I take this opportunity to ask Bayes and Gizmo too, as to what do they say about Fundamental Formula of Gambling written by Ion Saliu?
For reference : http://saliu.com/Saliu2.htm
                It is an interesting debate for someone who understands maths, statistics and probability all.

I'm not impressed much. I've known for years that anyone can imagine & publish very creative devices (manipulations) of their imaginations, process for describing conditions. They can also go on to define their meaning and context, in a sense, a figure formation. I do this all the time. I tell people that the continuous flow of spins from a Roulette table causes trends and patterns to eventually form. Most of the mathBoyz disagreeing insist that none of this can exist. I completely agree with that notion too.

My patterns & trends are the creation of my imagination. They don't actually exist from a process ordered from randomness. In fact they are pure coincidence, formed from a process of observation. Exist or not they all have a common trait. They all occur within a context of having a duration. I use the occurrence of continuation to establish the actual state of effectiveness based on a very simple aspect from my imagination. Now I can do this easily .

Who is to say that another person can see figure formations in derivatives of equations and formula as per the use of their imaginations? For me it would be a level of concentration that would inevitably fatigue me in only a few minutes. It must be an acquired skill I guess. In fact it might be an impractical skill at best. I choose to ignore it. My skill is formed of simplicity, visual dexterity, and the conscious reality of actual occurring results. It must be the product of a simpler mind.

Does that help?

So there is nothing like degree of certainty, as he says?

Quote from: albalaha on December 24, 2012, 06:24:47 PM
So there is nothing like degree of certainty, as he says?

Only in wishful thinking.

The guy appears to be an outright plagiarist. I think his only interest is in selling his books.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 24, 2012, 05:34:51 PM
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/FundamentalFormulaOfGamblingIonSaliuPlagiarism.aspx

FUNDAMENTAL FORMULA OF GAMBLING AND PARADOX OR PROBLEM OF N TRIALS IS PLAGIARISM BY ION SALIU by Colin Fairbrother

I wish to hear from Bayes too.

QuotePresenting the most astonishing formula in gambling mathematics, widely known now as FFG.

Whatever else Ion Saliu is, you can't deny his talent for self-promotion. 

Esoito posted a link to someone who refuted his claims about the FFG, but I don't remember where the thread is.
There's nothing wrong with the mathematics, the formula is correct, but it isn't the earth-shattering revelation for gamblers that Saliu believes it to be. The guy is so egotistical he's almost a caricature; does he really believe his own drivel?

The fact is, the "FFG" is just a simple rearrangement of an equation, there is no great insight here. In simple terms, it would be like taking Newton's law F= ma (force = mass × acceleration) and rearranging it to make a the subject (a = F/m), then claiming that this is some momentous breakthrough in Mechanics.

There is some interesting stuff on the site, and the math seems to be correct, it's his interpretation which is suspect, to say the least.

If we say play an EC with three step marty (1-2-4) after LLLL, will we get any edge? I have tested this and found it makes an interesting race with wins and losses but in no way, gives an edge for long term. What do u say Bayes?