Oh !
I almost forgot to mention that the reason why the half bets are winning in my preveus example is couse of the LINEARITY that your method does not have.

Me method is DEEP... yours is SWALLOW

Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 06:23:01 AM
Me method is DEEP... yours is SWALLOW

Once again, there is not "my" method and "your" method. 

I have only explained YOUR method. 

I don't know if YOUR method works.  I haven't tested it. 

If it loses, then YOUR method loses.

If it wins (works) then YOUR method works. 

We will soon find out...when i find time to test it. 

LoL.

Do I have to say for the 3d time that the method you described is NOT my method?
Do I have to say one more time that the method you found out on yourself is the my method in an immature stage?

If you will test the method YOU understood you will lose exacty -2,7 in the LONG RUN.

Test it and you will see...

The problem with you guys is that you never listen.

Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 06:50:04 AM
LoL.

Do I have to say for the 3d time that the method you described is NOT my method?
Do I have to say one more time that the method you found out on yourself is the my method in an immature stage?

If you will test the method YOU understood you will lose exacty -2,7 in the LONG RUN.

Test it and you will see...

The problem with you guys is that you never listen.

Everybody here, who has ever seen your original posts, will agree that i have explained it exactly what you mean.   It's in plain daylight.  I'm not hiding anything. And i will give you plenty of time to clarify any misunderstandings if you really think there are any.  I don't have time to test anything for at least 24 to 48 hours.   We will find out then what the Excel sheets have to say about this. 

 

the excel sheet will lose in the rate of -2,7 with the method you described.
MY method are 5 people that understood it.

have a nice searching

moglizu,
I m scratching my head on this statement, could you help?
Let me give you an example.

lets say we have 4 different wheels and the 3 of them have 10 REDS and 3 BLACKS.The 4th wheel has the reds and blacks balanced.
Now lets say we are betting in all the 3 wheels BLACK ( for the balance to come).

The 1 of the 3 can produce again RED(so we lose)
The 2nd can produce again RED (so we lose)
IF the 3d will produce BLACK(our bet) then we are winning in ALL 3 wheels no matter that the 2 wheels produced RED.

WHY WE ARE WINNING IN ALL 3 WHEELS WHEN YOU SAY BEFORE.. SO WE LOSE.

B
R
B
R
R       R  C  R  C                              prognosis
R       R  R  C  R                              1  2  3  4
B       C  C  C  R                              R  R  R  B          bet red
B       R  C  C  C                              R  B  R  B            no bet                    lost
B       R  R  C  C                              R  B  B  R           nb
B       R  R  R  C                              R  R  B  B           nb
B       R  R  R  R                              R  R  R  B           bet red
R       C  C  C  C                             B  R  R  B           nb                                win
B       C  R  R  R                              B  B  R  R          nb
B       R  C  R  R                              B  B  B  R            bet black
R       C  C  R  C                             R  B  R  B          nb                                  lost
B       C  R  R  C                             B  R  R  B          nb
B       R  C  R  R                             B  B  B  B             bet black
B       R  R  C  R                             R  R  R  B           bet red                          win
R       C  C  C  R                            B  B  B  R            bet black
R                                                                                                                 lost

Well done Plolp.

A quick check at your tracking and I think you got it.
The rest however, I think you only bet an event if it qualifies.
I'm not sure though.

It lacks just one  "win" Before last line

Quote from: Still on March 07, 2017, 02:59:44 AM
Ok,  I've had time to digest this and ponder a little bit, and i now believe i have a grasp on what exactly has been proposed.   Have not set it up in Excel yet to test anything, but am confident i have the idea. 

First of all, let's back away from the trees to see the forest. 

First a concept:

1.) LWWLWLWWLLWLLL

2.) RBBRRBBBRRBRRB

We all know what these are. 
We call #1 a win-loss registry. 
We call #2 a permanence of color. 

In either case, we can put these STREAMS into an Excel sheet, graph them, and produce a chart.   The chart will go up and down and theoretically cross the zero line now and then.   When it crosses the zero line, we call it "balanced" because there are equal number of reds on upside and blacks on the downside. Same with wins/losses. But given a random world, the streams will eventually stray away from zero, and we call this "deviation". 

Given four streams, we can have several combinations of deviation.   Take colors for example.  One might be balanced with equal number of reds and blacks, two might be deviating into the black zone, and one might be deviating into the red zone.  Could be several configurations, with four going red at one extreme, or all four going black at the other extreme. 

Now, we all know what "reversion to the mean" or "mean reversion" means, right? It's the idea that these streams can't stray too far from some average "mean", and you expect them to return, sometime down the road, to a more equal "balance" between reds and blacks, wins and losses, ect.   For example, some people have worked on the idea that if the "standard deviation" reaches a number like 3 away from the mean, then it's time to bet that it will now start to return to the mean, after some indicator.   

Moglizu's idea is a variation of the above scenario.   However, he seems to have brought one or two novel ideas to the table, worth consideration. 

Instead of streams built of wins and losses, or reds and blacks, he proposes to build streams of "runs" and "changes".   I think we all know what that means.   Two reds is a "run".  A black followed by a red is a "change".   And like any of these kinds of streams, you could bet that a deviation will "revert to the mean", if you were that foolish.   But the way Moglizu bets on reversion to the mean does seems to be an original idea. 

Take these four streams:

1.) CCRCRRRCCRCRR  +1 deviating into the "R" (run) zone.
2.) RRCRCCRRCRCCC  +1 deviating into the "C" (change) zone
3.) CCCRCRRCCCRRC  +3 deviating into the "C" zone.
4.) RRCCRRRCCRRCR  +3 deviating into the "R" zone.

Now, if you were to bet on all four of these to "revert to the mean", then:

1.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +1).
2.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +1).
3.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +3).
4.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +3).

In the situation above, we are disregarding how much the deviations are, and simply betting on a reversion to the mean.  If we bet one unit on each stream, it's obvious to see that our bets could cancel each other out.  But we don't know that yet until we see what colors (or other EC) we are supposed to be betting, for our bet to represent either a run or a change.  By examining the color bets that produced this run/change stream, we might find the following:

1.) To bet on change, we need to bet on RED.
2.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on BLACK.
3.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on RED.
4.) To bet on change we need to bet on RED. 

In this case, we can see that two of our bets will cancel out, leaving us with a predominantly RED bet over all.   How much to bet on RED depends, and Moglizu has his own formula.  Moglizu proposes to disregard any deviations less than 2 points. So, we would disregard #1 and #2 above, leaving us still with a predominantly RED bet, by a factor of 2.   But as you can see, it's possible to have a situation where your bets would cancel each other out, leaving you with NO BETS at all.  Moglizu says this happens about 50% of the time. 

Another  detail about his betting formula; when Moglizu says bet on HOW MANY of the deviations, not HOW MUCH, he means...well, let's take the above example of four streams again.   You can see that the two "qualifying" streams (streams deviating by 2 points or more) give us a total of 3+3=6 points.  This is HOW MUCH.  But Moglizu says he does not bet on HOW MUCH.  Instead, he bets on HOW MANY, which would be, at most TWO (in the above example), because he is betting on TWO streams that are deviating more than 2 points each.   So, two chips of RED.   

That's one way to do it.  You could also bet just one chip on the dominant color, no matter how many 'qualified' streams were deviating by two or more points.  A spreadsheet test could tell what is best, but from what we can gather, Moglizu will bet as many as four chips on a color, if indeed there were four streams deviating all in the same direction.   

One more detail.  In the above example, the 'LOOK BACK' period over all four streams is thirteen (13).   This is a detail Moglizu has failed to clarify.  Since Moglizu says he leaves the casino after a gain of 5 units, it implies that his LOOK BACK period starts at the earliest whenever at least one qualified stream starts to deviate by at least 2 points.  The earliest that could be is after 6 spins.  Then, he just lets his look back period "grow" and "grow"...until he reaches FIVE UNITS profit, leaves the casino, and/or starts over.   In this scenario, there would be no fixed and/or no 'rolling' look back period.  It would always look back to the beginning of a session ending in 5 units. 

Now, if these four streams had come from four independent wheels, we would likely have a losing proposition, given everything we know about betting on reversion to the mean.   But Moglizu has come up with a way to relate these four streams to ONE WHEEL, and ONE (the last) SPIN.   Again, this is the novelty of the idea, making it worth consideration.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen. 

Only now do we need to talk about how these four streams are related, and i think this issue has been resolved and understood, given Badger's latest spreadsheet example.   

The idea is to come up with at least four streams using some unconventional counting methods, relating  four spins from the recent past, to the latest (5th) spin. You could come up with more, but Moglizu has settled upon four. 

The idea is that, when these four streams are related in this way, a bet on predominantly RED, or predominantly BLACK has MORE WEIGHT than betting on any one stream, or any number of unrelated, independent streams.   

Notice, I've been able to explain the whole concept without ever using the term "linearity" even once.   The choice of this stupid term is really where Moglizu screwed it up, and dropped the ball.  This unintelligent term does not help one bit to understand this concept.   I could not find a more confusing term if i tried. 

What should we call it when we bet FOR THE REVERSION TO THE MEAN on the AGGREGATE OF SEVERAL RELATED STREAMS?

Anything but #$@ "linearity"!!

I wouldn't even call it 'singularity'. 

I might call it 'gang' or 'bank' betting. 

That's basically it. 

Everybody should know how to develop four related streams, pegging each of the past four colors (or any EC) to the latest color, and marking down whether it represents a 'change' of colors, or a 'run' of colors.  This has been covered, and no one needs to ask any more questions about it. 

Back up from the trees to see the forest. 

This is a bet on reversion to the mean on an aggregate of multiple related streams of information made up of "changes" versus "runs"...in the hopes that the weight of the aggregate will help predict the next color (or EC)...if and when reversion to the mean does prevail.  Screw 'linearity'.  What kills this bet is, like any such bet, a continuation/trending of deviation away from the mean. 

I don't know IF it works, but THAT is HOW it works. 

Very interesting, Still.
Great post. Enjoyed it.
Thanks,
A.

still wrote:

Quote
What kills this bet is, like any such bet, a continuation/trending of deviation away from the mean. 

I don't know IF it works, but THAT is HOW it works. 

Neither do I - but i sure is interesting trying to find out.

And about mogli's method: I am sworn to silence   

Regards,
A.

Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 07:08:13 AM
the excel sheet will lose in the rate of -2,7 with the method you described.
MY method are 5 people that understood it.

have a nice searching

How would you know my explanation of YOUR method, when applied to an  Excel sheet would lose at the expected 2.7% when you've never applied this method to an Excel sheet? The reason you are here is to get an Excel sheet (tracker)...which you did not have before.   

Anything could be happening here. 

For example, you could have found this method out on the internet, and want it tested. But without Excel skills, you may be saying whatever you have to say (ie. been playing this 2 years) to get your tracker/tester built...for free. 

Or, you really might be on to something, but, having made it clear you've changed your mind about publishing the method, you are trying to steer people away from my explanation of YOUR method. 

Could be anything.  Could be a big joke. 

One clue that it's a big joke is this term "linearity".  Why not "turbo-encabulator"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

Linearity, used properly in it's context of science and engineering, denotes something like the following:

Quote

Linear
The term linearity refers to the property of scaling. Suppose you have two related physical properties, for example the speed you can run and the distance you can run. If you double your speed, you double the distance. If you triple your speed, you triple your distance. This is called a linear relationship. Usually the cost of something is linear. If a notebook costs $1, then ten notebooks will cost $10.
In electronics, an ideal resistor creates a linear relationship between voltage and current. If you double voltage, the current doubles, and vice versa. So we say an ideal resistor is a linear element.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/electrical-engineering/ee-circuit-analysis-topic/ee-dc-circuit-analysis/a/ee-linearity

If you are trying to apply the term to these bets, it can only imply that the more colors line up, the more accurate the bet selection becomes, by some linear factor.

In any group of four meandering streams of information based on two colors, you can have TWO to FOUR streams pointing to one COMMON, PREDOMINANT color, whenever the colors don't cancel themselves out to begin with (with equal number of colors).   

If linearity applies at all, as a concept, it must mean that the effectiveness of the bet increases linearly, as more common colors corroborate the orientation of the bet. 

An example of such linearity could be:

   Bet on two   colors, player edge = 1%
   Bet on three colors, player edge = 2%
   Bet on four   colors, player edge = 4%

If this were true, then you would want to bet something like two chips on two (common) colors, three chips on three (common) colors, and/or four chips on four (common) colors.   

In this example, linearity is just a description of your staking plan, according to expected outcomes, per combination. 

It would be easy to test any staking combination...but not if you don't have Excel skills. 

It remains to be seen whether COMMONALITY, or a LINEAR STAKING PLAN in response to a linear factor of effectiveness...works at all. 

Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 06:21:51 AM
Oh !
I almost forgot to mention that the reason why the half bets are winning in my preveus example is couse of the LINEARITY that your method does not have.

The other possible meaning you could have for your fancy pet term "linearity", could be in reference to the way the four information streams are built.  For example, the first stream is built comparing two spins back to the last spin, the second stream built comparing the third spin back to the last spin...the fourth spin back compared to the last one...ON DOWN THE LINE. 

Putting these streams together, and finding creative ways to stake bets on indications  would be the reason this method works...IF IT WORKS.   

But IF IT WORKS you STILL DON'T KNOW WHY...from any scientific point of view. 

In either case, in either possible way you are abusing the term "linearity", i have described EXACTLY what you are intending to accomplish. 

Yes - but can the turbo-encabulator  make fresh coffee 

A.