Standard Deviation math formula please!

[Master_of_pockets]

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

[ego]

 
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




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.

[Master_of_pockets]

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

[ego]

-

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.

[Master_of_pockets]

-

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

[ego]

-

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.

[Bayes]

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.

[ego]

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.

[Shadowman]

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

[ego]

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?

[monaco]

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?

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

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.

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?

[ego]

-

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.

[Ralph]

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?

[Bayes]

Now when we discuss the best solution there is - the topic die ...

Not dead, just sleeping. 

@ 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. 

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?

"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. 

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.

[monaco]

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.