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.

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: 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. 

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

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

Thanks Chef, i'll be checking this as time permits.  Let you know how it compares to my explanation of HIS method late tonight, Pacific time. 

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. 

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, 06:50:04 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. 

 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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, 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. 

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.