Gents one thing I don't understand. Why that HAR should work, or better to say reduce the variance as it is actually what does to you who are allegedly wining with it?

You are entering at random points of random distribution. Although obviously those "dives" onto random distribution are short and you are just shortly exposing different values of odds, betting to it (IMO of changing the systems all the time, as Macau says), you expect not to be affected by one of randoms "features" as that variance I mentioned is.

So somehow those sudden changing of different odds should avoid variance.. --that is what all of you are saying actually

So you face random vs random and do not expect to be influenced with all characteristics of random.. You actually eliminate characterstic which is most unpleasant to you as a bettor.

Mathematically that is not possible in the longterm, but you somehow still succeed..

Bayes simulated some time ago JL-s HAR style, randomly entering at distribution, and results were in the end the same as continuous betting I am afraid..

So you say hit and run. But how and why do you always somehow succeed more times first to hit and then run, so brazenly deceiving our beloved variance?

Best

Drazen

JL

You and all, sorry for any inconvenience. It won't happen.

Reposition yourself, use only best you have and know and finish what you have started. 

People in the arena expect unforgettable fight. For some tickets werent cheap at all as you know... I truly hope you won't dissapoint them.

If I can be of any kind of help you can ask me.

I truly regret for loss you encountered.. The better days must be ahead of you, I am sure!

When roulette brings you lemons sometimes it is not bad idea to make lemonade, right? 

Good luck and all the best in any challenges ahead

-----> 

Yeah John, whatever..

But when will you stop indoctrinate some people with BS and give real proof of anything you claim... In how many public challenges you have miserably failed by now? This or that.. You always find some stu*pd reason

Now you lost and seek new opportunity which will take by end of year at least... Nothing else but buying time for fool around longer..

You should learn more about the game factualy, and not relying or talking some woodoo stupidities somehow from "experience" or whatever

No single person has seen or can replicate your results, factualy provable anyhow, despite your efforts few times at different trials. C mon.. 

Quote from: Ralph on March 05, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Have anybody test this.  Jump in at a point then a lot of numbers have been choppy an EC without any series over 4, for a long time.
Test is then to see if we can get  long series of any of the EC. Say we go for 12 in a row. Starting a reversed martingale give us over 1000 trials before we lose the 1000 units. Any early success will gain good.

Yes some of us did.

You can do it two ways. To track any length serie as event opposing to it all chops, or track length serie by absence in number of spins.

I hope you know that outside EC-s have highest STD out of all bets  so cornering one such event and showing in some reasonable time after some point as you would like to, will require realy high (or low on other side, as you wish) probability to be sure... But as you are increasing probability for something, opposite to it you are face with decreasing number of chances...

Unfortunately all in all, doing this, won't be easy and smooth as it maybe can sound as an idea..

You will just have to find compromise with number of chances you can create, and probability you want to obtain in any case you decide for anything.

But you have bots.. you are programmer, if anyone can actualy explore this, then it should be you guys, right? 

Huh, making serie of 12 to show will be nice and realy interesting challenge dough.. 

Good hunt

Drazen

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 04, 2013, 11:04:23 PM
Mathematics, by it's own characteristics, is unaware of the three states of any given roulette session in a casino. I don't know anyone that can play a million spin session. Mathematics, probability statistics, nor even basic simple arithmetic can't tell anyone when the next favorable state will occur and how long it will last.

If you play a balanced game, then you can act to minimise the correction of playing through the bad states. Without that equalising having an effect, the math does not have the ability to end in a large number, amount.

Gizmo you are wrong

Roulette is directed by law of large numbers, true. Statistics we have are averages for large number of spins (thousands).

So as you are here, someone might protest that probability that way can't be much of indicative predictor for such short term... But can this be true? No.

If spins didn't obeyed to those stats in the short term (at least to some point), they couldnt accumulate in the longterm giving those  longterm stats... They always have "tendency" to arange in the way the should, and that is visible and actualy measurable. it would mean that in short term almost anything can happen. Like 50 reds in a row. Because random has its limits we know that isn't possible. As in the longterm, so in the short term also. Simple as that.

It is true, maybe far limits of random are quite hard to catch and exploit due to their probabiliy, but still relying  on statistics from some point is better then betting random...

Cheers

Drazen

Ok. We can agree that we disagree

Singles and series have same correlation as R vs B

And that hovering state is something inbetween like artificial pattern and can't represent right value as those 2 can by itself.

I don't understand that hovering thing. Nothing hovers there. You have chops or streaks in many segments. Proportional increasment or decreasment of STD in just one spin. Simple as that.

You know that after any point in STD you will still have 50:50 minus 2.7 longterm. So what can you "catch" actualy.. Correction term is fallacy actualy becasue RTM is not causable effect. Strong deviation doesn't causes next sequence must catch up losses  to get closer to the average in the shorter term.

All you know is that stronger deviation, stronger RTM is, and that gives you lower variance only. Nothing actualy "corrects" strictly in some time frame

Thanks

Yes lately I learned and tested good deal of proability theory that meets this game. It is very large subject by itself, but some things I tried to figure out

MarignyG. and Bayes helped me in some things there to understand. I owe them

About this states

I all attach one test on 10 000 spins for one EC

I ll try to save you counting so from the file attached, we get

623 Series of Singles
1232 Series of Series
638 Hovering State


Cheers


Drazen

Well yes, you can see whatever you want and use whatever you want.

The thing is that concept has mathematical flaw which lies in distribution and probability of those 3 events as you are taking/showing them.

Many times you have stated how you play EC-s on dozen probability and distribution. That could be so if all those 3 events have same probability and expectation as each of 3 dozens has independently. But in that concept they don't.

Factualy being said one of those "states" will appear more then other two. And yes, that is so. On dozens, each one appears same amount of times as other two. So you can't equalize such different things.

For example state of Serie of series will appear there twice as much as singles of series or so called hovering state. There is reason why that is so. If you make software and run simulation you will see for yourself.

Mathematicaly you equalized something what doesn't have same value.

I regard you as a man of strong factual things when trying to speak about something. But if you want to speak correct about that here, this above has to be said.

Your and actualy Marignys understanding and your some shown concepts with those 3 states has mathematical flaw. That is bottom line of a fact.

I can prove and show you this on real spins at any point of course, that number of those "states" won't be in same ratio as you claim it should, same for dozens for example..

You can use them or think about them whatever you want. Traditionaly or modern lol

And as I see your knowing, understanding and using seems fine to you although is not full correct. Though, fine with me.

Regards

Drazen

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on March 03, 2013, 03:54:12 PM
@Ralph -There is no std of 3 or 4 on those screenshots. but i get what you mean.

But there is.. over 3 Those are consecutive spins there..

Cheers

Quote from: Sputnik on March 03, 2013, 09:46:10 AM
If you use the law of series based upon Marigny - then two things happens.
When it stop growing it more times going into hovering state or a direct draw-down, then it fall back to back and start to grow

Some things are not actualy mathematicaly correct in his principles so you learned them wrong too. There actualy is no hovering state to say so. Every loss is increasment and every win is decreasment of standard deviation by proportional amount. There is no nothing in between.

Best

Drazen

Quote from: albalaha on February 26, 2013, 07:30:35 AM
It all depends

It all depends on the mood of the regression toward mean the way you are saying here.  If it is grumpy you have to make its day to get what you want 

Entertainig it in play just with MM-s will work to some point. When it stops being funny, then you have to put a wig on the head and clown nose to make it laugh (may look stupid, but it helps)  -- my experience

Cheers

It is not valid test

I gave bow to your altruism and optimism mr. Sam, but in this roulette and all gambling world in general that values a bit different

Best

Drazen

Quote from: Ralph on February 21, 2013, 01:00:25 PM

  Then it depends on how much valid information you can gather.

Excatly that. It isn't enough just to play any opposite bet thinking you will do better, becasue you loose many time on lower odds. It is gamblers fallacy. I have spoken with one professional sport betting player who plays this on betfair and without any doubt digging and searching some informations is DUE to be successful in the long run.

You must search and find reason why bookies maybe overestimated such bet.

I started for fun about two weeks ago playing only total odds max of no more then 3.0

Usualy 2-3 picks taken on internet from some experience "connosieurs" of sports betting. Nice that we have one here also.

I took bonus, just today wagered it, and all in all I am now at 3x my starting bankroll.

I don't win every time I bet of course, but MM handles the difference. It hasnt been actualy challenged with 1/5 of max strength..

Nice fun and one can earn like this I am sure.

Best

Drazen