I don't get it
So in past 5 spins you have 3 blacks and 2 reds. What now?
hello you give an example of real permanence :applause:
Please post a session example moglizu
Hi,
You have explained it as you said but a lot of people cannot understand the explanation which you gave. :)
I'm absolutely sure that YOU know what you're talking about though - but it would be really great if you can post a little example snippet to make it crystal clear to those like RG and myself exactly what you're on about....!?
If I knew exactly what you meant I could then write my own example on paper like you said.. and bet according to the deviations to test it more thoroughly and see, so even a small example would clarify and make clear.
Thank you in advance moglizu.
A.
People are asking for examples because it is not clear
Don't take offense
It's not a big deal to post an example
That's what the forums for, to ask questions if a post isn't understood
Hello moglizu!
I have been busy with roulette since 2011 so I believe I have a good understanding of things.
However, a quick example of a session would be great to take the discussion further.
ps
welcome to the forum!
i understood it straight away thanks i,ll test..
thanks pretty simple ..and you have used this for a few years too..for people who don,t get it just re read it does this work for all ec,s or are you just using red and black
Can you start from the begin? Instead of starting in the middle of the book?
I don't understand anything at all. What deviations? When to bet? What to track? What 4 events make 5 ec? Maybe an example could do some miracles :thumbsup:
R
tnx alrelax,
i understand everything if it comes to roulette, i just don't understand the way of explanation.
as for BJ i learned to count cards pretty good, did some testing online 6-8 deck around 70% penetration. But in my vision the dealer Always seems to have a K,Q,A anyway for some reason, so i believe BJ online is not the way to go. Yesterday i had a plus 17 on the hi-lo running count and lost 7 hands in a row before the damn black card showed up. Maybe anyone here got more experience with this online and have some good advice?
Tnx
R
okay tnx! that's more clear. so your looking for a sort of grind? if you have more C you bet for the change to happen? and do you also use a progression?
R
sorry man i give up ???
Last 5 results b r r r r i.e. c x x x. Bet for change i.e. b. Win or lose write down next 5 results. If c and x are 2/2 no bet. If 3/1 bet accordingly. Write down next 5 results and so on.
Is this right please.
This is important.
moglizu said:
Quote
One or 2 events can grow a lot and can be unpredictable... BUT 3 or more events can t grow at the same time...
Bet on HOW MANY and not on HOW MUCH.
A.
How do we use the important information for bet selection? What is an event? Does 5 results constitute an event?
Hi James,
An event is a record of the Runs and Changes. (Streaks and Chops ; Series and Change)
For example
EVENT 1
Runs Changes
x x
x
x
His system uses 4 events. You start compiling the events after 5 results are tracked always using the LAST decision in comparison to the others...
All the clues to do this are in his posts, so he says - worth re-reading
A.
well its still a ball in a pocket, what does it change in the edge?
OK .....if someone understand this, how about showing the graph and the actual bets of these results I have from a real brick and mortar casino
R=Red ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black
R
R
R
B
R
B
0 ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
Hello Moglizu,
Thanks for your interesting system.
I have been reading and trying to understand your system since the first time you posted it.
I understand some of our concept but still can"t figure out how you play it.
Could you please kindly explain this part. I understand you are using flat bet.
QuoteThe 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.
this is where the power comes...
You lose on the first and second, win on the third, and you are winning in all 3 wheels.
Thanks & Regards
Hello Moglizu,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I will try to figure out.
Regards
Very interesting concept, the most interesting is that we can earn flat bet.
I understand the whole principle of event No. 1, run and changes from last 5 spins but what is in event No. 2, 3.4, I do not understand this part, if in use in event No. 1 Reds and blacks, last 5 results, in event nr. 2 use the same results but how? All the time we use only the reds and blacks in all events. Or in use in the event no.1 first 5 spins, in the event no.2 next 5 spins, and so on?
There are a few unknowns, which would rather clarify rather than make mistakes.
OK..lets say we have this:
R C R C R C
x x x x x
x x x
x
3 events completed... now what the heck am I supposed to bet? Would appreciate an explanation other then "gee just read my crystal clear explanation posted earlier"
Thanks
It gets more clear, but you never told to bet 3 or 4 wheels till a few posts ago. This is very important info. Now as i understand it's a little like card counting but then in roulette with 4 wheels. You wait till red or black has more spins then the opposite(unbalanced) and Bet for it to be ON balance again or until you have 5 units profit?
R
Okay then show a few real charts when you get to a casino and play it. Because the more you talk the more i starting to believe that i better can learn chinese then understanding you :glasses:
Thanks for more info moglizu.
Please don't be discouraged if some players arent catching on. Don't be surprised if the majority of posts on your thread are unkind. I only assume you might not be used to this because you only have a few posts on this forum but perhaps you have been active on the forums with a different username for some time.
The more experienced forumers are used to communicating their roulette methods with visual examples so that there is no room for wording misinterpretations. Roulette is of course simple but being able to communicate a simple concept in words can be tricky.
More visual examples would be great and lead to some interesting conversations. Please don't worry about overexposing your method. A handful of people are paying attention and maybe 1 or 2 will actually play the method live.
May I ask how many sessions you have tested and played live? (roughly how many spins in total)
Looking forward to more of your insights moglizu.
Nicely put, AMK.
Let us keep this a polite discussion about what appears to be something quite novel.
I have a feeling that this could turn out to be a very interesting topic indeed. I'm certainly looking forward to hearing any more info that moglizu cares to share with us about this LINEARITY method - especially if it can give an edge.
A.
Quote from: alrelax on March 03, 2017, 10:23:00 AM
My little boy is 4 years old and said something in Laos/Viet the other day. Turned out it was a bad word, he was listening to his mom complaining to someone on the phone. When I questioned him, he was like, I think I can speak some good words too Daddy, I told him, save it--this is America we speak English here.
When I go to Cambodia I will have a tour guide along that speaks the lingo. That way my eyes can roam!!!!! :o
You will enjoy the cognac here not to mention many other things!!
Chef wrote:
Quote
I understand some of our concept but still can"t figure out how you play it.
I've tried and struggled to understand harder concepts.... Anyone remember James Albert Wendel (winwithmath) and his invisible math? >:D :scared: :P
A.
Here is my interpretation.
"I will now tell you how to win the ECs." Equals Red Black, Odd Even, High Low
"R/R" equals Run or (repeat)
"R/B" equals Change or (switch)
Five Spins:
1, 25, 12, 29, 7
R R R B R
R C
X X
X X
Now we are looking for more spins that gives an "opportunity" to bet, because we are looking for is "balance". In other words, waiting for Change (C) to hit.
1, 25, 12, 29, 7, 23, 36
R R R B R R R
R C
X X
X X
X
X
Now we can bet the Change (Black)
Other even chances same spins:
L H L H L H H
C R
X
X
X
X
X
---X
No opportunities
O O E O O O E
R C
X X
--X
X
X
Now bet change, looking for (C) to balance.
The Crow
forgive me if i,m wrong but upon testing the linearity of this i think people are getting confused...the way you are doing it is balancing the the x,s down the columns..like a differential bet as you say its not how much you bet but how many you bet to correct the the columns..either side run or change...a lot of the time its nearly 50/50 so you are capitalising on the slight difference of one column against the other..if not you wouldn,t be too far out of balance..thus the if the difference to bet is 3 against 1 that would give you the advantage to even the deviation out...so out of say 50 spins the difference could be 27 x,s one side 23 the other...and with the way you are choosing to bet it could give you the advantage...with the two ec,s going as it seems two ec,s don,t look like they can both run or change all at the same time..
Quote
I am making a steady income with my method for 2 years now by playing only the RB in land based Casinos.
He prefers to play only the R/B even chance. 4 events cataloguing the Runs and Changes. Playing when there is deviation to bring into balance. According to his words earlier in the thread, these events are decided and determined by comparison to the LAST spin.
A.
Tnx crow! And tnx amk! Im only may have a few posts on here but im around since 2010 on other forums, the way crow explains i understand clearly. Its straight to the point on what to do :thumbsup: i have rx so i will test.
R
it is down to the last spin...just depends on that spins outcome on the linear chart...it's a rolling system..
Crow is not right, we do not use different EC
I think
Event No.1 is 2 recent decisions
Event No.2 is last decision and 2nd before the last decision
Event No.3 is last decision and 3rd before the last decision
........
We use only the R / B and compares past decisions to the last.
It requires practice, because in the beginning it looks complicated.
moglizu wrote:
Quote
Let s just take for example ( this is what you are asking... examples) only EVENT no1.
EVENT no1 is comparison of the last 2 spins(R/B).
We have R R this is a RUN (because from R it went to R again)
So we have
EVENT NO1
R C
X
ozon wrote:
Quote
Crow is not right, we do not use different EC
I agree.
A.
"Hello.
I will now tell you how to win the ECs."
EC is even chances.
Last time I checked, EC is RB OE and HL
"No clues , no nothing. Just the way."
Well, just the way can mean anything. There is more than one "way" to play even chances.
"Make 4 different tables on your paper."
There are many kinds of tables, dining, coffee, end, etc.
Is it 4 table with two columns?
"Each table must have the runs and changes of the ECs."
Once you explain tables, I can log in the runs.
So 2nd attempt to interpret.
"every event must be compared with the LAST EC."
By event, do you mean spin or RR, (run, run) C (change)
"So 4 events = 5 last ECs."
Example:
01 02 03 04 05 series of spins: The last is 07, (red)
1, 25, 12, 29, 7
Using 7, the LAST EC and comparing it to each spin the information looks like this:
7/1 R
7/25 R
7/12 R
7/29 C
I have 3 and 1
The question is, C should be wagered as we are looking for balance.
And this is what you said:
"If you have 3 and 1 = 2 so bet"
"Do NOT , I repeat do NOT care about HOW MUCH the deviations are.... care ONLY about HOW MANY the deviations are.
When you have 2 or more deviations bet for balance.
If you have 3 and 1 = 2 so bet
if you have 2 and 1=1 so do NOT bet
If you have 2 and 2= 0 so do NOT bet."
"The reason why this wins is because 1 deviation can go as much as it wants.
BUT a lot of deviation events can not happen at the same time.
Remember that the LAST EC must be compared with ALL the 4 events."
The Crow
To be fair this is excactly how I did it on a graph and the results do confirm what I've posted maybe I have gave it an overall in depth view to your system..the written results do show that this is correcting the Columns of runs and changes..maybe a different wording than yours but still the same system
Typically when a strategy is supposed to be be simple but the explanation is complex, steer clear
It's an EC bet
When XYZ happens bet on _______
?????
Not sure if this is correct. I'm using Crows explanation.
If one has to decipher a concept, then it is not clear.
An idea may be perfectly clear in one's mind, but cloudy in another person's mind.
Anyway, thank you for your roulette contribution moglizu.
The Crow
I am French and it is absolutely incomprehensible.
I quote :
" I repeat do NOT care about HOW MUCH the deviations are.... care ONLY about HOW MANY the deviations are."
Who can explain the difference between " how many " and "how much" ?
And the concept of linearity ????
What`s missing is the chicken blood
This bet selection process will never be played by any one. Total waste if time.
Quote from: plolp on March 04, 2017, 09:43:07 AM
" I repeat do NOT care about HOW MUCH the deviations are.... care ONLY about HOW MANY the deviations are."
Who can explain the difference between " how many " and "how much" ?
Hi plolp,
When you have your paper upon which you write and record the 4 events of the EC you will see all the Runs and Changes for each of the events - yes?
moglizu wrote:
Quote
You have to ADD in each spin the new Xs on the events.
Then you will have a GRAPH (on your paper) with 4 events and Xs on their RUNS and CHANGES
I put Xs because the eyes are understanding fast the imbalances .
***Every event that has 2 or more runs than changes or 2 or more changes than runs is being qualified***
If an event is pointing to bet on RED for balance and one other event is pointing in BLACK , then they are canceling each other so we have 0 value ( because 1-1=0).
***In order to bet you must have a value of 2 clear or more***
This rule is made because as I stated a lot of times what we care in order to gain the advantage is for the MOST events to be corrected (balanced) in every spin.
Now you can see it - it is not so much whether a single event shows any deviation - but HOW MANY deviations are occurring over all of the 4 events that you are tracking!
When you can see significant deviation in 'more than one event' (bearing in mind that moglizu said that it is very unlikely that many events can keep continuing to deviate for very long) then you can look to see if you are able to bet either on the run side or the change side whichever needs, as he puts it, "
the MOST events to be corrected (balanced)"You need to have at least 2 clear events that qualify (after any cancellations) because, and here I repeat what he says:
Quote
This rule is made because as I stated a lot of times what we care in order to gain the advantage is for the MOST events to be corrected (balanced) in every spin.
Hope this helps.
A.
I tried a test session with it this morning and won +5u (my target) quite easily.
A.
I get it but what i don't get is the 4 events part? Do they run all the same time or do you make one event, stop and then make another? I just eet to see examples of real play paperwork.
R
totally agree...done a lot of testing and seems solid to me....i don,t post too much anymore for the simple reason as people often get attacked if the other members don,t get it..but this caught my eye..love puzzles...not a puzzle once you understand the concept...just came across that way..if a person uses a system he uses all the time its second nature and in this case it came across as the best way he could explain it...and more clearer with the example..unless you test it properly you cannot say it's a waste of time..if you win more than lose flatbetting it's a winner..just some people don,t have the balls to place big chips...if everyone attacks someone they don,t understand or there method..or if it doesn,t work and and attacks them even more what's the point of being on this site..i for one like this method and i can see why it works as stated...the author is trying his best and probably as for anyone who is put down trying there best gets a bit fed up with it all...its hard these days for people to post anything becouse of this...i,m glad he has posted this and as stated there's nothing on the sites like this..its ORIGINAL.. :thumbsup:
well i think it's a personal thing, i don't give a stuff if i need to explain something to make it very clear and understandable, i don't care if i need to tell it 100 times or even a 1000 times. what's the reason after all posting it on a forum? is it so hard to explain something without getting upset if some or more people don't understand and asking for examples?
R
It seems that a few people have understood the concept.....if they feel like sharing, how about showing the graphs and bet selections for the following actual results I wrote down in a brick and mortar casino
R=Red ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black
R
R
R
B
R
B
0 ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
Thank you, TDX... an explanation like you asked for would do wonders.. but alas, Moglizu will just say your ignorant and you should of read all the previous posts... why make it clear so people can understand it? Better to be esoteric and speak in riddles, causing confusion and mis-information...
"Follow the linearity to not how much but where and see the events add to catch up for balance to choose next bet but follow the last 4 and only use 3 wheels but it's really one".. THERE, DON'T YOU SEE YOU IGNORANT??? SO CLEAR EVERYONE CAN FIGURE IT OUT :)) ??? ??? ??? >:( >:( >:(
Hi 6th-sense,
Also bear in mind that English is not moglizu's first language. It can be a frustrating thing when you have done your level best to explain something and then others just can't seem to comprehend it for love or money - and even after a certain amount of repetition too! Like yourself, I too was sufficiently intrigued by the "puzzle" as well. This whole "LINEARITY" concept was something novel to me and it certainly took a while for the penny to drop and the realisation to sink in. He has explained it all in the posts and if you "get it" you can see that there is a LOGICAL REASON why it *should* work as declared.
Having said that I have not had the time as of yet to test this to any acceptable degree; so I cannot endorse or bear out any claims made about it - but I feel it an exciting and promising idea and maybe a route to regular and sustained profits.
If a program could be made to encompass all 3 EC's at once then that would really be something! I also understand that this linear concept can be applied to the DOZENS in a special way as well, so maybe rewards can be reaped on those later on as well.
A.
This may help:
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
Any takers?
A.
OK
Run C
X
X
x
X
NO
Quote from: plolp on March 04, 2017, 01:41:54 PM
OK
Run C
X
X
x
X
NO!
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
You have shown only ONE event.
A.
Unless you prefer
Ru C
X
X X
X
Quote from: plolp on March 04, 2017, 01:53:58 PM
Unless you prefer
Ru C
X
X X
X
Is this supposed to be a joke plolp?
Quote
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
I think you have failed to understand the question above. :no:
Does it take 5 spins for 1 event?
R,R,R,B,B (last decision)
R C
X
X
X
X
Unbelievable!!
Many thanks are owed to M. for sharing!
It might be the missing link I have needed for a long time.
Made a few tweaks and voila.
Thanks again Moglizu, and don't take neg comments to heart. The internet shields identity.
Nah, no progressions here. (unless up with house money)
I learned to read a bac shoe way back from a master/"killer"
With proper patience and discipline and immunity from smoke inhalation one can succeed flat betting.
Anyway, very smart reasoning. It immediately reminded me of 2 observations at the tables that for years I couldn't understand but which have stuck with me for years.
Quote from: Atlantis on March 04, 2017, 01:05:12 PM
This may help:
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
Any takers?
______________________________________________________________
Why do you use the word "decisions"?
Can you use another word because for now we have nothing to decide. Please .
About the example : RRRBB
R
R run
R run
B change
B run
Have I already wrong ?
Always use the last decision (B) and compare it with the previous decisions B,R,R,R.
I guess I'll ask again.......if you understand this, how about showing us you would bet these actual results ?
R=Red ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black
R
R
R
B
R
B
0 ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
Quote from: james on March 04, 2017, 04:05:53 PM
Always use the last decision (B) and compare it with the previous decisions B,R,R,R.
OK
R C C C
and ?
8OR9
First 5 results
R,R,R,B,R
RUNS CHANGES
x
x
x
x
OK, I'll be first to admit that I'm one of the unintelligent ones.
I'll go stand in the classroom corner with my dunce cap.
Badger i will joing you for sure, everything in the last 5 years ever posted on the forums i understand, but this one ??? ???
I also don't understand. For those of us who really want to know and learn why are you making life so difficult for us? 😬😬. What is the definition of event? Each hand decision is an event? Just monitor 4 results?
Moglizu sir,
I have Private Messaged one of the forum members to seek help to explain. Its just my thought that since the original strategy is from you, your public explaination in a clearer way ( no offense meant because some of us are not as intelligent as the rest and therefore find problems understanding especially when it is posted in multiple posts here and there) would help us better.
Thank you for considering Moglizu. God bless
I have changed my Spread sheet according to James explanation.
I have Event 1 as 5th result vs the 1st result.
Could anyone confirm that I am doing it correctly.
Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 06:39:06 PM
I have changed my Spread sheet according to James explanation.
I have Event 1 as 5th result vs the 1st result.
Could anyone confirm that I am doing it correctly.
If you are doing that it will be wrong!
I will try to help again...
Quote
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
A.
OK. So instead of event 1 being Result 5 vs Result 1,
its Result 5 vs Result 4 ??
R-R-R-B-B R-C-C-C
In My spread sheet I had it
R-R-R-B-B as C-C-C-R
R. C
X. X
X.
Like this?
Quote
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
Can you do that...?
A.
I already did? A run, a change an then another run of 2 blacks?
Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 07:10:28 PM
OK. So instead of event 1 being Result 5 vs Result 1,
its Result 5 vs Result 4 ??
R-R-R-B-B R-C-C-C
In My spread sheet I had it
R-R-R-B-B as C-C-C-R
R-R-R-B-B R-C-C-C
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
He states: ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
A.
Thanks for the help Atlantis.
So the order of events is important?
5vs4 then 5vs3 then 5vs2 then 5vs1
Can you explain why rrrbb, rccc is?
Red red red is a run right?
The red to black is a change right?
Then the black to black is another run? :upsidedown:
Last 5 results are R-R-R-B-B ( from left to right, lets say that R is result1, the next R is result 2,
next R is result 3, B is result 4 and last B is result 5)
Event 1 you compare Result5 with result 4
Event 2 you compare Result5 with result 3
event 3 you compare Result5 with result 2
Event 4 you compare Result5 with result 1
It seems that the order is important.
Alright tnx! Il get it now, so now what?
RBRBB
RCRC
Like this?
Run. Change
------. ----------
X.
X
X.
X
Is this the correct way, and what do we bet now?
R
Hi Badger,
Nice work. ;)
I'm useless at coding excel sheets. :)
A.
Quote from: Rewster88 on March 04, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Alright tnx! Il get it now, so now what?
RBRBB
RCRC
Like this?
Run. Change
------. ----------
X.
X
X.
X
Is this the correct way, and what do we bet now?
R
Hi - that is how you record an event on paper/chart.
But can you not see you have only clearly shown me ONE event???
Quote
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
Can you chart and show all 4 events? Can you?
A.
and what do we bet now?
LOL. You naughty boy :no: you must read the posts.
"When you have 2 or more deviations bet for balance.
If you have 3 and 1 = 2 so bet
if you have 2 and 1=1 so do NOT bet
If you have 2 and 2= 0 so do NOT bet."
Rewster
Its easier to understand if you write the events from left to right
RBRBB as RCRC
I this case you have 2Runs and 2Changes = 0 so do not bet.
No Atlantis
I can't
Yes i did? Nice sheets :thumbsup: if there where only an example of real play with balance/when to bet, what to bet etc.
Rewster
Have not got that far yet. Will check it out tomorrow.
It's 3am here.
Thanks again for the help Atlantis. If you need help with excel just let me know.
Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
Rewster
Its easier to understand if you write the events from left to right
RBRBB as RCRC
I this case you have 2Runs and 2Changes = 0 so do not bet.
Halleeelujjaaa tnx badger, now understand, betting for balanced. So the event keeps going on Base? I mean you can just whipe out the first run or change in that row and replace By a new one?
Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
Rewster
Its easier to understand if you write the events from left to right
RBRBB as RCRC
I this case you have 2Runs and 2Changes = 0 so do not bet.
Hi Badger,
I prefer to record the events on paper visually like moglizu.
Unfortunately you are in error regarding the bet criteria. It's not how it's done at all. Not quite as simple as that.
I can only point you to read his posts again about that side of things.......
A.
From what I understand you only work with the last 5 results.
Next spin - last 5
Next spin - last 5 etc
Thanks Atlantis. Thought it could not be so easy.
Have I worked out the 4 events correctly in my spread sheet??
Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 08:09:47 PM
Thanks Atlantis. Thought it could not be so easy.
Have I worked out the 4 events correctly in my spread sheet??
Tracking and events appeared to be right to me (leaving aside the 0 for now) :)
A.
Im going back to blackjack!! ;D
Thanks again Atlantis.
Hi guys
I have been following this post with a lot of interest. Thanks to Moglizu for sharing the system; and also to other members
who have been parrticipating in trying to solve the puzzle.
Badger has posted tracking of a lot of nos in an excel document; Atlantis has indicated that the tracking seems ok.
It seems to me now that we only need to analyse all the info in the posts, to have the exact criteria for betting for winning very fast.
Have a Look at the excel document posted by Badger, it seems that if after Run, Run we bet for change one time only. If it is a loss
then at next betting opportunity (i.e when there is Run, Run or Change, change.....) we bet the opposite one time only....
I'm not sure if this is the correct way of playing by Moglizu but what I do know is that there is 100's ways to skin a cat.....and by working together
as a team we may find the solution of the puzzle.
Is that correct....??
Rouletta
Hi Guys
Was chatting to 6th-sense and it seems I still have it wrong.
I thought the system was about tracking FTL, DBL and decision before DBL, etc
Its more simple than that. I made a excel sheet that's like Mogli posts and the way Atlantis prefers.(as explained to me by Gordan)
Going down the columns you look for the trigger. When the run or change is 3-1 you bet once, then track again. If the trigger is 3 Runs and 1 Change, bet for a change. If the trigger is 1 Run and 3 Changes, bet for a run.
Track using all 3 EC's so that you have more betting opportunities.
Hope this helps and thanks to Moglizu for sharing his system.
And all the kind souls who have been so patient with me.
Thanks for your efforts Badger
But this is not at all what has been explained.
I tought he was saying something like betting for balance? Im trying to find out the logic on same amount of changes and runs to be balanced.
R
Hi Rewster
In 100 spins of the roulette wheel you should find on average the following
50 changes - single red or single black
25 doubles - RR or BB
12 triples - RRR or BBB
6 fours - RRRR or BBBB
Its like the law of the third and only an average. I think Moglizu is using this to determine his bet selection.
This is where the balance comes in. He's hoping to hit one of the 50 singles. Or if there has been a run on singles then he's hoping to hit on of the runs.
Its like card counting, just up your street.
Yes you right badger, i totally see the logic now. Tnx for sum it up! Il try some spins on rx. So on the end of every 100 spins the runs and changes will be around the same.
R
Quote from: plolp on March 05, 2017, 08:01:14 AM
Thanks for your efforts Badger
But this is not at all what has been explained.
You know what they say.
If you are 1 step ahead of the crowd, everybody thinks you are a genius.
If you are 2 steps ahead of the crowd everybody thinks you are a crackpot.
Moglizu is 2 steps ahead of us LOL
Yes he needs some roulette words, like an event he means a spin/outcome i think. When you normally say an event is a whole play(more then 1 spin). Words we used to in roulette are different then his words. that's why its harder to understand.
moglizu wrote:
Quote
I have already explained everything multiple times in detail.
I can t bother anymore.
If the members that understood it want to help you then let them be my guest.
I have tried a couple of times to help ppl to get started.
I will try one more time
You must proceed one step at a time in order to understand.
So here goes:
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?
Can ANYBODY reading this post the chart as it should look after that has been done???
A.
Atlantis. Thanks for trying but I give up.
What!*?*!
You must be overthinking it - It's not a trick question or anything.
A.
Allow me to try 1 step at a time. I will post the first event.
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x x
x
x
No. That is is not right Djbac.
Anyone else care to try?
I do not think I will/can continue until SOMEONE will step up and finally post what should be the correct charting to my question put earlier.
In fact, I cannot for the life of me really believe that it is taking S-O-O-O long for anyone to post the correct and ONLY possible answer...!
Honestly - if you cannot understand this preliminary tracking you will never in a million years get the rest of it!!!
A.
Anyone care to try post the concept of the event tracking? I just came across this thread today 6 hours ago and been re-read this thread few times to grasp the concept of event tracking while babysit my 1 year old son. I admit Im not smart but Im willing to try understand the concept hence I need someone to help. Thank you for trying.
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x x
x
Correct?.. Atlantis
Quote from: Djbac on March 05, 2017, 09:47:51 AM
Allow me to try 1 step at a time. I will post the first event.
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x x
x
x
How about?
Run Change
X. XXX?
Quote from: rouletteromania on March 05, 2017, 11:11:40 AM
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x x
x
Correct?.. Atlantis
Hi rouletteromania,
I'm afraid that's not right, rouletteromania. ??? Keep trying to fathom it - but there is nothing to fathom because the ANSWER has already been given in the VERY FIRST POSTS of this topic by moglizu himself! :o
To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.
He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me - yes?
From the data you have can you now show the
FULL chart and fill out the other three events then? :D
:nope: Nope or :nod: Yep
A.
I see it now!!
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
x
x
x
Is this correct Atlantis?
Yes, but you only showed one.
This is what he will answer you
When is the time to tell that all this is a joke? :P
Quote from: plolp on March 05, 2017, 11:41:10 AM
Yes, but you only showed one.
This is what he will answer you
what's confusing is that they say you need "the last 5 numbers to track 4 events"...he is showing the results of the last 5 numbers, yet they are saying it's only 1 event...see the confusion?
So i got 1 of the event correct thus i proceed with other events.
For example: R-R-R-B-B (last decision)
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
x
x
x
EVENT 2
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
x
x
x
EVENT 3
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
x
x
x
EVENT 4
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
x
x
x
Is this correct Atlantis?
Yes that's the confusion, is it another table? Is it another ec? Is it stop on that event and the next numbers are the following event? What is an event? Im missing very important information here. Its like telling the junglebook without the jungle.
R
Ok, I will try. R-R-R-B-B..lets put the numbers so we understand better...1-2-3-4-5....We compare last spin, which si numer 5(B) with number 4(B)..so we have X on runs in event. 1. Than we compare spin before that, whis number 3(R), witth numer 5, which gave us X on CHANGES in event. 2....and so on...
EVENT 1
============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
EVENT 2
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
EVENT 3
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
EVENT 4
=============
R(uns) C(hanges)
x
I think that user Badger did this allready...and I think this is the only way we can get 4 events out of 5 spins..Of course we can get 1 event out of five spins, but I think it would be wrong...
Can Atlantis say something about my post? English is not my native language, so i hope everybody understand.
Quote from: moglizu on March 02, 2017, 02:39:59 AM
It seems impossible to me that no one understood the method.
Ok let s see...
Let s just take for example ( this is what you are asking... examples) only EVENT no1.
EVENT no1 is comparison of the last 2 spins(R/B).
We have R R this is a RUN (because from R it went to R again)
So we have
EVENT NO1
R C
X
The next spin is R R (B) ... so we have to update the chart so it will be
EVENT NO1
R C
X X ( We are puting X under the R(Run) or the C(Change)
next spin is R R B (R)
EVENT NO1
R C
X X
X
So until now we have 1 RUN and 2 CHANGES by comparing in every new spin the last 2 outcomes.
when we have RR=RUN when we have BB=RUN when we have RB or BR = CHANGE.
Now this was ONLY the EVENT NO1
add 3 more events of the R/B.(Read my previous posts)
That all of them are being updating with the new spin...
And then make the deviations correction when the bet selection on either RED or BLACK will correct most of them.
I really don t believe that I had to make examples in order to be understood.
My previous posts had explained everything in detail.
______________________
It takes only 4 spins to constitute the first event.
It does not matter.
I think Ruman is right, at least that is the way I have been testing it.
At the moment I can't seem to get any advantage, so far, which implies I am doing it wrong or there is no advantage to be gained.
I really love the concept tho, and thank you Moglizu for sharing it with us.....I will keep at it
I can't help but wonder if this is successful for moglizu, why would he expose it to the world?
Mike
Moglizu write: add 3 more events of the R/B.(Read my previous posts)
That all of them are being updating with the new spin...
So if I understand this-we need 4 spins for event nr. 1, next.fifth spin for event. 2, another spin-sixth for event. 3, and seveth spin for event 4.
There are 2 possible answears..the first-I am stupid or the second..Moglizu is able to make out of 4 spins one event and then with one more spin another 3 events--which does not make any sense to me.(but maybe it is the way to go)...
I know that Moglizu tried his best to answear all the questions here, but If he just scaned or showed his paper-(Make 4 different tables on your paper--this is his first post ) with the way he playes, I think everything would be crystal clear..
But I have to thank him anyway, because I like to solve any kinds of puzzle....
Ok.
The only puzzle is what you writte here: let me copy this from yours posts:
Post nr. 1 ..............So 4 events = 5 last ECs
and then, another post:
EVENT NO1
R C
X
The next spin is R R (B) ... so we have to update the chart so it will be
EVENT NO1
R C
X X ( We are puting X under the R(Run) or the C(Change)
next spin is R R B (R)
EVENT NO1
R C
X X
X
So until now we have 1 RUN and 2 CHANGES by comparing in every new spin the last 2 outcomes.
when we have RR=RUN when we have BB=RUN when we have RB or BR = CHANGE.
Now this was ONLY the EVENT NO1
I Have to writte this again: NOW THIS WAS ONLY THE EVENT NO1.
There is only one question--why you use 4 last spins for only event. nr.1 and then next-FITH spin for another 3 EVENTS?? I don't see the way, how it is possible....or I get it wrong.....and I think that another majority of users as well. Your worksheet would solve everythink I quess...
But as I said..thank you anyway...It is something different.....
Hi Moglizu
Anybody can paste your posts in another roulette forum so I don't see
how deleting your posts is going to help.
On the bright side, only a few understand your system.
I think we all here are glad for what you write here and we all need to find the way, what you thought by your writings.All I asked his been written here, and I ll try to do my best to figure that out the way, you play.
Thank you and I wish you the best.
I agree Ruman
I remember a while back when Warrior/Tino posted a method.
Many members were frustrated by his posts and were so rude to
him that he never posted on the forum again.
That kind of behaviour is uncalled for and although there is a lot of frustration
at Moglizu, I am glad that everybody has shown him respect.
Gentlemen,
The obvious "solution" to this entire thread is to have one of the members who believes they understand this method correctly to simply post up a play sheet with a spin by spin description of what they have done and why.
It should save everyone a whole lot of time and get the players who are interested in this on to their various methods of testing.
Until such time, you're all just spinning your wheels taking guesses at what this is and how it "works".
VDW was equally mysterious until play by play examples were posted.
So, whomever the four guys are who understand it, just post up the play.
Problem solved.
AD (not a roulette player(
What? No editing of posts available?
AD
Quote from: ADulay on March 05, 2017, 08:00:56 PMWhat? No editing of posts available?
Hello Andy, we are transitioning to a new web engine right now, from the server back-end to the outside. We have solved users removing content via "post versioning" on the new web engine, but it isn't available here yet hence the temporary lock-down.
This is likely going to be a week of changes for us around as both the old and new engine are co-existing.
Once things settle programming-wise, post
editing versioning is coming back.
100% agree adulay, if this where done straight from the beginning then this tread had only 4 pages instead of 12+
R
This is not only for Roulette but for all even chance bets. This can be used for Baccarat and Craps even chance bets.
I guess I'll ask again for the third time.......if you understand this, how about showing us you would bet these actual roulette results ?
I don't understand why no one would want to explain the method with the actual roulette results described below.......unless it was actually really profitable.
R=Red ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black
R
R
R
B
R
B
0 ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
Hi Guys
From my experience anyone can alledge whatever they want about ahow great a system is but what matters most to is the actual proof of the winning; and the testing
results. This thread is 12 page long....but there is no evidence of actual winning anywhere.....; there is no evidence of actual testing results anywhere.....
Anyone can draw their own conclusion of this system but up to now, I have yet to see any proof of winnings; and the proof of testing results of this system.
Cheers
Rouletta
Ok, it appears Badger has answered Atlantis' question correctly. Ruman001 echoed it, at least for the first 5 spins.
Find attached Badger's apparently correct method of tracking all four events.
In addition, i have added columns that count up the R's and C's and calculate the differences. I've added columns that add these up TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
I am not sure which way gives the kind of information needed to make bets.
Perhaps now that Atlantis' question has been answered, he will help out with how to lay bets on the accumulated information.
I quess all traces of moglizu are gone.
I have the ability to put together the spreadsheet he was looking for, to track all EC, dozens, columns, and more...if only i had the exact specifications clear.
Here is what i have so far:
Quote from: 8OR9 on March 05, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
I guess I'll ask again for the third time.......if you understand this, how about showing us you would bet these actual roulette results ?
I don't understand why no one would want to explain the method with the actual roulette results described below.......unless it was actually really profitable.
R=Red ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black
R
R
R
B
R
B
0 ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
I took your colors and put them into Badger's spreadsheet and came up with this information. This format uses R's and C's in "event" columns, instead of X's underneath R/C columns. So not exactly the same as the original examples, but seems to accomplish the goal for Excel tracking purposes.
RESULT 1st Event 2nd Event 3rd Event 4th Event
5th result 5th result 5th result 5th result
vs 4th vs 3rd vs 2nd vs 1st
R
R
R
B
R C R R R
B C R C C
0 C C C C
B C R C R
B R C R C
B R R C R
B R R R C
R C C C C
B C R R R
R C R C C
B C R C R
B R C R C
R C C R C
R R C C R
B C C R R
B R C C R
R C C R R
B C R R C
So, if i was a programmer/developer who was willing to deliver to moglizu a product that fulfills his exact specifications, i would want to ask a few questions, in order to provide moglizu with the exact tool he would want to carry into a B&M on his smart phone. This is assuming the B&M will allow him to log spins into his smart phone while sitting at the table. If not, there is still the possibility that with the phenomenon of personal permanence, he would be able to leave the table, log the number, get the calculations, and come back a few spins later, without missing a beat...due to the phenomenon of personal permanence.
Before i asked my questions, as a developer, i would simply remind my client that both of our time is valuable. The sooner i get what i want, the sooner he gets what he wants. I am guessing that RESPECT for the questions i may ask would translate into the FASTEST possible delivery of the money-making tool he can carry around in his pocket.
If i was to ask three questions at this point, they would be:
1.) What is YOUR definition of "deviation"?
2.) What is YOUR definition of "linearity"?
Nope, that's it. Just two questions. That ought to do it, but if not, i can come up with a couple more...so that moglizu get's the tool he wants in his pocket as fast as possible.
I'm not asking. I'm just saying, those are the kind of questions i would ask, if i was a developer trying to narrow down the specifications for the product a client was trying to acquire.
For example, we all know what "standard deviation" means. A series of red and black can "grow" away from a "mean", and become "imbalanced" in favor of red or black. When measuring for the imbalance, i would want to know: What is the "look back" period?
This is all very very simple to solve, made hard only by miscommunication.
Hello people.
Some members are still wondering why I took the desecion to delete my topic.
I have already answered but I am starting getting used of you people that you do not pay attention so I will say it again.
Some members that understood my method tested and played and made money.
After this they sent me Pms by morivating/advising me to delete me thread because they didn t want for a lot of members to understand my method.
I just respected their wishes and I did it.
VLS told me that he understood my method from my 1st post.
The other members that understood my method , also understood it fast.
I see members that after all the explanation on me and Atlantis have not understood anything.
that's life. Some people are smarter than others.
it still makes no sense to me that after posted the exact rules , almost none (except 5 members) understood the method.
Instread of trying to be a predator and grab a winning method that some one posted , try to make-engineer your own method.
Do you have the brains to do so?
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
Hello people.
Some members are still wondering why I took the desecion to delete my topic.
I have already answered but I am starting getting used of you people that you do not pay attention so I will say it again.
Some members that understood my method tested and played and made money.
After this they sent me Pms by morivating/advising me to delete me thread because they didn t want for a lot of members to understand my method.
I just respected their wishes and I did it.
VLS told me that he understood my method from my 1st post.
The other members that understood my method , also understood it fast.
I see members that after all the explanation on me and Atlantis have not understood anything.
that's life. Some people are smarter than others.
it still makes no sense to me that after posted the exact rules , almost none (except 5 members) understood the method.
Instread of trying to be a predator and grab a winning method that some one posted , try to make-engineer your own method.
Do you have the brains to do so?
I'm just a disinterested party, who, like several people on this site, has the ability to quickly program/develop a tool that allows you to track EC's, Dozens, Columns...whatever you want, the exact way that you want it.
I'm not expecting any answers because as you have said, you have agreed with a small handful of people here, to remove previous explanations, and now limit any further clarifications.
I'm not asking, but i do wonder who the three or four folks were who, having been given the idea, encouraged you to shut down the lines of communication that might lead to the enlightenment of those folks who may have been born with a few points fewer IQ?
Victor does not strike me as that kind of person. Understanding it, he CAN give you a nice tracker in return. And so, you really have no more use for this thread.
I am guessing that is why you posted in the first place (to get a tracker), since you don't seem to me like the kind of person who would get into an IQ measuring contest without a good reason.
The tracker is almost ready.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 03:55:58 AM
The tracker is almost ready.
Ok, makes sense.
Just for the record, correct me if i'm wrong: you came here and gave away some information, and then, the majority of those who did not comprehend it fast enough are now being characterized as trying to "grab" something from you...for asking questions? In the meantime, should i understand that a few people here have literally grabbed the information for themselves, leaving the majority with vain questions?
I will explain the HOW this method of mine can lose.
The LINEARITY of my method is like having 4 different wheels in ONE.
When the bets are LINEAR (trigger) and points to the same bet (r or b) then by betting is like betting in 3 or 4( it depends of how many events had linearity in this spin) wheels that ALL have the same deviation of color .
IF 1 of them will win , then we are winners.
In order to lose , 3 or 4 different wheels have to continue the same deviation for long.
Even if this will happen the loss will be small.(flat betting)
1 or 2 wheels can continue the same deviations for hours... but 3 or 4 at the same time is hard.
So even if we are in a rare occasion while all 3 or 4 wheels are continuing the imbalance , if only 1 of them will wake up and go for the balance we are starting winning.
The advantage in my method comes straight from my original concept of the LINEARITY.
My primary tests showed profits. Then and only then I started playing my method in real casinos.
Over 2 years now I am making steady income.
But I know roulette is the devils game and even though my concept is solid and has a real reason to win, I am still waiting for the session from hell.
The point is to see in a long test with the sheet how many hell sessions can occur.
Are the wins lore than the losers in a 1.000.000 placed nets test.
This and only this will prove to me ( and none else) that my method is a winner... a long run winner .
so the 1st point in having a sheet of my method is for testing purposes .
The 2nd point is for playing all the 3 ecs at once .
This will give bets in almost every spin and the profits will be faster.
""""you came here and gave away some information"""
NO.
I came here posted my hole method !!!!!!
I have said this 100 times but you never pay attention.
This is the reason why you did not understand my method.... because you do NOT pay attention.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:11:05 AM
""""you came here and gave away some information"""
NO.
I came here posted my hole method !!!!!!
I have said this 100 times but you never pay attention.
This is the reason why you did not understand my method.... because you do NOT pay attention.
I'm a late comer here, having found out about it just hours ago. My apologies for characterizing your whole method as some information. Having given away your while method, are you saying that those who don't yet understand it are trying to "grab" it from you, while a few members here, behind the scenes, have literally grabbed the whole method from the majority of others? Is that what has happened in the last few hours?
The members that understood my method are clever+expirianced in randomness behaviour .
And a clever+experienced person that recognize a real original strong way to play roulette needs to know that the method is not gonna be played by a lot.( for protection reasons)
So all I did was respect their needs.
I can t blame them. They are correct.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:25:30 AM
The members that understood my method are clever+expirianced in randomness behaviour .
And a clever+experienced person that recognize a real original strong way to play roulette needs to know that the method is not gonna be played by a lot.( for protection reasons)
So all I did was respect their needs.
I can t blame them. They are correct.
Ok, makes sense. You did what you thought was right. I'm not asking, but i do wonder who here was clever enough also to convince you to pull the plug before too many others found out. I don't expect you to answer that, but i do wonder if those three, four or five will step forward and let us know who they are, and how long they've been operating this way.
they are clever .
They know that if they are gonna step forward you are gonna kill them with questions of how my method is being played.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:34:56 AM
they are clever .
They know that if they are gonna step forward you are gonna kill them with questions of how my method is being played.
Yes, that's the most probable happenstance. For others, it would be good to know who operates this way as "members" so they can avoid sharing with them anything that can actually make money, in keeping with the same code of ethics. It would also save some other members time, not to waste reading any methods they propose, knowing they would never propose anything that would actually make any money.
Anyways, thanks for what you did share, as long as you did share it, as well as for the latest addendums that might be helpful to the dullards left behind.
You can go to the other forum.
A person copy /pasted all my deleted posts.
I am still laughing.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:56:14 AM
You can go to the other forum.
A person copy /pasted all my deleted posts.
I am still laughing.
Yes, we are clever too! :whistle:
If you name a copy/paste clever then yes you are.
Here are the 4 events of this figure: N N N N N
évent 1 : R R R R
évent 2 : R R R R
évent 3: R R R R
évent 4 : R R R R
I do not think I'm wrong
Apparently we need a C.
It seems that the copy/paste is doing nothing .
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 05:18:24 AM
It seems that the copy/paste is doing nothing .
He's from this site. We have trusted and admired members who are able to understand your whole method in the first three sentences, and able to write a tracker before you can finish explaining.
But of course.
You re all waiting for the easy and ready solution ... without the need of know the mechanics behind the method.
But even if some of you have the need of understanding , they don t have the brains to understand ...
so all cases are lost cases
What I posted is strictly accurate.
Yes sure.
Make a tracked based on this one and you will all lose
LoL
Exact .
It will be the same on any figure.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 05:27:39 AM
But of course.
You re all waiting for the easy and ready solution ... without the need of know the mechanics behind the method.
But even if some of you have the need of understanding , they don t have the brains to understand ...
so all cases are lost cases
We don't have any of those kinds of members. Here's a performance chart of one of our average members...and this is just on EC's!
so if you already have a winning way , why are you bothering with mine?
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 06:21:56 AM
so if you already have a winning way , why are you bothering with mine?
I was just sent to interview you for possible membership. Mainly, they want to know if you would get into an IQ contest for no good reason.
We had to let the other guy go, who performed below average on EC's. Here is a chart of a member still in good standing. Notice now long, how straight, and how far it goes:
so use it and make money. and don t bother with my method
Guys
Anyone can say whatever they want about the method of Moglizu but I'm concerned about the following:
A) There is no evidence whatsoever that the method is really a winnning method
B) There is no evidence of testing results that demonstrates that the method is a winning method.....
C) It has been claimed that 4 people makes chips with the method.....but up to now we have not seen any evidence from
any of these people.
Naturally anyone can claim anthing; anyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion regarding the method. However, until I see evidence of matters mentioned
at points A,B,C above I do not believe that the method is a winning method as alleged.
Cheers
R.
Quote from: Rouletta on March 06, 2017, 12:10:22 PM
Guys
Anyone can say whatever they want about the method of Moglizu but I'm concerned about the following:
A) There is no evidence whatsoever that the method is really a winnning method
B) There is no evidence of testing results that demonstrates that the method is a winning method.....
C) It has been claimed that 4 people makes chips with the method.....but up to now we have not seen any evidence from
any of these people.
Naturally anyone can claim anthing; anyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion regarding the method. However, until I see evidence of matters mentioned
at points A,B,C above I do not believe that the method is a winning method as alleged.
Cheers
He claims that he has been winning for 2 years and I tend to side with his claim. Reason being is that his method has certain trigger call for the bet to be placed, and his bankroll needed to play is very small. And flat betting to say the least.
I know we tend to first look for the evidence from the testing and whatnot. I also read his characterized statements over and over. Moglizu has something worthy, I can tell because he does not give a sh---t about anyone..
Quote from: Rouletta on March 06, 2017, 12:10:22 PM
Guys
Anyone can say whatever they want about the method of Moglizu but I'm concerned about the following:
A) There is no evidence whatsoever that the method is really a winnning method
B) There is no evidence of testing results that demonstrates that the method is a winning method.....
C) It has been claimed that 4 people makes chips with the method.....but up to now we have not seen any evidence from
any of these people.
Naturally anyone can claim anthing; anyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion regarding the method. However, until I see evidence of matters mentioned
at points A,B,C above I do not believe that the method is a winning method as alleged.
Cheers
R.
Rouletta you are ALWAYS and when I say ALWAYS I mean ALWAYS out of subject.
The only reason for someone to give proofs of his method is ONLY if he is asking money for it.
In other words if he is selling his method.
So why on earth should I give proofs? LoL
Guys the member Rouletta is for laughs !
He had contact me yesterday via Pm telling me that he has understood my method and that he has also tweaked it . LoL.
I mean its for a lot of laugh!
He is not able to understand my method but he made tweaks on it!
Some members should get banned from forums simply because they are always out of the subject.
moglizu,
I thought you were done with this thread when you removed your method.
Why continue to come back?
AD
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 06:31:24 AM
so use it and make money. and don t bother with my method
Because we collect winning methods like baseball cards. We have decided to trade you this winning card for your winning card:
still helping people that deserve it.
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 01:56:38 PM
still helping people that deserve it.
still throwing people under the bus that don't.
I am back for a whille...and I think I understand finally, how to write all 4 events all together...The only another quetstion is, how many RUNS or Changes a one single Event must have??? Moglizu wrote": Event no 1 has 2 or less RUNS...so we need Run....and so on. And also he wrote that for example Event nr.4 is balanced-so this is my question...if any event. can be balanced, it means, taht it has to be 1-1, or 2-2, 3-3, and so on....So I ques that number of RUNS or CHANGES in every EVENT must be an even number(2,4,6,8 and maybe more). Can somebody give me his opinion about this?? Moglizu would be the best but I know he is going to tel me, that I need to read the whole thread again....but I think I did not find an answear for that....
I give it to those who believe in it. ( So without me)
B
B R C C R ev 1
B R R C C ev 2
R C C C R ev 3
R R C C C ev 4
plolp
You have just 5 last colors.
How did you managed to find so many Rs and Cs?
Quote from: plolp on March 06, 2017, 04:13:33 PM
I give it to those who believe in it. ( So without me)
B
B R C C R ev 1
B R R C C ev 2
R C C C R ev 3
R R C C C ev 4
R ev1
C ev2
C ev3
C ev4
You should find as there is only one way to do this.
well plolp discovered his own method LoL
Quote from: plolp on March 06, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
You should find as there is only one way to do this.
Plolp, the 4 tables with the 4 events of runs and changes are easy to understand once you read through it multiple times.
You can look at what Badger posted even to understand it.
As laughable as "moglizu" who discovers his own method .
its really funny that some people that can t get it are trying to hurt my feelings LoL.
well ... don t be bad boys.. just try harder.
PLOLP
Look at this sheet. I set it out to make it easier for you to understand.
Thank you Badger
Moglizu
It is you who insults several members of this forum.
By claiming that they have an IQ under devellope .
It's amazing that people get mad when asked to explain
Like they are on an Internet forum or something
Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:59:08 PM
its really funny that some people that can t get it are trying to hurt my feelings LoL.
well ... don t be bad boys.. just try harder.
tock people like Moglizu and other who don't want explain a stuff!!!!!!
If your method are so great why there is not 10,20,30 members putting positive commebnts about your method every day...lol lol??
And where is the members what understand the strategy?..and why don't tell anything?
There is a lot of negative comments from smart members about the post, but there is extremely little positive comments about the method. That says it all.......if the method was really good there will be hundreds of positive comments about the method........But where are the hundreds of positive comments.....?? nowhere... That demonstrate that this strategy is a stuff
It boggles my mind that there are this many posts about this system and NOBODY has posted a number by number example of how to play it...nobody has shown ANY results...and all you hear from the people who "get" it is "figure it out yourself, stupid", tell you your examples are wrong when they try to figure it out...yet do NOTHING to illustrate actual game play.... sheesh..what a giant waste of bandwidth.... >:( >:(
It's called trolling and until moglizu or one of his anointed minions posts a detail play sheet (should take about three minutes to produce) he will continue to jerk everybody around in this thread.
It is kind of funny watching it though.
Now that he has deleted the kernel of the method, it's kind of pointless to "discuss" it.
AD
Moglizu,
you stated that the "0" (zero) is an event. But you didn't explain how to manage it.
thanks
""""Hello again and thank you again,
Just got back from live play for the first time and did very well!
Your method is great for the arsenal.
Sorry to see all the negative stuff towards you.
May be better to just not answer imo. You have what you need.
I also meant to say earlier that I also think that there are posters with multiple names and who have a very negative agenda to what they claim. It's easy to see over time. I believe some can even read pm s so be careful what you write.
I owed you this friendly advice.
If you want to talk outside let me know and maybe pm your email or something.
Thanks again/beyond grateful!!"""
You see... the good stuff are happening under the radar.
an other one just came.
"""Thank you so much for teaching me the method. I am very grateful for your teaching. Those crying wolves are blaming the grape that it is sour because they can't reach it.
I am very fortunate to have possessed your winning method. I played online and won 10 units as planned.
Sincerely,"""
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.
If the word "LINEARITY" is the most correct word to describe my method.
You can t understand it because what you just described is NOT my method.
The funny part is that Still is making fun of my method ... although he is busting his brain in understanding it.
You really have to chose...
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 03:16:00 AM
The funny part is that Still is making fun of my method ... although he is busting his brain in understanding it.
You really have to chose...
No I've never made fun of your method. I've made fun of your attitude. I've called your method 'novel' (maybe even original), and "worth considering".
The only thing requiring a busted brain is trying to understand your explanation in your broken english. But rather than complain about your english, I decided to explain it myself in perfect American english, just to see how hard, or easy this is to explain.
Do your research Still.
The 5 members that understood my method was reading the same posts you and the others read.
How about this
http://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/hi!-i'm-mowgow-beat-ec-in-roulette!!/msg54038/#msg54038 (ftp://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/hi!-i'm-mowgow-beat-ec-in-roulette!!/msg54038/#msg54038)
Regards
Hey guys
I have only gone as far as tracking. I don't know the rest.
For those who want to go further, I've made a spread sheet with his instructions.
You will have to decipher them on your own. I'm not interested in going further.
On the spread sheet I have replaced RUN with +1 and CHANGE with -1
and this helps to keep a running count going down the Event columns.
Good luck
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 03:39:59 AM
Do your research Still.
The 5 members that understood my method was reading the same posts you and the others read.
I've done my research and now understand the method as well as you do. People can judge for themselves whether i have explained it better than you or not. It was not understandable from just your first post. And the term "linearity" was completely unnecessary.
people will not understand it even with your explanation.
The word linearity describes the advantage of the selection.
So you must have misunderstood some things
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 05:36:25 AM
The word linearity describes the advantage of the selection.
So you must have misunderstood some things
If there is an advantage, you can call it anything you want. But the term you coined, "linearity", does not help to explain it, or why there may be an advantage. I don't think anyone in the forums is in a position to say "this is why this has an advantage" since we are talking about a 'reversion to the means' bet with a new twist. You can only know whether the new twist works. You cannot know why. Pretending to know why may suit your personality, but does not suit reality.
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 05:35:27 AM
people will not understand it even with your explanation.
Maybe. Will soon find out. I have glossed over the method of logging the four streams of information because they have been amply covered at several points earlier in this thread, especially the spreadsheets Badger and I have put out. People need to go back and look for those examples.
I understand your method.
All I am saying is that its not MY method.
This is why the term linearity isn t sticking with YOUR method but its sticks with mine.
I have tested your method in the past and it doesn t work.
in fact your method is the one I found first and tested and lost.
then i found out why I lost and I made MY method as it is .
you are on a good road...
My method is a lot more sofisticated than the immature method you just discovered
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 05:59:16 AM
I understand your method.
All I am saying is that its not MY method.
This is why the term linearity isn t sticking with YOUR method but its sticks with mine.
I have tested your method in the past and it doesn t work.
What i'm saying is the method i explained is YOUR method. Perhaps you have not understood your method the way that I have explained it. If you think there is something amiss with the way i've explained it, then perhaps you can clarify. Until then, what i have explained is EXACTLY what you meant.
I you wish to to believe you have understood my method... then I can t spoil it for you.
Test and you will see that it is losing.
when you will find out why it lose... and make it more sofisticated ... then you will come into MY method.
Food for thought...
With your method if you start having 12 reds in a row... you are losing consistently,
With my method you lose the half and you win the half
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. :thumbsup:
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 :-X
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 >:D
A.
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 06:20:41 AM
Food for thought...
With your method if you start having 12 reds in a row... you are losing consistently,
With my method you lose the half and you win the half
This really lost me
Each event will show R being dominant and we would be playing for a C
What are we supposed to do different
even if moglizu think that he gave crystal clear infos, there are some contradictions in his statements. I think to understand his method, anyway the statement you mentioned is pure b...stuff OR he released partial infos.
in any case I stop betting ANY system after 2-3 losses iar till 1-2 paper plus.
:)
Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 07:08:13 AM
MY method are 5 people that understood it.
You don't have any evidence to suggest this is at all true.
On the other hand, 4 out of 5 dentists agree with my explanation...and not one member has publicly disagreed with my explanation.
I have explained YOUR method.
The dread test is coming.
Here is some music to enjoy while we are waiting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tza0zaJUW9w
I have to agree with Still for 100% with his statment....until moglizu give us proof - his worksheet-the way he plays, Still is right here...
An other for Hight and Low
plolp,
looking at your sheet
2 Black
34 Red
17 Black
35 Black
28 Black
event
1 2 3 4
R R C R
but you have it as
event
1 2 3 4
R C R C
Why?
You are asking for proofs...
I don t need to give any proofs because I never asked money.
The method you are gonna test isn t mine.
As I told you I read your understanding and the method you are gonna test will lose exactly at the disadvantage rate of -2,7.
Been there done that.
BUT this losing method , gave me the spark to crate my ORIGINAL method.
IF you will look the WHEN you are losing with YOUR method and convert the losses to wins ... then you will arrive at MY method.
Until then you are gonna test YOUR method.
Happy losing testing
Money T
it's for H and L
plolp ok i see it now...thnks
quoteQuote
Guys,
You're just throwing junk at the wall hoping that something will stick.
The first problem is that you're trying to beat a random game, rather than trying to exploit a gaming device/wheel. (Impossible.)
The second problem... you're ignoring the wheel, the playing conditions and are focusing on just numeric data. This increases the amount of data that you need 10 fold.
If you're going to rely on data, collect better data:
1. Wheel spin direction. Segregate your data by direction
2. Wheel speed matters. Make some approximations for it. Again segregate the data.
3. Use better tests to find relevant results, such as coefficient of restitution testing, use chi square, and standard deviation tests, limit the degrees of freedom by carefully definining your tests, do out of sample testing, and collect relevant amounts of data.
Focus on the wheel, not the layout.
1. Lose the pen and paper. You usually can't hand test enough spins to determine whether or not your systems work.
2. Carefully define what it is that you're testing in order to limit the degree of the freedom so that your test produces relevant results.
3. Attempt to form a hypothesis as to why your system should work in the first place. For example: What are the physics at work that could possibly make the system work. (Magic, randomness, the law of the third, and the law of large numbers are not reasons.
4. Conduct out of sample tests.
Random patterns are just that, random. Claiming that they are somehow predictable is an oxymoron. Consequently, you can't beat a "random wheel" in the long term. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain the physics at work that would enable you to win on such a wheel.
unquoteBETJACK
P.S. This post is a joke
Quote from: moglizu on March 08, 2017, 04:44:17 PM
You are asking for proofs...
I don t need to give any proofs because I never asked money.
The method you are gonna test isn t mine.
As I told you I read your understanding and the method you are gonna test will lose exactly at the disadvantage rate of -2,7.
Been there done that.
BUT this losing method , gave me the spark to crate my ORIGINAL method.
IF you will look the WHEN you are losing with YOUR method and convert the losses to wins ... then you will arrive at MY method.
Until then you are gonna test YOUR method.
Happy losing testing
My policy is not to ask for anything...just observe. And if I contribute to the group, people might give me things. I don't think I've gone beyond that policy.
You're objections are well noted. People can make up their minds now about the information you've called a "whole system"...whether you've really done such a thing...or led ONLY as far as the most prevalent understanding leads us...and not a step beyond.
It's always up to anyone's generosity to disclose anything at all, in whole or in part. My upcoming test is just a test of what you have called a "whole system".
If it goes farther, or deeper, than that, then it has something to do with the way you've used terms like "align", "linearity", and "deviation"...which have been left completely undefined for so long that it has to be a deliberate attempt to actually NOT disclose the whole system...except perhaps ONE outlying savant who will tell four friends under oath.
If that's the kind of person who is considered deserving, so be it, more power to you and them. We still have our own baseball cards to trade, or keep.
I will look beyond the data when I get there, per your suggestion. Till then, I don't have any credible reason to believe I'm not testing your "whole system".
The only possible variable is whether we are betting on a color predominance of 2 deviation points or greater, or less than two, as your instructions were vague, and not suited to the creation of software.
Meanwhile. Here's some music you might enjoy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI
Still, I really appreciate your efforts and also your patience in dealing with that thing with a name starting with M. In my more than 5 decades of life, I sometimes come across people as difficult to comprehend as M. And they take delight in other people struggling in their efforts. Is there a term for such .....?
Quote from: Lungyeh on March 08, 2017, 11:13:54 PM
Still, I really appreciate your efforts and also your patience in dealing with that thing with a name starting with M. In my more than 5 decades of life, I sometimes come across people as difficult to comprehend as M. And they take delight in other people struggling in their efforts. Is there a term for such .....?
Bureaucrat? The one person who might know might be a CIA agent who bugged his IP in order to intercept other communications that would put the puzzle together.
At times we throw out music to describe how we feel or enlighten the mood. I have many times engaged in singing a few lyrics here and there at the bac table. But this is the official song of this thread and everything related to it, hands down 1,000% !!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqg
Quote
My upcoming test is just a test of what you have called a "whole system".
Looking forward to your test and the results!
A.
""""I will look beyond the data when I get there, per your suggestion.""""
This is the key.
Guys,
I can say that i understood the system and how it works.
I just don't know how to treat "zero" ?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on March 08, 2017, 04:28:47 PM
plolp,
looking at your sheet
2 Black
34 Red
17 Black
35 Black
28 Black
event
1 2 3 4
R R C R
but you have it as
event
1 2 3 4
R C R C
Why?
Hi MoneyT101,
Yes plolp: Remember Moglizu said to compare the 5th number with the previous 4 in order to get the (R)uns and (Changes) for each of the 4 events. ;)
A.
Wiesbaden T1 8/03/2017
Which does not mean that it wins
Roulette EC best for SHORT Term play with disciplined MM.
Still can't get how plolp chart the prognosis. Can plolp point me?
Quote from: Azymax on March 09, 2017, 04:01:49 AM
Guys,
I can say that i understood the system and how it works.
I just don't know how to treat "zero" ?
Imo, the zero is too much of an oddball to include in the EC calculations. A programmer might try both ways, since it's easy to swap ideas out. But for an even chance test, i would exclude it from the calculations column, and have a separate column that is designed to produce a zero at it's normal rate of appearance. Then just subtract, from the profit or loss stream, the amount of chips you had exposed each time the zero showed up in it's own column. This essentially disregards the zero in your calculations, but exactly mimics live play, which only calculated for EC's.
Quote from: Djbac on March 09, 2017, 02:21:40 PM
Still can't get how plolp chart the prognosis. Can plolp point me?
The left part "CCRC"...is runs/changes and the right side prognosis with RB is what to play based on the majority.
Quote from: Still on March 09, 2017, 02:33:20 PM
Imo, the zero is too much of an oddball to include in the EC calculations. A programmer might try both ways, since it's easy to swap ideas out. But for an even chance test, i would exclude it from the calculations column, and have a separate column that is designed to produce a zero at it's normal rate of appearance. Then just subtract, from the profit or loss stream, the amount of chips you had exposed each time the zero showed up in it's own column. This essentially disregards the zero in your calculations, but exactly mimics live play, which only calculated for EC's.
In terms of its effects on your profits/losses accounting, the zero is a much bigger problem for us American players. We have to contend with both the zero and the double zero and when one of them appears you lose everything that you put on the outside bets.
UK players are in better shape dealing with the above problem since they have only one zero to deal with. On top of that they have the "la partage" rule mitigating the effects of the appearance of the zero.
In mainland Europe, you also have single zero roulette and there in many casinos, you also have the "en prison" rule to soften the blow from the lone zero.
It should be noted that these two special rules apply only to even chance bets -- and not to dozen / column bets.
For this reason, I feel that even chance strategies are much more useful for UK/European players than they are for us American players.
If this method is profitable (which is debatable), then try applying it to baccarat where you only have Player and Banker and you won't have top worry about a 0 or a 00 as in roulette.
This may be clearer
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7969.0
Btw, i have not run any test on the explanation i put forth yet. I feel i had to put it on a lower priority because of low/lower expectations. But will report back here if/when it happens.
@all
Why stopped this thread
???
ludo8400