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.

Hmm, that's a way of looking at it.

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

Quote from: monaco on December 02, 2012, 08:51:27 PM
I'd also be ready for singles to start appearing.

You almost have it. 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. When it does it only pays off for sure on the first single. Had you started betting for the next single after an absence of singles in the first nine chances for it then you would have lost 12 in a row. The answer to this sequence is a total perfect absence of singles. So if you bet for it to continue you get 12 wins in a row. 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.

You need a good example of the global effect. I mean it needs to be a strong trend. If you write a program that hunts the absence of singles in even chance bets then you can have the program spit out how often longer intervals occur. I need to see about seven to nine occurrences in order to see it. It only takes an opening win to go on one of these wild rides. Anything after that is gravy.

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,

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.

Quote from: monaco on December 03, 2012, 12:23:31 AM
By attacking the absence of singles do you mean playing the 2nd line (RR or BB)

Yes

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

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

Very good. You are seeing things clearly. But its not the big deal thing.

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,

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?

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 03, 2012, 12:44:19 AM
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,

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?

A load of numbers..? I've got just one question for you, after reading the whole of your thread, could you just clarify what BS stands for, BetSelection or Bull***t?

Global Effect, oh come on..! You are simply and unequivocally guessing, nothing more, nothing less, smoke and mirrors comes to mind.

Quote from: topcat888 on December 03, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
A load of numbers..? I've got just one question for you, after reading the whole of your thread, could you just clarify what BS stands for, BetSelection or nonsense..?

Global Effect, oh come on..! You are simply and unequivocally guessing, nothing more, nothing less, smoke and mirrors comes to mind.

It's no guess that you consider your opinion as more informed than mine. I couldn't be happier that some people have a need to be seen as superior. A snarky remark, a almost indifference pose, you act like I ripped you off. Please keep searching for that elusive progression that will make you a success. Of course it's a guess. Did you think I was going to teach you a magic trick. Nobody knows or is able to predict the future.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 28, 2012, 07:38:25 PM
That first picture of spins, 3,0,12,8,6,12,16,20,3,12,5,27,30,3,33,19,28, there's an 11 spin sleeper in the 1'st column. There's a 9 spin sleeper in the high dozen. There's an incredibly awesome dominance of the top column. It even includes a seven in a row. You can kill that with a side bet on a let-it-ride. An in depth betting method makes for interesting reading. It's all about knowing when to attack with different techniques that best fit the conditions you see.

what? By betting for the single dozen to keep going or bet against it keeping going (i.e. bet 2nd and 3rd columns)?

I've enjoyed reading this thread but surely in that last example with the 3 number series of numbers with the 1 always at the third number...Surely the odds of that continuing are slim, I'd bet against it myself.

IMO you can't tell if something is correcting...as the example in page 1, the original poster said that "red went on another streak when black tried to correct" or words to that effect. It looks easier to follow after the numbers have already been spun.
http://betselection.cc/meta-selection/the-simple-explanation-attacking-trends/?action=dlattach;attach=566;image
Again the Is there really a way to see if Black was to become dominant? How can you say that red won't go again on another long run....that image could just be part of an even BIGGER picture in terms of numbers spun...and red being dominant yet again might be the result of correcting a huge black dominance in 1000 spins? You just don't know...still interesting to read though. I like the chat, even if I'm a bit dubious about being able to use it

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: subby on December 03, 2012, 09:41:43 AM
what? By betting for the single dozen to keep going or bet against it keeping going (i.e. bet 2nd and 3rd columns)?

By betting for it to continue. The bet is explained further down. You use a multi faceted positive progression that uses let-it-ride with each facet being pulled at different steps of success. So in this example of seven in a row, you begin the attack after seeing the first three in a row. It would be stupid to begin an attack after seven in a row. The horse had already left the barn.