This is v nice  - thank you 

Thank you Malcop    Your time & effort is much appreciated.


I'm going to test some numbers with it, & hopefully some options for progressions will come up.


cheers again

One thing I notice that has been pointed out before, is that when R/B chops, one of other EC's tends to streak.

Are you looking at black & red combined, or individually? or both perhaps?
As I play a lot of baccarat, I need to generate more streams of ec data, so tend to do them individually & combined.


In your example, they go series, then a short burst of singles, then back to series. I guess you lose a couple of bets when it changes, so then it would depend on when you jump on the trend?

 

can't add much to what Bally has said already, but no single Highs & no unhit double-street for what its worth.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 03, 2012, 12:39:33 AM

"9 formations in a row is SD3?" So what's 21 absence of singles in a row?

21 series in a row is about 4.58SD.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 03, 2012, 12:44:19 AM2,3,1,1,2,1,3,2,1,3,3,1,2,2,1,0,2,1,3,1,1,2,2,1,3,3,1,3,2,1,2,3,1,2,0,1,3,2,

2,3,1, 1,2,1, 3,2,1, 3,3,1, 2,2,1, 0,2,1, 3,1,1, 2,2,1, 3,3,1, 3,2,1, 2,3,1, 2,0,1, 3,2,

Now what do you see?

Lack of a dominant dozen, but as Subby says - 1 appearing at the end of every triple.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 03, 2012, 10:51:05 AM
From my own experience it is less volatile to watch formations and speculate on the principles of distribution of series than on individual outcomes.


Cheers

This does seem to be true as well, but I just can't see why it should be
Surely any mathematical law of distribution or 'regression to the mean' governing singles/series should hold true for R/B, yet R/B does seem more volatile.
Maybe it's to do with the larger sample size involved in series? & a flattening-out like a stretched piece of plasticine - stretch it out & it becomes flatter, though it contains the same mass as a round-up ball of R/B!

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 03, 2012, 12:43:46 AM
So the above are verifiable simulations with Random.org outcomes. I know the system is very very simple, and it amazes me that it produces this actual results. But it does, so far...


Maybe the above should be moved to Method's results Section of the forum. Sorry for that, please Victor if you may...

hi MarignyGrilleau, & thanks for taking the time to test    I'm not sure how it will hold up flatbetting though.
I'm pleased to see those results, though it was more conceived to take advantage of imbalances... but if it works, or is at least balanced.... 

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 02, 2012, 09:04:07 PM
Ask yourself if you think that waiting for a correction is going to be worth much to you. It won't happen until it happens.

I suppose it will be worth it if the unit size is big enough to make it worth the wait - & for a big unit size you need either a big bankroll or a method with low drawdowns.

Quote
That's if you know how to play a sequence attacking the absence of singles. I'm sure there are those that don't understand the bet selections.

By attacking the absence of singles do you mean playing the 2nd line (RR or BB)?

Quote
-Why after nine formations? Or was it just for the sake of the example?

9 formations in a row is SD3?

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 02, 2012, 11:18:34 PM
Let's see who gets the over all strength of this example:

2,3,1,1,2,1,3,2,1,3,3,1,2,2,1,0,2,1,3,1,1,2,2,1,3,3,1,3,2,1,2,3,1,2,0,1,3,2,

Absence of triples & no real trend holding in single or double dozens. Choppy.

I'd also be ready for singles to start appearing.

If I'd been playing it under kind of trending rules, I would be betting Follow the Last on all the '+' after the 3rd series of '+', & betting for the 2nd '^' after the 1st two series of '^'.


From about half way, I would just be Follow the Last on both. Probably until 2 losses in a row on each.

Think this is what you're looking for -


http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=933.0

Quote from: Robeenhuut on November 30, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
He posted it before that he went 70/0 on a last step.  But even 74/1 does not happen. Odds of 1000+ winning run with FIVE overall are peanuts compared with what happened on a last step. Try to go 4th step in 1,3,9,27 and win 70 in a row. 

I don't think that's what he means by 70/0 on the last step either. It's not 'in a row'.
In amongst those 70 wins on Step 4, there will be wins on other steps.


I think JL is saying that when he has been forced to go to Step 4, he's won 70 in a row of them.

hi Esoito,

there's been so many new topics posted recently I never caught this one.


I do wonder sometimes if most people, when they sit down to play, if they already know which system they are going to be playing from the start?
Maybe it's one they are testing, or one that has been bringing success recently, but they know it's the one they are going to be playing today no matter what..

& then what percentage sit down & do not know which system they will be playing? Maybe decide which one after they have started, & will switch when deemed necessary? Which I guess is what you are alluding to here..


Personally I like the imbalanced bets on the EC's, waiting for imbalance & then trying to profit in any slow down or swing the other way. There's many ways to do it.

I like a complimentary bet that when losing, leads me to that situation. For example, if I have a bet based on betting against streaks & it starts losing, I know its because Follow The Last has started hitting above normal, & probably the 3rd hole & more (RRR or BBB) has started filling. If I watch it for a while longer & it does continue, I know that a 'Marigny-type' bet will be triggered.


On inside betting about 1-4 numbers, I've thought you could easily track say Victor's Zone Maximum which flatbets from spin 38-55 & Ken's Catch the 8 Train which also flatbets.

Quote from: Superman on November 29, 2012, 09:09:08 PM

Probabll because in our mind he's the enemy so if we can side with him, surely the casino relies on him eventually coming out ahead, not so?

or it could be this -


House edge excluding ties:
1.36% on Player and 1.17% on Banker