54 -5
930406 Ecart 3.15 +1
930407 Ecart 3.27 +1
930425 Ecart 3.00 +1
930428 Ecart 3.15 +1
930507 Ecart 3.00 +1
930507 Ecart 3.00 +1
930510 Ecart 3.13 -5
930516 Ecart 3.65 +1
930517 Ecart 3.29 +1
930520 Ecart 3.27 +1
930529 Ecart 3.27 +1
930601 Ecart 3.00 +1
930622 Ecart 3.12 +1
930626 Ecart 3.00 +1
930628 Ecart 3.41 +1
Now for less experience players this is how you can chart different values to get an overview of what you are up against.
Attempts 5, 5, 3, with different march.
X = End of day "depending on march this can give different results".
(Even the window of appearance can effect if it qualify or not.)
Singles contra series.
920108 Ecart 3.44 +1 +1 +1
920124 Ecart 3.27 +1 +1 +1
920127 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920131 Ecart 3.00 +1 -5 +1
920205 Ecart 3.40 +1 -5 +1
920211 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
920213 Ecart 3.41 +1 .X .X
920214 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
920218 Ecart 3.12 .X +1 .X
920219 Ecart 3.27 .X .X +1
920302 Ecart 3.64 +1 +1 +1
920325 Ecart 3.40 -5 +1 +1
920406 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920428 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920519 Ecart 3.54 -5 +1 -3
920520 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920527 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920609 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 -3
920612 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 .X
920613 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920617 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920622 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920716 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920720 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920723 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920810 Ecart 3.02 -5 .X .X
920818 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920824 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920826 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 -3
920827 Ecart 3.15 +1 -5 +1
920903 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920904 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920909 Ecart 3.00 .X .X +1
920915 Ecart 3.18 +1 +1 +1
920923 Ecart 3.02 +1 +1 +1
920924 Ecart 3.00 +1 .X +1
920930 Ecart 3.29 +1 +1 +1
921002 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
921005 Ecart 3.88 +1 +1 +1
921005 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
921014 Ecart 3.70 +1 +1 -3
921022 Ecart 3.50 +1 .X .X
921024 Ecart 3.65 +1 +1 +1
921027 Ecart 3.00 +1 .X +1
921030 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 .X
1th march) 39/15
2th march) 39/15
3th march) 35/12
- - -
Attack mode 7.
The Perfect March.
X = End of day.
87/35
920108 +1
920108 +1
920115 +1
920124 +1
920127 +1
920131 +1
920205 +1
920207 +1
920211 +1
920213 +1
920214 +1
920218 .X
920219 .X
920302 +1
920325 -7
920406 +1
920428 +1
920519 -7
920520 +1
920527 +1
920609 +1
920612 +1
920613 +1
920617 +1
920622 +1
920716 +1
920720 +1
920723 +1
920729 +1
920810 .X
920818 +1
920820 +1
920824 +1
920826 +1
920827 +1
920903 +1
920904 +1
920909 .X
920915 +1
920923 +1
920924 +1
920930 +1
921002 +1
921005 +1
921005 +1
921014 +1
921022 +1
921024 +1
921027 +1
921030 +1
921101 +1
921111 +1
921112 +1
921112 +1
921114 +1
921116 +1
921117 +1
921120 -7
921209 +1
921212 +1
921215 +1
921219 +1
921221 +1
921222 +1
930113 +1
930114 +1
930117 -7
930117 +1
930204 +1
930204 +1
930221 +1
930223 +1
930301 +1
930302 +1
930304 +1
930304 .X
930305 +-0
930307 +1
930324 +1
930326 +1
930330 +1
930331 +1
930406 -7
930406 +1
930407 +1
930425 +1
930428 +1
930507 +1
930507 +1
930510 +1
930516 +1
930517 +1
930520 +1
930529 +1
930601 +1
930622 +1
930626 +1
930628 +1
All flat betting ...
Attempts three.
X = End of day.
1th) March two 81/51
2th) March one 70/60
920108 +1 +1
920108 +1 -3
920115 +1 +1
920124 +1 +1
920127 +1 +1
920131 -3 -3
920205 +1 -3
920207 +1 +1
920211 +1 +1
920213 +1 -3
920214 +1 +1
920218 -3 +1
920219 -3 .X
920302 +1 +1
920325 -3 +1
920406 +1 +1
920428 +1 +1
920519 -3 -3
920520 +1 +1
920527 +1 +1
920609 +1 +1
920612 +1 +1
920613 +1 +1
920617 +1 +1
920622 +1 +1
920716 +1 +1
920720 +1 +1
920723 -3 +1
920729 +1 -3
920810 -3 .X
920818 +1 +1
920820 +1 -3
920824 +1 +1
920826 +1 +1
920827 +1 -3
920903 +1 +1
920904 +1 +1
920909 -3 .X
920915 +1 +1
920923 +1 +1
920924 -3 -3
920930 +1 +1
921002 +1 +1
921005 +1 +1
921005 +1 +1
921014 +1 +1
921022 +1 .X
921024 +1 +1
921027 +1 .X
921030 +1 +1
921101 +1 +1
921111 +1 -3
921112 +1 +1
921112 +1 +1
921114 +1 +1
921116 -3 +1
921117 +1 +1
921120 -3 +1
921209 +1 +1
921212 +1 +1
921215 +1 +1
921219 +1 -3
921221 +1 +1
921222 +1 .X
930113 +1 +1
930114 +1 -3
930117 -3 -3
930117 +1 .X
930204 +1 -3
930204 +1 +1
930221 +1 +1
930223 +1 -3
930301 +1 +1
930302 +1 +1
930304 +1 -3
930304 -3 -3
930305 -3 +1
930307 -3 +1
930324 +1 +1
930326 +1 -3
930330 +1 +1
930331 +1 +1
930406 -3 +1
930406 +1 +1
930407 +1 +1
930425 +1 +1
930428 +1 +1
930507 +1 +1
930507 +1 +1
930510 -3 +1
930516 +1 +1
930517 +1 +1
930520 +1 +1
930529 +1 .X
930601 +1 -3
930622 +1 +1
930626 +1 -3
930628 +1 +1
I add one software below.
Click on it and load numbers, sampels 10.000 or above.
Click on next to get the sequense with 3.0 or above.
Click on spin to see how the flow after 3.0 or above unfold it self with draw-downs.
This is what you will find out.
1) Correction exist and it is not an fallacy.
2) When two series or more chop you have draw-downs.
3) The idea is to gain +1 and that it overcome the amount of attempts you do to gain +1 - flat betting.
4) You can apply risk or ruin and with an slow prog that accept loses you higher you get into the prog scale and try to gain from shops of wins and accept loss strings.
5) I would say if you find an way you should use 100 chips and have an La partage rule and put an small amount on zero so the net % will break even or make an slight gain.
6) You can get significant statistical results first with your method before you play for real so you know what you are up against.
7) I dont take any responsibilty for any ones action using this information.
- - -
Singels contra series.
This post is for does who not can understand or make there own observation and develop a march - so her it is on a silver plate - but you have to verify it with your own statistics.
Note.
This is flat betting with a total of four attempts.
The march can develop to using attmepts around 4 6 8 10 steps to find different variance - but my short test show the cut goes around four and six.
1) Rule number one is to wait for two series to chop, the formation of two seris look like this RRRBBB and after that formation appers you attack twice and gain +1 unit.
If you don´t get a straight hit with three series in a row like this RRRBBRR you will have the following formation RRRBBRRB and aim for it to hovering with your secound bet RRRBBRRBRRRR if at zero you just follow the betting behavior, the march, until +1 or -2 being your first attack.
2) If you dont get two series to chop as I mention above you make your first attack when a state of hovering appers and it looks like this RRRBRRR and play that next formation will be followed with a serie like this RRRBRRRBB if not you will have the following formation RRRBRRRBR and would play it will continue to hovering and ride it out until +1 or -2 being your first attack.
3) If first attack fail you would repeat the betting singals above for one more attack with the difference that you dont aim to win +1 and now aim to break even because that would give you one less formation of correction wish appers more regulary then an longer correction to end up with +1 and this is a way to make the play more stabel with good results.
Result:
+1 +1 +0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 +1 +1 +0 +1 -4 +1 +1 +1 +0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
31 won
4 loss
27 total gain
I am up for discussion about how to develop the perfect march and different playing models.
I am a Guru when it comes to even money bets ... don't want to brag but that is the truth.
Lets have some fun with this topic - you claim all bet selections are the same and it is the same thing playing with or against - then show us the same results that i show above flat betting !!!
If you can't then ask you self if it is better to use a tendency towards what is present then chasing for events.
Cheers
""So where is the indication that the imbalance stop growing ""
There can t be any indication for this....If the imbalance will start correcting it s self , it can be done with a lot of ways and there are no indications for us to know when and how it will do it....
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 18, 02:14 PM 2012
""So where is the indication that the imbalance stop growing ""
There can t be any indication for this....If the imbalance will start correcting it s self , it can be done with a lot of ways and there are no indications for us to know when and how it will do it....
You are wrong and you missunderstand the basic principal how to read the random distribution following one specific playing model.
If you have 14 singles and two isolated present series you will have 3.00 STD.
Now if the distribution start hovering you have a STD that does not grow and getting stronger or getting weaker at that present moment - it just is a indincation or tendency of existing correction or if you get two series to chop it stop growing and after that is the future and also existing correction as there is a present change.
That is indications and tendency.
Different present state from previos wish indicate correction start to developing.
But as i told you before it can go back to back - but again it does not matter as you would only lose two singles bets.
-
Illustration with real indications and tendency's and correction.
Singles contra larger series of singles.
Here can you see after 3.15 how larger series chop 3,4,5,6, and so on
Math value:
Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
And so on ...
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2 2
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
2 2
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1
1
1
2 2
1
1
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 1
2
2
1 1
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
2
2
1 1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
1
1
2
2
1 1
2 2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
1 1
2
2
1 1 Ecart/STD 3.15
2
2
1 1
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2 Indication
1 1 Tendency
2 2
1 1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
1 1
2 2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
2
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
oK. I HOPE U ARE RIGHT.
But i don t think this has a mathematical logic.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 18, 02:45 PM 2012
oK. I HOPE You are RIGHT.
But i don't think this has a mathematical logic.
Well MOP you are free to dislike what i write - but i can insure you it is.
The math and probability is correct.
It becomes a big world when you list all options how to measuring the distribution as Bayes mention.
hello guys, interesting topic,
I personally do not believe in triggers, I think that the deviation we can only turn to our advantage with a some positive progression. With a flat bet it was practically impossible because each spin is independent of previous 9 or 999 999 999 (my option).
ego, did u try to code that playing model and indication of existing correction ?
Our problem is how to explore it. EC, DOZ, singles and series, has the same pattern. You will for example find about 50% series which is lower than higher no matter the length.
Otherwise we could just bet black after three reds thinking a four serie is 50% less, its true, but we must count all series longer than three, wich is 50% of all thinkable series.
A more holistic view of the movement may be working, but still we know a lot of this, but we do not know a lot of how to use it to our favour.
We normally do not bet a sere, it is in a strategy, but which?
Amazing contributions Ego, many thanks.
Always enjoy your info.
Right on the ball :)
*****
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
R
R
B
B
R -1
B -2
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B w-1
B
B
R
R w 0
B
*****
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
R
R
B -1
R
R 0
B
B 1
R
*****
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R -1
B
B 0
R
R 1
*****
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
R
B
B
R +1
R
*****
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
R
B
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
R
R
R
B
R
R
B
B +1
*****
R
R
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
R
B
R <= 3 SD Singles vs Series
B
B
B
R
R
B
B +1
*****
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
R
R <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
R
B
R
B +1
R
*****
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
R
B
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
B
R
R
R
B
B
R
R
R
B
B <= 3 SD Series vs Singles
R
B
R
R -1
R
R
R
R
B
B -2
R
B
R -1
B 0
R
*****
Quote from: albertojonas on Jul 18, 12:47 PM 2012
That is the core of Marigny theories. The point being made is that he applied it to the Law of series.
It's fine to use singles v series as the example, but the principle should also be applicable to any selection, R/B, series of 2/>2 etc
For example, if you have 9 singles in a row (STD 3), not only have you got an STD of 3 in singles v series, you also have an STD of 3 in OLD v FTL, and you should be able to apply the march you are using to both.
If I'm wrong in this please let me know..?
Ego, thanks for uploading the software - it's very useful in testing.
In your results, after you obtain your +1, are you resetting & looking for a new STD3? Or is there some kind of continuous betting to take advantage of a medium/large swing of correction?
One 3.00 STD and +1 ...
I've read & read & read this, & i got a light-bulb moment in understanding last night, though it's more of a dim glow in reality,
I think I've got an understanding of the basic singles contra series, the hovering, indications & tendencies, & even how they can be attacked,
but I'm trying to get to grips with the singles contra larger series idea, & have a question i hope you can help with..
Quote from: ego on Jul 18, 02:44 PM 2012
-
Illustration with real indications and tendency's and correction.
Singles contra larger series of singles.
Here can you see after 3.15 how larger series chop 3,4,5,6, and so on
Math value:
Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
And so on ...
say i have 17 singles (17), 2 series of 3(2) & 1 series of 4(2), which is 17/4 (STD 2.83), not quite STD3 but say it is ok for our purposes..
is the attack for a series of 2 to go to 3? If it doesn't go to 3, we have a series of 2(0), so we've lost a bet, but the score 17/4 hasnt changed.. I'm just not quite sure of the priniciple of attacking singles contra large series?
Also, in the example above, we would have 17/3 (STD 3.13) in singles contra series, so a joint attack could be made using both variations i suppose?
I would say that this method of play isn't quite as impractical as it may initially look.
If i am playing a shoe in baccarat, i would use this as a secondary selection (usually to recoup 1 or 2 units) once i reach about halfway through the shoe & i haven't reached my 2 units win-goal.
admittedly i don't always wait for the exact STD of 3, but if its getting that way as in the example above, I will look to play it if it's there.
PM me
I am of to work now ...
Cheers
What do you think of idea to play Marigny like this:
As it actualy isnt important which EC we take or what odd actualy, but lets say we play with EC-s.
To maximize profits lets first play EC on straight. Half of the wheel. After +1 we can go lower to play with casinos money. So we go on splits. After that lower again on lines lets say. Then on dozens..
Something similar like 931 MM or 731..
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on Aug 24, 10:08 AM 2012
What do you think of idea to play Marigny like this:
As it actualy isnt important which EC we take or what odd actualy, but lets say we play with EC-s.
To maximize profits lets first play EC on straight. Half of the wheel. After +1 we can go lower to play with casinos money. So we go on splits. After that lower again on lines lets say. Then on dozens..
Something similar like 931 MM or 731..
Cheers
Drazen
I think I get the idea Drazen, but would be difficult to apply Marigny to splits/lines wouldn't it?
A lot of tracking involved?
Well Monaco, with software of course. Not manualy.. :)
EC is EC. Marigny no cares how i get EC. lol
Actualy it doesnt has to be necessary EC. You can use any ratio, like 2:1 on dozens, but for that you have to adjust ratios, it wont be equal as on EC for example.
Cheers
Drazen
maybe i didn't get the idea after all ;D
I thought you meant to play on splits/lines adjusting the ratios, not making new EC's out of them..
Beyond me I'm afraid, I'm paper & pens :)