Hello

I wonder does anyone has a clue how and where this phenomena can be seen/proven/found in this sort of betting?

Drazen

You mean like this?

Quote from: ADulay on November 12, 2014, 01:24:30 AM
Is that file in any particular "order" or format?

I'd like to at least take a look at it, for grins.

AD

You should try to open it with WordPad if you are using Windows.

Hope this helps

Drazen

Here you go. Worst of the worst. Famous horror sequences provided by mr. Bayes some time ago. 11 sets of 400 spins in total. You will find first 200 spins horror sequence and then next 200 spins , so you can try to play it out after that.

don't bother with trying to invent any mechanical bet selection in order to avoid things like this, because no matter which you choose if you play EC-s you will stumble onto one of those... [smiley]cps/suicide.gif[/smiley]

So is it possible to "invent" MM and progression which can eat this and not get diarrhea?  [smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley]

Cheers

Quote from: Slacker on September 05, 2014, 04:47:34 PM
I wish I knew what I was wrong about. What exactly are you saying here? that waiting for a rare event is superior to betting the opposite of the last X spins?

You were wrong when you said that series vs singles don't have same correlation like R vs B.

Waiting for a rare event can be superior in terms of lower variance after some point (not in terms of higher strike rate). And to capitalize that you need good entry and exit points and most of all, good money management and of course corresponding bank.

If you have lot of respect for Mr. Bayes, how come you don't know that he actually made few brilliant pieces of software with which you can test all I stated above. Also he gave excellent tracker, and described his play and mentioned too that series and singles can be same as R v B when observed correct? His newest unpublished tracker actually tracks different length series as bet selections with deviations... And he is very successful player as we know.

I am very sad that he isn't here, things just got spicy when the only forum I know he was active on, closed... I really miss him and some other guys there too.

Cheers

Quote from: Slacker on September 05, 2014, 07:37:05 AM
Hi Drazen,
RRRRRRRRRR has the same chance of hitting as RBRBRBRBRB when viewed as an ordered sequence, but the latter does not have a z-score of 3.0, because the z-score refers to the number of B vs R.

Well, still you are wrong and I am right  [smiley]aes/tongue.png[/smiley] what else I can say except explanation I already gave. Series and singles have same correlation like R vs B and that is provable my friend. Famous Marigny de Grilleau has done lot of research on this subject in the past, and respected roulette boards members like Ego, Bayes, Alberto Jonas, and myself studied this for a countless hours too...

There is no "uniform" distribution in this game. This game is all about statistics so only binomial distribution exists in this case.

ONLY point of waiting for the rare events is that they usually don't happen in successive samples, and that is all what regression toward mean says! Waiting for 10, 20 or 30 EC-s in a row doesn't mean that after one point, the reverse must happen to "catch up" that deviation in the short run. It only says that after strong deviation it is less likely that same deviation will repeat immediately again, and that is what we can use to profit with some mild progression and carefull money management.

Waiting for a strong deviation doesn't gives us advantage in terms of higher hit rate then expected, but it certainly lowers down deviations and we can be "safer" to use progression which can't go beyond some point and profit from it. But entry and exit points are crucial too!

Best

Drazen

Quote from: Slacker on September 04, 2014, 06:09:37 PM
The problem with this approach is that you come up against the ever-receding horizon of probability. For example, suppose I reason like this: if there were 30 reds in a row, I might justifiably think that it would worth betting on black for the next X spins, due to regression to the mean. But since I don't want to hang around for years waiting for 30 reds in a row, and I know that any bet selection is as good as any other, in terms of the distribution of wins and losses, then would it not be reasonable to just look at the last 30 outcomes and bet the opposite?

After all, if my bet selection was the opposite of what the last 30 happened to be, and I was just betting this sequence over and over, then the last 30 outcomes would represent a loss of 30 bets in a row. Wow! that means I'm bound to get a lot of winners (due to regression to the mean) if I bet the opposite, and no waiting required!

You are wrong here. The error is in your understanding I am afraid. I see you have some statistical knowledge how to calcualte probability, but it is obvious that you don't understand probability of sequences in full.

Having 30 R-s in a row and betting the opposite of the last 30 EC outcomes can't be the same thing. Why?

EC sequnce has actually much more dimensions to it. As we know by the law of probability each length serie is twice less likely as the one before and that must correspond in the long run. So serie of 2 is twice less likely as a single, serie of 3 is twice less likely as serie of 2 and so on... So sequnce isn't made just of R/B but also out of their distribution too. So in other words we can take singles and series as independent bet too and still it will correspond to the same probabilties as just colours... But it is important to observe it correct, so to understand how sequnce is grouped and of course not all sequnces have same statistical value. This is where your error comes from and that way you see using any length series is pointless...

For example we have sequence:

RRRRRRRRRR

If I asked you what is the statistical value of this sequence you would say it is a z-score of 3.0 on a single 0 wheel. 

So now I tell you that we can have same length sequence value but we must use both colours. Possible?

RBRBRBRBRB

Both examples above have same value and it will show equal amount of times in the long run. Be in no doubt! [smiley]afb/secret.gif[/smiley]

You also mentioned regression toward mean. Interesting phenomenon in statistics which if used and understood right can give you what we all search(ed) for... [smiley]afb/pray.gif[/smiley]

Cheers

Quote from: Leapyfrog on August 13, 2014, 11:01:46 AM

This is value and if someone is not doing this then it is a betting crime.

This is certainly not a VALUE. In sports betting "value" on a match means something different, and for sure doesn't have anyting with accumulation.

Betting crime for me is not understanding how accumulating odds is lowering your chances to win...

But just accumulate odds to win more! That way we so called "professionals" can make enough sweaters for coming winter out of such sheeps...

But no doubt you ll have fun 

Drazen

Leeds-Bolton: 1-5

Austria V. - Grodig: 2-0

If you were lucky enough to buy the ticket(s) on time here, I hope you enjoyed the show(s).

Best of luck to all

Drazen

Anyone followed Bolton? Just maybe?

I don't have intention to post my bets here anymore but one more example as one more of the scenarios I am observing.

Austria Viena - Grodig

Austra didn't cleared their last 5 handicaps which signals bad form. They are playing against Grodig, team one place above them on the table.

Bookie set +0.75 on Grodig

Hm.. Does it seem fair to play on away team especialy when home team is in such bad form and even if they lose by one goal you won't lose your full stake?

I think it is time for Austria to clear this line. Well maybe not as Bolton did their today, but still...

Cheers

I don't know where did you found such generous odds for Walsall. As I see it now odds for Walsall +1 are 1.38

I won't play this match although forms are quite opposite as you noticed.

But take a look at this. Leeds plays against Bolton at home.  They have quite good form and they are better positioned then Bolton, but handicap on them is -0.25. It is very generous, you only lose half if it draws. Many will take this option but I will bet against them.

Lets see how this pans out.

Cheers

Hello mon ami

No. Not single pick is taken from some other tipster out there. All picks are taken just by my analyze and my decision. I was taking others tipsters picks before, but I found the way how to be even better from good most of them  And now I am confident with the way I analyze and take my picks.

I think that what I will tell you is a bit different from everything you have heard about good sports picking, but in the end I am sure you will agree it is nothing but perfect so beloved common sense 

As in any gambling activity 9 out of 10 people who bet will lose. That is also why all the bookmakers can make good money and survive in the business for so long. As long as we can think and analyze differently from the public, we are good to go.

As for my tips picking, I try to think from the viewpoint of the bookie. I am more concentrated in structure of odds then in collecting some informations about the teams  who are playing

I always go "against the flow" and against public bets. I am not saying that the bookmaker knows who will win, or the games are fixed, but be in no doubt that bookmaker has their own analytical system, and I believe they very often actually give greater chance for underrepresented odd . So I think they structure their odds to entice punters to bet on what they think is wrong. We have to be wary.

So in general I like to bet against good form and bet on bad form but not any time I see good or bad form, it depends how odds are set... I like to use asian handicap as a comparison, because if for example Hull loses to Tottenham by only one goal, when the line expects them to lose by two, for me that is still a "good" performance. I observe, track and note asian lines with a bit of looking at the table position.

As for what i mentioned earlier, I am sorry if I was not too clear, I cannot calculate the exact asian handicap that I think the match should be. I just do an estimation, from recent form and table position, who I feel the favourite should be. And if the odds offered by bookmaker is too good to be true, often it IS too good to be true.

Of course I am not always right, no method is foolproof, but I think the strike rate is quite high.

To be profitable, we must not think like regular gamblers!

But we also need proper MM to survive bad spells. Having said that , I hope I can continue to make money this weekend 

Hope this helps

Drazen

[attach=1][attach=2]Hello

I can humbly say that you officially got one more professional bettor here 

I can say that I found pretty nice edge in sports betting.

I ll show you some of my stats in the attach. Those stats are recorded on one Croatian web site which is made just for sports betting and I am using it to record my picks. I didn't found better software for this purpose.

I know you don't understand much words, but I think the ones in the right box under "STATISTIKA" (means: stats) which are actually telling you all are self explanatory.

These stats are since I started to play for real money, but I was playing virtually before, for practice of course. So I actually played much more then that number of picks you see there.

So as you see after 107 played picks (which is for sports betting decent sample) my yield is 24.17% which I think it would bring fight for gold on Olympic games in sports betting. LoL With such healthy yield you can reasonably assume that I don't have long losing streaks and no big DD-s. You can prove that to yourself by looking at graph which is also in the attach.

All recorded picks here are shown as staked 10/10 meaning played flat bet although in practice I am using labby as a progression to boost my profits.  I have more then doubled my starting bank by now without almost any stress at all.

I am playing only main asian handicaps on asian bookies (and one English bookmaker) which in the end results with 1.96 as average played odd and average odd I am winning is 1.97. End of stats.

I didn't abandoned playing roulette, I still play it (successfully) as my 2nd hobby with lower stakes, but knowing that out there exist places where you can gamble successfully without fear of being banned, can change your priorities and wishes... Although if you ask me now, I would tell you that I still love roulette more then sports betting, but when it is time to speak about ways of "safer" and "easier" making money, it is obviously what should come at first place. (No hard feelings devils game..  )


Drazen

As I said, taking the trigger at -3SD (or even more) and playing it so mechanically until getting in plus is not the way to go. Eh if things would be so simple...

Cheers

Hi RyaWolf

Yes I recovered that time and pulled out that session, couple of hours later    And that happened because I was stubbornly chasing one trigger along the alley 

Standard deviation is square root function and because of that decrease is going much faster then increase.

I don't have stop loss in terms of units, but in terms of playing one particular trigger. If things don't go in your favour, stop and continue when another opportunity arises. It is less likely that things will go so wrong in successive samples.

From my experience it is better to switch triggers more often then chasing one trigger even if STD when you start on it is huge, like -4.0 std or above. As we know deviation doesn't have to balance soon and it isn't guaranteed that after a bit of "retrace" can't go unpleasant against you again.

Just remember, no pain, no gain

Hope this helps

Drazen