• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

WARNING: Forums often contain bad advice & systems that aren't properly tested. Do NOT believe everything. Read these links: The Facts About What Works & Why | How To Proplerly Test Systems | The Top 5 Proven Systems | Best Honest Online Casinos

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Math question

Started by Master_of_pockets, Jul 08, 07:45 AM 2012

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Master_of_pockets

Let s say that we have a 3 STD on an EC inside 50 spins.
Let s say that we have a 3 STD on an EC inside 150 spins.

Which one is better to bet? Or are they the same?
Never agrue with silly people.They will drag you down to their own level and then beat you with experience.***Mark Twain***

beretta28

I think that you are asking for the true STD and not for the STD(that is not a real STD) invented by Marigny in his roulette system.
I try to teach  a bit of math in a very simple way,because the formula for calculating the true STD(not Marigny way) is very complicated(see Google:standard deviation),because STD has been considered for a long period the only way to beat roulette,but people were wrong.
On the contrary STD explains why we lose for sure at roulette.
If we play 1000 times on a straight number,the most probable number of W is 27,and because of STD there are 95% probabilities that the number of W is between 17 and 37.
If we play 1.000.000 spins there are 95% probabilities that the number of W is between 26703 and 27351.In both case we lose money.
That explains why after 1 million spins all traditional systems fail.
At roulette(like in all other statistical experiments in other areas) there are 68% probabiliies,that the theoretical number of W has a STD 1,    95% that the theoretical number of W has a STD 2,    and 99% a STD 3.
That's why people thought that it was enough to wait for a STD 3 and than attack the cold bet(red,a line ,a street,a straight number).
All wrong,because ther will be forever 1% "free" that corresponds to the exceptional dramatic sessions that sooner or later happen.


Now I come back to the question of MOP.
In 50 spins the equilibrium is 25 Blacks and 25 Reds and in 150 spins 75 B and 75 R
First, is almost impossible to find in a so low number of spins a true STD 3.
But because of my example here above is for sure better to play if you have 3 STD in 50 spins......but,remember,may be you don't know yet(LOL) less 1,35% in the long tem!






A bit complicated but I hope clear


Robeenhuut

In plain english  we can not take advantage of STD,law of d 3rd, regression toward d mean n so on in roulette....It sucks.  But it feels nice 2 know d fundamentals of d game.  ;D
Matt

beretta28

Robeenhut,
you are right,and  what I have illustrated is not in contraddiction with our straight number preference.
Because sure not me but may be nor you will play 1 millions spins in our life.
These numbers are for Casinos that are not worried at all about traditional systems,even if in 30000 spins, a straight number players can win!

ego


I test that and i know the result flat betting.
I also have different simulation softwares towards your 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.

Robeenhuut

Quote from: ego on Jul 08, 09:21 AM 2012
I test that and i know the result flat betting.
I also have different simulation softwares towards your topic.


Bring it on Ego  :D
Matt

Master_of_pockets

Thanks for ur replies
Never agrue with silly people.They will drag you down to their own level and then beat you with experience.***Mark Twain***

albertojonas

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 08, 07:45 AM 2012
Let s say that we have a 3 STD on an EC inside 50 spins.
Let s say that we have a 3 STD on an EC inside 150 spins.

Which one is better to bet? Or are they the same?


The lesser spins the better, in my opinion, when your aiming for correction.


Also results seem better when you measure STD based on the law of the series. As explored by Marigny de Grilleau.
Ego is the true expert on this. You may read on Cut Point Method. Look for it.
It is the best that was ever made about Ec betting.




Happy studies.


albertojonas

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 08, 09:05 AM 2012
In plain English  we can not take advantage of STD,law of d 3rd, regression toward d mean n so on in roulette....It sucks.  But it feels nice 2 know d fundamentals of d game.  ;D


It is funny to see these empty claims. Can anyone present a method that clearly explores any of the above?
:-\

speed

 MOP, you are on the right track  :thumbsup:

Master_of_pockets

so speed saying that i m on the right track , this means that u have made a winning system from it  ;D
Never agrue with silly people.They will drag you down to their own level and then beat you with experience.***Mark Twain***

speed

It may sound ridiculous but I have something that can win on more than 100 000 spins, it can beat every senssion of 150 000 spins and more, but can not win every 100 000 spins, that shows my test on 37 milions spins  :D

Master_of_pockets

Never agrue with silly people.They will drag you down to their own level and then beat you with experience.***Mark Twain***

ego


Just want to mention two things that make this topic great or being at the right track.

First 3 std is not uncommon and the bell curve has no limit - but that does not matter as you would never play against anything - so the 3 std could grow to anything with out you losing any money.
The second thing is that there is no other greater feeling to bet on things that is present and have a show and wish has been sleeping for 345 std - i tell you does states chop and that's for sure.
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.

albertojonas

Quote from: ego on Jul 08, 11:56 AM 2012
Just want to mention two things that make this topic great or being at the right track.

First 3 std is not uncommon and the bell curve has no limit - but that does not matter as you would never play against anything - so the 3 std could grow to anything with out you losing any money.
The second thing is that there is no other greater feeling to bet on things that is present and have a show and wish has been sleeping for 345 std - i tell you does states chop and that's for sure.


One would be a fool to bet for correction without indication and tendency. :lol:

-