Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this:  B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!

both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 24, 2016, 12:22:05 AM
Progressions are personal to the player, many options would be viable if people decide to go down that path.

The thing that should spark peoples interest is the +8 flat betting (thanks for posting the shoe).

If the bet selection shows some superiority, even in terms of dispersion, it should be tested flat-betting.
Congratulations Nick for the great work

Quote from: Albalaha on July 22, 2016, 02:31:06 AM
   Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.

I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.

Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.

It is possible and it is real, despite what you may think. I have seen it proven and i experience it everyday. It is a perception of reality you have to embrace and live with. Others might know some things you ignore.
I understand sputnik getting away from the discussion, as it doesn't seem you have the humility to learn otherwise. It seems to me you expect knowledge to be given to you for free with no effort or interest on your side. To prove you wrong isn't a motive strong enough to make others share their knowledge. It's the attitude. No hard feelings.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 19, 2016, 03:39:05 AM
Making a plan to beat a particular data after seeing that, finding its peculiar weaknesses is what we call as "reverse engineering". That is no way to go ahead. Every session is different and every session pose a different set of challenge. The degree of variance may vary too. All these are not important. By putting a variety of variance through tough sessions(where losses surpass their natural ratio)we try to see if we can actually do with any idea in "not so good" cases too.
                 In two of my topics, viz. "anybody think..." and "Harsh sessions.." both one can see in my section I compiled various sessions touching even the boundary line of virtual limits and hardships that we keep facing time to time. I believe that these sessions together could make a nice compilation of "acid test" for any EC system. Unless a method can surpass most of them without needing tonnes of chips, that is no method.

If the wins surpass the expected just start playing with a stop loss within static frames of your method.

Quote from: soxfan on July 19, 2016, 10:32:26 PM
Sometime it is very hard to capture backs to backs win let alone backs to backs to backs win, hey hey.

What would be the progression for back to back wins?

So what happens when you bet only one side non stop?

=) What a mess.

You can easily have this Even Chances based on groups of double streets.
You can add only each side individually. That would make 12 + 24 different streams of Even Chances.
I say 12 + 24 because the 24 being individual sides have half of the occurrences of the other 12.
There you go. Happy hunting

123vs456   = Low/High
Odd/Even   
Red/Black   
124vs356   
125vs346   
126vs345   
134vs256   
135vs246   
136vs245   
145vs236   
146vs235   
156vs234

Interesting results for 20 units.
thank you for posting it.

Quote from: RouletteGhost on July 18, 2016, 10:07:02 PM
I have tried betting 3 DS as an EC

i like the idea of choosing a random 3, say 1 3 and 5

wait for the other 3 to be ahead, or these 3 to be ahead then bet the other 3 flat bet until it returns to mean and you profit

That is it in a nutshell. You made it sound so simple.
=)

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 18, 2016, 09:09:38 PM
I noticed you got more W than L just on the first outcome of each row, so why not stopping the betting after a L without looking for a +1 or -3 result?

Anyway jonas work is really brilliant, I start to think that roulette could be beaten.

as.

we can not avoid fluctuation on the results.

Quote from: mogul397 on July 07, 2016, 02:13:56 AM
There are 3 EC pair, and they are getting bet in one progression of 3 bets,
based on the results of each pair.

1,2,4.  That's it.

If you have 10 units
1-2-4 +3parlay once is faster to achieve 1 unit than 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 flat betting 10 times.

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on July 18, 2016, 02:02:30 AM
You have posted random.org numbers. Have you tested this method on a real wheel?

The only difference is the presence of zero that should be couvered everytime you bet an even chance. use la partage rulle if availiable.

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on July 18, 2016, 01:01:17 AM
What happens when you have LLL ?

And, yes, a more detailed explanation of the bet selection method would be helpful.

when LLL if  -3 units i take the loss if not i continue and try to get +1

Quote from: mogul397 on July 17, 2016, 11:32:34 PM
I don't understand the actual method. You are betting
3 double streets to make an EC bet?

How are you selecting the double streets please?

Thanks

They select themselves by not showing more than "normal". 3 Vs 3.
The method is not openly explained. I opened the thread to show that Return to the mean exists and is exploitable.

QuoteI did work a lot in "Regression towards Mean". While it is a statistical truth but the difficulty in using that practically is we can never guess the span where regression will start to work. We can rather get disillusioned with pseudo temporary regression as well.

I agree it is difficult to use practically and we can not deny the statistical truth of it. That is why is so interesting to play with and try to observe how it works, how it signals its arrival and how it manifests.
In my opinion the more you measure, the more information you have about the permanence to base your decision upon.
Sputnik has great knowledge on this, you should study his cut point Methodology.