0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58

I will only reply to constructive comments regarding this topic.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
"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.

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
There is new people around and less experiences players so I will give some raw explanations about some basic concept.
I will keep it simple at this level and illustrate an easy way how the random flow can grow and get stronger and weaker or hovering - balance and imbalance.

I will show you the values depending one method among others and how you calculate.
We will stay with the concept when singles or series alternating where one of the two gets underrepresented and overrepresented.
Strong imbalance.

There will be no system here.
I will just show you how there is an difference when you get an indication that some things grow and get and strong STD (imbalance) and the other way around, getting weaker.or starting hovering at zero point.

Then I will show when an correction appears from being an indication from where some one can start to make there attacks to capture certain event using an predefined march - capture correction.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
Here is an simple chart that I did a long time ago with some values that you can use as reference.



The french word for Standard Deviation is Ecart and will be the name I use from now on.

First you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So lets assume you have an sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.

Then you take 14 - 2 = 12

Now we want to get the statistical ecart so we continue with...

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

Next i will show you how to measuring the distribution.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58

Series vs Singels
Singels vs Series

Now we are going to observe how imbalance appears and follows by correction.
There is two opposite ways to illustrate this.

First i should mention that one singel or one serie is one event.
Singels has the value 1 and series has the value 1 (no matter length).
Two opposite like red and black.

There only exist three state of the distribution of singels and series.
They grow and get stronger or get weaker or hovering at zero point.

If we use singels vs series and we get 23456789 singels in a row - then the imbalance grow.
If we use series vs singels and we get 23456789 series in a row - then the imbalance grow.
If we get one singel and one serie alternation - then there is no imbalance as bout sides hovering at zero point with out getting weaker or stronger in any direction.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58

Rules for measuring and apply working playing model for simulation.

We will aim to catch imbalance with a 3.00 STD.
After that we will observe how correction unfold it self.

I attach the simulation software below so you can verify everything i show you.
Note i use 10 000 random bits from random org.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58

The sofware works as follows.

You load your file and click on box to save results.
You click on next and it will show you singels having a 3 STD imbalance.
Then you can click on spin to see how the distribution unfold.

The correction you will find is that the distribution will start to stop growing (hovering at zero point) or you will find raw oppisite correction where series start to chop.

Next i will show you:
Indication and tendency towards correction - i show you what it is in real life.

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
Here is an demonstration how the random flow behave where I show how the statistical ecart grow and get all the elements we have talk about above.
Pick an random file from today at random.org.

This is how the law of series will unfold it self.

2 x
1 x
2 x
1
1
1
1
2 x
1 x
2 x
1 x
2 x
1 x
2 x
1
1
2 x
1 x Statistical Ecart around 2.5
2
2
2
1
2
2 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
2
2
2
1
2
1 Get stronger Ecart contniue to growing.
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
2
2
2
2
1
2
2 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
1
2
2 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
2
2
1
1 = Raw oppisite CORRECTION
2
2 = Raw oppisite CORRECTION
2
1
1 = Raw oppisite CORRECTION
2
1
1
1 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
2
1
1 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
1
2
1
1 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
1
2
1
2
1
2 Ecart get sronger and growing and so on...
1
1

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58

Today random org file ...

Code: [Select]
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.02:28 events
---------------------------------------
 
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2  ***
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
    2
    2
    2
 1
 1  Correction
 1
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.00:16 events
---------------------------------------
 
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2  ***
 1
 1
    2
    2
    2
 1
    2
    2  Correction
    2
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.00:16 events
---------------------------------------
 
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
1     
    2
1      ***
    2
 1
 1
    2
 1
 1
 1
    2
    2  Correction
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.00:16 events
---------------------------------------
 
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2  ***
 1
 1
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
 1
 1  Correction
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.09:42 events
---------------------------------------
 
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
1     
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
1     
1     
1     
1     
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2  ***
    2
    2
    2
 1
 1
 1
 1
    2
    2  Correction
    2
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.00:16 events
---------------------------------------
 
    2
1     
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1      ***
1
    2
 1
 1
 1
    2
    2  Correction
 1
 
---------------------------------------
R/B:Singles vs Series:SD=3.00:49 events
---------------------------------------
 
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
1     
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
1     
    2
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
    2
    2
1     
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2
1     
    2  ***
    2
 1
 1
    2
    2  Correction
    2
 
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

catalyst

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 213
  • Rated: 0
Here is an demonstration how the random flow behave where I show how the statistical ecart grow and get all the elements we have talk about above.
Pick an random file from today at random.org.

This is how the law of series will unfold it self.

2 x
1 x
2 x
1
1
1
1
2 x
1 x
2 x
1 x
2 x
1 x
2 x
1
1
2 x
1 x Statistical Ecart around 2.5
2
2
2
1
2
2 = Stop growing and hovering at zero point CORRECTION
2
2
2
1
2
1 Get stronger Ecart contniue to growing.

Dear Ego
very much interesting concept. could you please provide a little bit explanationfor the above calculation. although, I have read your entire posts, but calculations on the spins will crystalised my understanding.
very much appreciated - your efforts to bring this concept. :thumbsup:
 
thanks
catalyst

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
The claim.

Is all about to find a sequence where some events is overrepresented to a certain degree - when this occur you wait for the underrepresented events to show to a certain degree and try to gain at least +1 unit.
That is a clear and simple explanation and it all boils down to capture correction.

Different events.

There exist different ways to observe singels and series depending on witch method some one decide to use and measuring for a strong imbalance - I will start with cover all does and show you how to calculate and get a 3.0 STD - witch is the bench mark for a strong imbalance.

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
Series of two contra higher series.

The valuse for each event is as follows.

Singels has the value of 0
Series of two has the value of 1
Series of three has the value of 0
Series of four has the value of 1
Series of five has the value of 2
Series of six has the value of 3
Series of seven has the value of 4
And so it continues ...

Here we skip singels and series of three as we aim to only capture longer series and the overrepresented events has to be series of two and the imbalance has to hit a bench mark of 3.0 STD before we can wait for the underrepresented events to show and try to gain at least +1 unit - using a specific march.

The March.
To make things easy at the beginning we can just argue that we attack after a fictive win to gain +1 with the example above - but it exist other ways.
So after a 3.0 STD we wait for a series of four (or five) to appear and play it will become a series of five (or six).
If a loss we wait for the next series of two to appear and play it will continue and get larger.
If a loss we wait for the next series of two to appear and play it will continue and get larger.
This is one attack with three attempt.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
Random org.

Illustration.

1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
2
1
2
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1 Serie 3 = 0
2
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
2
2
2 Serie 4 = 1
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
2
2
2 Serie 4 = 1
1
2
2
2 Serie 3 = 0
1
2
1
2
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
2
2 Serie 2 = 1
1
1 Serie 2 = 1
2
1
1 Serie 2 = 1 /// 3.0 STD
2
2
2
2
1 LOSS -1
1
1 WON +0
1 WON +1
1 WON
1 WON
1 WON
1 WON
2 LOSS
2
2 WON
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

*

ego

  • 1500+ posts member!
  • *****
  • 1533
  • Rated: +58
Basic list.

1) Series of two contra larger series.
2) Series of three contra larger series.

3) Singels contra larger series.

4) Series of two singels contra larger series of singels.
5) Series of three singels contra larger series of singels.

6) Singels contra series.
7) Series contra singels.

8) The Perfect State [Own development]

9) Staking plan - Flat betting or progression.

10) The House Edge

11) Rules

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.


Share via delicious Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via reddit Share via stumble Share via twitter

 

Popular pages:
  • XHTML
  • RSS
  • WAP2