Suppose one would only interact with the game whenever a certain position (Even Chance, Dozen, Column, Double Street, Street, Split, Straight) reaches 4 Standard Deviations.
Would the fluctuation be the same as with any random entry point?
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on March 03, 2013, 12:20:07 AM
Suppose one would only interact with the game whenever a certain position (Even Chance, Dozen, Column, Double Street, Street, Split, Straight) reaches 4 Standard Deviations.
Would the fluctuation be the same as with any random entry point?
It is a good chance it will not be the same, maybe just to the fact it is a different entry point. The changes are always, but when?
I had just this, would I expect a black streak? I do not know, but will see.
If you use the law of series based upon Marigny - then two things happens.
When it stop growing it more times going into hovering state or a direct draw-down, then it fall back to back and start to grow again.
That is my experience with sequence around 3.0 STD.
Even if i know the bell curve has no limit.
Cheers
Quote from: Sputnik on March 03, 2013, 09:46:10 AM
If you use the law of series based upon Marigny - then two things happens.
When it stop growing it more times going into hovering state or a direct draw-down, then it fall back to back and start to grow
Some things are not actualy mathematicaly correct in his principles so you learned them wrong too. There actualy is no hovering state to say so. Every loss is increasment and every win is decreasment of standard deviation by proportional amount. There is no nothing in between.
Best
Drazen
In my opinion the problem with the deviations is that we never know if the current deviation it s a fixing deviation of a previous deviation! ;D
So we still play without any advantage on our bet selection my friends.
@Ralph -There is no std of 3 or 4 on those screenshots. but i get what you mean.
@Sputnik - What about all other positions?
@Razor - "a fixing deviation of a previous deviation", [/size]it does not matter as the measurement is independent for every window of events.
Oh yes!
Sorry! I forgot about that
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on March 03, 2013, 03:54:12 PM
@Ralph -There is no std of 3 or 4 on those screenshots. but i get what you mean.
But there is.. over 3 :nod: Those are consecutive spins there..
Cheers
Well for me is not This and That or 1 in 2 when i see even money bets.
I see three present states and base my game based upon that.
One side gets stronger and hovering with one state and the last state is at sleep, that is how i see it.
So if you use old thinking or traditional with out using advance probability based upon Markow chains - you will still have three state, where one get stronger at some time and the other weaker and sometimes it hovering between them both.
Cheers
Well yes, you can see whatever you want and use whatever you want.
The thing is that concept has mathematical flaw which lies in distribution and probability of those 3 events as you are taking/showing them.
Many times you have stated how you play EC-s on dozen probability and distribution. That could be so if all those 3 events have same probability and expectation as each of 3 dozens has independently. But in that concept they don't.
Factualy being said one of those "states" will appear more then other two. And yes, that is so. On dozens, each one appears same amount of times as other two. So you can't equalize such different things.
For example state of Serie of series will appear there twice as much as singles of series or so called hovering state. There is reason why that is so. If you make software and run simulation you will see for yourself.
Mathematicaly you equalized something what doesn't have same value.
I regard you as a man of strong factual things when trying to speak about something. But if you want to speak correct about that here, this above has to be said.
Your and actualy Marignys understanding and your some shown concepts with those 3 states has mathematical flaw. That is bottom line of a fact.
I can prove and show you this on real spins at any point of course, that number of those "states" won't be in same ratio as you claim it should, same for dozens for example..
You can use them or think about them whatever you want. Traditionaly or modern lol
And as I see your knowing, understanding and using seems fine to you although is not full correct. Though, fine with me.
Regards
Drazen
QuoteI can prove and show you this on real spins at any point of course, that number of those "states" won't be in same ratio as you claim it should, same for dozens for example..
Well i don't understand how they don't have the same probability ...
So 13 dozen i a row during 1 milion spins.
That would be 13 hovering state in a row RRR B RRR - so if i am correct it should occur once during 1 milion spins.
Or any other state ...
This is due toward the fact that when you clustering the outcome into three posibilitys then does are 1 in 3.
I see them coming in the same distribution as dozen with even money bets with out being bias towards any other direction
We could also test a march based upon dozen with even money bets and see for your self.
You play for singles and if you hit a serie of two you bet one more until two loses.
1
2 W
1 W
2 W
2 L
1 W
2 W
1 W
3 W
2 W
3 W
3 L
2 W
3 W
3 L
3 L
2
2 L
1 W
2 W
3 W
2 W
2 L
3 W
If you have time to test it you are more then welcome.
Who knows, the student might become the master of the master ^-^
Cheers
Thanks
Yes lately I learned and tested good deal of proability theory that meets this game. It is very large subject by itself, but some things I tried to figure out
MarignyG. and Bayes helped me in some things there to understand. I owe them
About this states
I all attach one test on 10 000 spins for one EC
I ll try to save you counting so from the file attached, we get
623 Series of Singles
1232 Series of Series
638 Hovering State
Cheers
Drazen
So clustering series have a bias ?
I read about some math experts who explore the law of series and come to the conclusion that clustering series where slight more common.
So you have three possibility's, only three existing states, 1 in 3 with no other possibility's.
And you say that FTL has a slight higher strike ratio ...
Then Spike and others would be correct when they state that you be better of following the wheel.
Now why do you say it is a flaw when you have 1 in 3 - that is not a flaw - that is what it is.
But that the distribution clustering into 1 in 3 show a bias towards FTL is just that, slight more common and also not be a flaw.
So the conclusion on developing a march is to aim for FLT and hovering state or FTL and series of singles and not hovering state and series of singles.
I don't understand that hovering thing. Nothing hovers there. You have chops or streaks in many segments. Proportional increasment or decreasment of STD in just one spin. Simple as that.
You know that after any point in STD you will still have 50:50 minus 2.7 longterm. So what can you "catch" actualy.. Correction term is fallacy actualy becasue RTM is not causable effect. Strong deviation doesn't causes next sequence must catch up losses to get closer to the average in the shorter term.
All you know is that stronger deviation, stronger RTM is, and that gives you lower variance only. Nothing actualy "corrects" strictly in some time frame
If you don't understand that is only exist three states, 1 in 3, then how could you do a test ?
If you have two singles R B R you have one serie of singles ...
If you have two series that chop RRRBBB you have one serie of series ...
If you have one of each, hovering state, RRR B RRR B RRR B RRR
That is the only three possibility's that exist and are not 1 in 2 or 1 in 4 - that is 1 in 3.
This is the math and probability for 1 in 3 and STD or ECART ...
1. 0,00
2. 0,04
3. 0,11
4. 0,22
5. 0,36
6. 0,36
7. 0,73
8. 0,96
9. 1.22
10. 1,51
11. 1.82
12. 2.16
13. 2.52
14. 2.91
15. 3.32
16. 3,75
17. 4.20
18. 4.67
19. 5.16
20. 5.67
21. 6.20
22. 6.75
23. 7.31
24. 7.89
25. 8.49
26. 9.10
27. 9.73
Drazen i will agree with you that we disagree.
Clustering and Markow chains is complex things.
Cheers
Ok. We can agree that we disagree
Singles and series have same correlation as R vs B
And that hovering state is something inbetween like artificial pattern and can't represent right value as those 2 can by itself.
Quote from: Drazen on March 03, 2013, 08:48:05 PM
Ok. We can agree that we disagree
Singles and series have same correlation as R vs B
And that hovering state is something inbetween like artificial pattern and can't represent original value as those 2 can by itself.
True that singles and sereis is 1 in 2 same as clustering that is 1 in 3 with out any other possibility's.
Same as you apply the principal 1/3 - then you can not change the fact you only have 8 existing clustering patterns.
I also have the STD and ECART for does ...
Pretty simple when you know fact from fiction.
Quote from: Sputnik on March 03, 2013, 07:14:56 PM
So clustering series have a bias ?
I read about some math experts who explore the law of series and come to the conclusion that clustering series where slight more common.
So you have three possibility's, only three existing states, 1 in 3 with no other possibility's.
And you say that FTL has a slight higher strike ratio ...
Then Spike and others would be correct when they state that you be better of following the wheel.
Now why do you say it is a flaw when you have 1 in 3 - that is not a flaw - that is what it is.
But that the distribution clustering into 1 in 3 show a bias towards FTL is just that, slight more common and also not be a flaw.
So the conclusion on developing a march is to aim for FLT and hovering state or FTL and series of singles and not hovering state and series of singles.
That is the best way to explore it. As per thousands of sessions i tested before pen and paper.
"...aim for FLT and hovering state or FTL and series of singles and not hovering state and series of singles."
Basics is that one should aim for series always.
The "bias" comes from the way we identify the states.
Series of singles
11 2 1 22 ends in a series
Hovering
(and here is the trick)
11 2 11 -- one hovering state also ends in a series
11 2 11 2 11 -- two hovering states, ends in a series ...
We often name hovering state as "Isolated Single"
It should be also "Isolated Series"
2 11 2 11 2 1 2- so here we would have two isolated series but only one isolated single followed by one series of singles (that did not end yet).
*****************************************************************************
Even if we change the way we identify the hovering state to be = Isolated Singles + Isolated Series
we can not solve the discrepancy towards series of singles.
One other common flaw when someone starts to count states in a binomial distribution (markow chains) is in small detail: - is that we count ONE series of singles despite its length but do not do so regarding series of series. at the 3rd series in a row we count another series of series state. Causing the count to be much bigger.
The strategy would remain the same and it does not matter, as there is clear bias towards series of series??
Does the distribution of this states have the same frequency as 12 numbers???
Thanks for this discussion even if it went a bit off-topc
Cheers
Thanks MG you are so good with words - i like and respect you for that and your knowledge ^-^
Cheers
Have anybody test this. Jump in at a point then a lot of numbers have been choppy an EC without any series over 4, for a long time.
Test is then to see if we can get long series of any of the EC. Say we go for 12 in a row. Starting a reversed martingale give us over 1000 trials before we lose the 1000 units. Any early success will gain good.
Playing reverse martingale, start with a streak of 8, stopped at a net of 125 units. Here I did not wait for an entry as the streak started on the third spin. If we remember we lose only one chip a trial, it should not be scary to wait for 7 or more.
Quote from: Ralph on March 05, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Have anybody test this. Jump in at a point then a lot of numbers have been choppy an EC without any series over 4, for a long time.
Test is then to see if we can get long series of any of the EC. Say we go for 12 in a row. Starting a reversed martingale give us over 1000 trials before we lose the 1000 units. Any early success will gain good.
Yes some of us did.
You can do it two ways. To track any length serie as event opposing to it all chops, or track length serie by absence in number of spins.
I hope you know that outside EC-s have highest STD out of all bets so cornering one such event and showing in some reasonable time after some point as you would like to, will require realy high (or low on other side, as you wish) probability to be sure... But as you are increasing probability for something, opposite to it you are face with decreasing number of chances...
Unfortunately all in all, doing this, won't be easy and smooth as it maybe can sound as an idea..
You will just have to find compromise with number of chances you can create, and probability you want to obtain in any case you decide for anything.
But you have bots.. you are programmer, if anyone can actualy explore this, then it should be you guys, right? :)
Huh, making serie of 12 to show will be nice and realy interesting challenge dough.. ::)
Good hunt
Drazen