Quote from: moglizu on March 09, 2017, 09:00:38 AM
Well here is a SIMPLE system for you guys.
The system is so simple that you will blow your mind.

Start tracking the Dozens and Columns and R/B and O/E.
Start FLAT betting the selections that have the most hits.
we are ALWAYS betting only 1 doz and 1 col ...Never 2 of them.
In some spins some of the selection will be equal so do not bet these selections in this particular spin...

In 20 spins STOP.
Gather your winnings (of little loses) and start a NEW 20 spins session.

The reason why this wins.

In the short run(20 spins) the imbalances are almost always there.(Law of the third etc)
So by trapping them fast(short run) you make money.
In my testings the 20 spins cycles produced more wins than the 30 spins cycle.

The winning session average is about +10.
The losing sessions average is about -5.
The winning sessions are more than the losing ones.

Our goal is to make steady money overall.

30 chips  is the BR.

Thanks for posting a simple system, Moglizu. (although the LINEARITY stuff is also simple when you know...)     

This reminds me of a similar sort of bet.

You're name isn't by any chance Charles - is it?   

A.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on March 08, 2017, 04:28:47 PM
plolp,

looking at your sheet

2   Black
34 Red
17 Black
35 Black
28 Black

event
1 2 3 4
R R C R


but you have it as

event
1 2 3 4
R C R C


Why?

Hi MoneyT101,

Yes plolp: Remember Moglizu said to compare the 5th number with the previous 4 in order to get the (R)uns and (Changes) for each of the 4 events. 

A.

Quote
My upcoming test is just a test of what you have called a "whole system".

Looking forward to your test and the results!

A.

Yes - but can the turbo-encabulator  make fresh coffee 

A.

still wrote:

Quote
What kills this bet is, like any such bet, a continuation/trending of deviation away from the mean. 

I don't know IF it works, but THAT is HOW it works. 

Neither do I - but i sure is interesting trying to find out.

And about mogli's method: I am sworn to silence   

Regards,
A.

Quote from: Still on March 07, 2017, 02:59:44 AM
Ok,  I've had time to digest this and ponder a little bit, and i now believe i have a grasp on what exactly has been proposed.   Have not set it up in Excel yet to test anything, but am confident i have the idea. 

First of all, let's back away from the trees to see the forest. 

First a concept:

1.) LWWLWLWWLLWLLL

2.) RBBRRBBBRRBRRB

We all know what these are. 
We call #1 a win-loss registry. 
We call #2 a permanence of color. 

In either case, we can put these STREAMS into an Excel sheet, graph them, and produce a chart.   The chart will go up and down and theoretically cross the zero line now and then.   When it crosses the zero line, we call it "balanced" because there are equal number of reds on upside and blacks on the downside. Same with wins/losses. But given a random world, the streams will eventually stray away from zero, and we call this "deviation". 

Given four streams, we can have several combinations of deviation.   Take colors for example.  One might be balanced with equal number of reds and blacks, two might be deviating into the black zone, and one might be deviating into the red zone.  Could be several configurations, with four going red at one extreme, or all four going black at the other extreme. 

Now, we all know what "reversion to the mean" or "mean reversion" means, right? It's the idea that these streams can't stray too far from some average "mean", and you expect them to return, sometime down the road, to a more equal "balance" between reds and blacks, wins and losses, ect.   For example, some people have worked on the idea that if the "standard deviation" reaches a number like 3 away from the mean, then it's time to bet that it will now start to return to the mean, after some indicator.   

Moglizu's idea is a variation of the above scenario.   However, he seems to have brought one or two novel ideas to the table, worth consideration. 

Instead of streams built of wins and losses, or reds and blacks, he proposes to build streams of "runs" and "changes".   I think we all know what that means.   Two reds is a "run".  A black followed by a red is a "change".   And like any of these kinds of streams, you could bet that a deviation will "revert to the mean", if you were that foolish.   But the way Moglizu bets on reversion to the mean does seems to be an original idea. 

Take these four streams:

1.) CCRCRRRCCRCRR  +1 deviating into the "R" (run) zone.
2.) RRCRCCRRCRCCC  +1 deviating into the "C" (change) zone
3.) CCCRCRRCCCRRC  +3 deviating into the "C" zone.
4.) RRCCRRRCCRRCR  +3 deviating into the "R" zone.

Now, if you were to bet on all four of these to "revert to the mean", then:

1.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +1).
2.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +1).
3.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +3).
4.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +3).

In the situation above, we are disregarding how much the deviations are, and simply betting on a reversion to the mean.  If we bet one unit on each stream, it's obvious to see that our bets could cancel each other out.  But we don't know that yet until we see what colors (or other EC) we are supposed to be betting, for our bet to represent either a run or a change.  By examining the color bets that produced this run/change stream, we might find the following:

1.) To bet on change, we need to bet on RED.
2.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on BLACK.
3.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on RED.
4.) To bet on change we need to bet on RED. 

In this case, we can see that two of our bets will cancel out, leaving us with a predominantly RED bet over all.   How much to bet on RED depends, and Moglizu has his own formula.  Moglizu proposes to disregard any deviations less than 2 points. So, we would disregard #1 and #2 above, leaving us still with a predominantly RED bet, by a factor of 2.   But as you can see, it's possible to have a situation where your bets would cancel each other out, leaving you with NO BETS at all.  Moglizu says this happens about 50% of the time. 

Another  detail about his betting formula; when Moglizu says bet on HOW MANY of the deviations, not HOW MUCH, he means...well, let's take the above example of four streams again.   You can see that the two "qualifying" streams (streams deviating by 2 points or more) give us a total of 3+3=6 points.  This is HOW MUCH.  But Moglizu says he does not bet on HOW MUCH.  Instead, he bets on HOW MANY, which would be, at most TWO (in the above example), because he is betting on TWO streams that are deviating more than 2 points each.   So, two chips of RED.   

That's one way to do it.  You could also bet just one chip on the dominant color, no matter how many 'qualified' streams were deviating by two or more points.  A spreadsheet test could tell what is best, but from what we can gather, Moglizu will bet as many as four chips on a color, if indeed there were four streams deviating all in the same direction.   

One more detail.  In the above example, the 'LOOK BACK' period over all four streams is thirteen (13).   This is a detail Moglizu has failed to clarify.  Since Moglizu says he leaves the casino after a gain of 5 units, it implies that his LOOK BACK period starts at the earliest whenever at least one qualified stream starts to deviate by at least 2 points.  The earliest that could be is after 6 spins.  Then, he just lets his look back period "grow" and "grow"...until he reaches FIVE UNITS profit, leaves the casino, and/or starts over.   In this scenario, there would be no fixed and/or no 'rolling' look back period.  It would always look back to the beginning of a session ending in 5 units. 

Now, if these four streams had come from four independent wheels, we would likely have a losing proposition, given everything we know about betting on reversion to the mean.   But Moglizu has come up with a way to relate these four streams to ONE WHEEL, and ONE (the last) SPIN.   Again, this is the novelty of the idea, making it worth consideration.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen. 

Only now do we need to talk about how these four streams are related, and i think this issue has been resolved and understood, given Badger's latest spreadsheet example.   

The idea is to come up with at least four streams using some unconventional counting methods, relating  four spins from the recent past, to the latest (5th) spin. You could come up with more, but Moglizu has settled upon four. 

The idea is that, when these four streams are related in this way, a bet on predominantly RED, or predominantly BLACK has MORE WEIGHT than betting on any one stream, or any number of unrelated, independent streams.   

Notice, I've been able to explain the whole concept without ever using the term "linearity" even once.   The choice of this stupid term is really where Moglizu screwed it up, and dropped the ball.  This unintelligent term does not help one bit to understand this concept.   I could not find a more confusing term if i tried. 

What should we call it when we bet FOR THE REVERSION TO THE MEAN on the AGGREGATE OF SEVERAL RELATED STREAMS?

Anything but #$@ "linearity"!!

I wouldn't even call it 'singularity'. 

I might call it 'gang' or 'bank' betting. 

That's basically it. 

Everybody should know how to develop four related streams, pegging each of the past four colors (or any EC) to the latest color, and marking down whether it represents a 'change' of colors, or a 'run' of colors.  This has been covered, and no one needs to ask any more questions about it. 

Back up from the trees to see the forest. 

This is a bet on reversion to the mean on an aggregate of multiple related streams of information made up of "changes" versus "runs"...in the hopes that the weight of the aggregate will help predict the next color (or EC)...if and when reversion to the mean does prevail.  Screw 'linearity'.  What kills this bet is, like any such bet, a continuation/trending of deviation away from the mean. 

I don't know IF it works, but THAT is HOW it works. 

Very interesting, Still.
Great post. Enjoyed it.
Thanks,
A.

Just posting to let you know I am NOT "Chef" as one member thought.

What a hoot though!

A.

Quote from: 3Nine on March 06, 2017, 06:39:20 AM
That's what she said?

   

Quote from: rouletteromania on March 05, 2017, 11:11:40 AM
EVENT 1
=============
R(uns)   C(hanges)
  x          x
  x
 

Correct?.. Atlantis

Hi rouletteromania,

I'm afraid that's not right, rouletteromania.  Keep trying to fathom it - but there is nothing to fathom because the ANSWER has already been given in the VERY FIRST POSTS of this topic by moglizu himself! 

To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.

He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...

For example:    R-R-R-B-B (last decision)

     EVENT 1
=============
R(uns)   C(hanges)
  x

Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me -  yes?

From the data you have can you now show the FULL chart and fill out the other three events then? 

Nope or  Yep

A.

I do not think I will/can continue until SOMEONE will step up and finally post what should be the correct charting to my question put earlier.
In fact, I cannot for the life of me really believe that it is taking S-O-O-O long for anyone to post the correct and ONLY possible answer...!
Honestly - if you cannot understand this preliminary tracking you will never in a million years get the rest of it!!!
A.

No. That is is not right Djbac.
Anyone else care to try?

What!*?*!
You must be overthinking it - It's not a trick question or anything.
A.

moglizu wrote:

Quote
I have already explained everything multiple times in detail.
I can t bother anymore.
If the members that understood it want to help you then let them be my guest.

I have tried a couple of times to help ppl to get started.

I will try one more time

You must proceed one step at a time in order to understand.

So here goes:

To begin to fill in the 4 events with Runs or Changes you first of all require the last 5 roulette EC decisions in R/B format.

He says (and this is important) to ALWAYS use the LAST decision and compare it with the preceding decisions...

For example:    R-R-R-B-B (last decision)

     EVENT 1
=============
R(uns)   C(hanges)
  x

Event 1 is marked with an "x" as a RUN. Can you see why? So far you are with me -  yes?

Can you now complete the chart and fill out the other three events then?

Can ANYBODY reading this post the chart as it should look after that has been done???

A.

Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 08:09:47 PM
Thanks Atlantis. Thought it could not be so easy.
Have I worked out the 4 events correctly in my spread sheet??

Tracking and events appeared to be right to me (leaving aside the 0 for now)   

A.

Quote from: Badger on March 04, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
Rewster

Its easier to understand if you write the events from left to right

RBRBB as RCRC

I this case you have 2Runs and 2Changes = 0 so do not bet.

Hi Badger,
I prefer to record the events on paper visually like moglizu.
Unfortunately you are in error regarding the bet criteria. It's not how it's done at all. Not quite as simple as that.
I can only point you to read his posts again about that side of things.......

A.