Money has now been re-credited with a bit of compensation.

Hope Gordon/SamNL are in the same boat?

Well done Drazen   I'm pleased for you mate 

Looking at your picks though, how are you choosing a game like Boreham Wood v Havant & Waterlooville??

I like & follow football a lot, but I'd find it hard to get much info on a game like that!

Are you using a tipping site(s)?

However you're doing it, long may it continue for you 

I'm afraid the softly softly approach doesn't get you anywhere other than ignored.

The 'honey' way simply does not work in this situation with this company. I've tried, & you will simply be ignored.
The only time you get anything in the way of information about what is happening is if you bombard the Management/Financial Team/Marketing/Support with angry emails.

I don't like doing it having been on the other end of it working in offices, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any other way to get a response or update... sad but true.

Quote from: Gordonline on March 05, 2014, 12:44:04 AM


I contacted them on Skype and was told that they had returned funds to their players.......

They haven't returned funds to me yet either.

I'm having the same problems.

Money is still missing from my account 36 hours later.
It appears to me they don't even read the enquiry properly but just shoot back a standard reply to a different problem.
So far their response has been useless.

After having Six's words rumbling round my head for a few weeks, I actually get the analogy!

Klw – I think you're making a similar mistake to the one I made. The straight win market is not the same as the AH0.

Dragoner explained the other day, with the AH market, there is no draw market included, & therefore different odds.

If you go to Betfair & actually bring up the Asian Handicaps market, Metz at AH0 is currently 1.63 as Drazen shows above.

Quote from: klw on February 07, 2014, 09:41:35 AM
Having trouble ( again ) getting decent odds on the Metz / Caen game later , best I can see is 1.375 so far,they have 1.72 on the web site. Anyone got any suggestions as to where to go for better odds than 1.375 ?

Much appreciated.

Cheers.

Hi klw, Dragoner is right, you can get 1.66-1.72ish odds most places (Betfair & Ladbrokes to name 2).


You must be looking at something else (I made the same mistake couple of days ago.)

cheers 

Ah right, I think I get you. So a PAOK win 1-0 would usually return stakes? But on PP won't?

Today they have PAOK-OFI, with the pick being PAOK at AH-1, odds 1.6, but you can currently get that bet at 2.0 on Paddy Power.


Not sure if there's a worrying reason for that if the odds have drifted from 1.6 to 2.0?

Quote from: Bayes on December 23, 2013, 10:37:46 AM

monaco, there are several statistical tests which are designed to compare variances. The most well known is the F-test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances


In that article there are links to some of the other tests which measure the same thing.

Cheers 

Quote from: Number Six on December 23, 2013, 12:46:14 AM

You cannot reach the EV without a bet. It's that simple. I suspect you are bored of me going on about it, I guess you will have to figure it out in your own time.

It's all I'm trying to do still - figure it out - can only say thanks again for your replies & posts in doing that..

Quote from: Bayes on December 21, 2013, 08:48:28 AM

it CAN help to reduce variance

This leads back to the first question from the beginning of the thread again - how do you measure that? Is there a figure in terms of smaller losing streaks, or narrower parameters between highest high & lowest low? If I'm searching for a lower variance bet, how can I be mathematically sure that I've got one? or is it subjective, you just feel it's lower variance because of experience & through many spins of play & practice?

Quote from: Number Six on December 21, 2013, 04:50:22 PMWhere there is no bet there is no probabilility of winning or losing, and there is no expected value....  All the maths applies only in relation to one's wagers and bankroll.

but there is still the probability of red or black (or whatever you're measuring) and whether you bet or not doesn't invalidate or affect the maths of that probability and its significance in relation to something like RTM.

Quote
The probability applies directly to your wager, does it not? As oppose to the probability of observing some event.

I would say 'as well as', rather than 'as opposed to'.

Quote
The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?


...


SD is measured against your wagers, not the events you observe, it can never be measured against anything else.

You can measure your wins v losses with an SD value, & you can measure the outcomes that the wheel is producing with an SD value. They are different values but both exist, both can be calculated, & either or both can be ignored if you so wish, but both are still there and a figure can be put on either of them at any time.

Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 09:34:29 AMThe only way I know how to do that RELIABLY (I've tried other approaches like following trends and switching from one bet selection to another, without any long-term success), is to "use" RTM. I wait for an extreme deviation (3 SD+) and then start betting when I see some indicators that the tide is turning, using a mild negative progression (it has to be negative, postive progressions don't work well at all).

RTM talks about the next event being more likely average, so why decide to take the side of, or wait for, the under-represented? Upon hitting that 3.0SD, why not bet for the side currently hitting? RTM says the next x spins will be more likely closer to the average, so why not bet the current 'hot' side (as a side must be chosen), and even if rtm began the moment you started betting, you're still likely to be in a period of 'average' which looks fine for your MM?
It seems that you are waiting for another extreme event to a lesser or greater degree (the under-represented catching up) to happen. As long as you got out when you see the indicators you are currently waiting for begin to happen, is that not at least as efficient?

Quote from: Drazen on December 22, 2013, 04:21:50 PMWell I would definitely like to see in which way you are betting amounts and how much, same what Rouletta asked, but  I have a feeling maybe you will keep that for yourself.Drazen

and I don't think we should put Bayes in that position of turning this into a 'Bayes show us exactly how to win' thread. This thread's not really about that, it's in the Maths & Statistics area, about variance, RTM & associated ideas, not really 'show us your exact MM'.

Quote from: Number Six on December 19, 2013, 06:58:39 PM

Yes, it is a normal behaviour of statistics, we know the outcomes will slide up and down from the mean all the time. I'm not so much saying RTM has to be defined, but rather, it has to be put into context so you can predict it more accurately in real time. Going back to the example of cycles of outomes constantly overlapping, by that logic, RTM has to be measured from constantly moving points in time.

A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.

Quote

Yes, but only if you have kept betting through everything, even negative variance. Only then do things like probability and standard deviation apply to your wagers. If there are no bets there is no expected value, and thus there can be no variance. You can't jump in and out of random outcomes and expect to ride the big upswings and avoid the downswings. The variance just stops when your wagers stop, and begins again when your wagers do. At that point, on the ECs, variance has a 1 in 2 chance of going either up or down.

I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?



Maybe come full circle with this now, but I think that question is better.

Quote
For example if you reached -2.0 SDs you might choose to stop betting, and begin again when the "virtual" SD is -3.0. The virtual SD is exactly that: an illusion. When you jump back in at -3.0 and expect it to regress, the real SD is still only -2.0.

Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing? If it was 50/50 that the SD would go either up or down at -3.0 then you wouldn't be dealing with random independent outcomes – there would be a bias somewhere.

This isn't to say it can't carry on increasing, it might, but it is less likely to (I wish there was another phrase I could use).
The actual difference between the reds/blacks or singles/series or whatever you're measuring at this point might not decrease but the SD is likely to - I think this is where the difference between Regression and the Law of Large Numbers needs to be made explicit. Law of Large Numbers is useless to us, but unfortunately gets thrown in with rtm.

Quote
"But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not"


No it doesn't. But we can agree to disagree.

I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement. How can a statistical phenomenon be affected by if I make a bet or not? It's completely indifferent to me & my gambling - nothing I do or any action I take can have the slightest effect on it. Ok, agree to disagree.

Quote
"I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average."

Are they?

Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..

Quote


unless is can be proved to make an actual difference

People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!

Big EZ - nice results. Hopefully others will be able to analyse them better than I could, but I can say they return a z-score of 2.28.
If your next 1000 placed bets return the same numbers, you'd be 3.22.
4000 placed bets & if you can keep the same win ratio, you're looking at 4.55. A score of 3 is rare, so...



I've added an 's' to the thread title from this point on, maybe I should add '& rtm questions' as well... these questions & points are all in the hope of better understanding so I appreciate the responses & hope no-one is banging their head against the screen. I know a lot of people have looked at regression to the mean before and come away believing it not to be usable or useful with regards to roulette, and that may well be true, but in all I've read I haven't really seen it talked about in its pure form – it always seems to be bundled up with the Law of Large Numbers or something like that. So please bear with me!

Quote from: Number Six on December 18, 2013, 04:29:17 PM
The thing is, we aren't dealing with facts. They are observations, which lead to some kind of prediction about future events. You can define regression to the mean in your own way, there is no wrong or right answer; but it involves proving the premise beyond all doubt, and in a way that makes it economical to play.

This second point is a problem I agree, but Regression to the mean is already proven beyond all doubt isn't it?  There aren't any question marks still hanging over it as a real phenomenon are there?

Quote
It's not like regression just does not exist. You may have some sucess defining the event after the fact, but what you can't define, though, is its behaviour in real time. It may seem to be happening at a certain point, but how do you know it will continue in that way?

I agree you can't know for certain it will continue in that way, but you are in position where you know it is more likely to continue in that way. I'm sorry if that sounds like splitting hairs, but I think if there is an advantage to something like rtm, it's going to be in some small details – it won't be something that hits you over the head like a hammer, but even a small advantage might be enough.

Quote
The variance is just as likely to get worse at any point as it is to get better.

Is this not one of the crux's of the matter here – the variance isn't as likely to continue getting worse, it's more likely (those words again) to get closer to the average. That's the heart of rtm.

Quote
For that reason you can't jump in at -3SDs and begin betting for regression from there. That's a fallacy. The house edge only applies to real money wagers. It's also impossible to bet through that degree of variance from the start. Even flat betting you would go bust in no time.

Which leads us back to a conclusion: regression to the mean is no different from a random selection. You seem to appreciate that; it is fallacious because it involves skipping spins and sitting out a portion of the game until "favourable" conditions appear. Once you step into the game the SD is 0 because you haven't even placed a bet yet. Most triggers are based on that same premise, and they are ineffective.

But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not. At whichever point you enter the game, rtm could be in action, just finishing or about to start, but you need to observe previous spins if you want to take advantage of it because you can only recognize it by looking at successive sets of spins..

Say I've been sitting at the wheel for a few hours, noting down the spins, and the previous 200 were 65 red & 135 black, & then you come & sit down at my spin 201. I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average – you wouldn't know that. Whether I've got the skill to make anything of that knowledge is another matter of course, & I won't know the outcome of any individual spin with any greater accuracy than you, but I have some knowledge of the next set of 200 spins that you don't.

If you decide to play after a strong deviation, then I think what you are trying to do is change the terrain in which you play to one in which extreme events, both positive and negative, are less likely – certainly no positive edge to make you get more right than wrong, & I would also guess that some kind of negative progression would be needed.

Quote

Everything has to be defined and proved, that is the first step in making connections between seemingly random outcomes; past observations and future events. The premise of why a bet is different from a random selection has to be real. For example let's say you play in cycles of 37 spins. The cycle has to be defined and proved to be real rather than an illusion.

But consider: every outcome you record begins a new cycle, ends a cycle and forms part of every cycle in between. Outcome 1 begins Cycle 1, Outcome 2 begins Cycle 2 and is the second outcome of Cycle 1, Outcome 3 begins Cycle 3 and is the second outcome of Cycle 2 and the third outcome of Cycle 1. This goes on for ever and ever, in a constant state of overlapping. For that reason, on the surface, a cycle can only ever consist of one spin: the next spin.

So if you define a cycle of spins, how do you know it's making a difference. How do you know you're in it? Once the illusory nature of the game is past, you can argue that noting you do is a fallacy.

Here are 2 things – outcomes & cycles – different descriptions that can be applied to the same game. So you can look at individual outcomes, and you can look at individual outcomes as sets of individual outcomes - light described as both a wave and particle type premise; so does looking at the cycles, or sets, have any less validity than the individual outcomes?


(I hope this isn't coming across as just word games or semantics, it really is an attempt to understand something and see if it has any advantage...)