Quote from: XXVV on February 19, 2014, 06:46:30 PM
I suspect Bayes is in no position yet to make any judgment as the source of data is essential to be verified and from what I am observing depending on source wildly conflicting responses.

Yeah it seemed to me too that results are somehow conflicting from few different testers and your personal results.

Well Bayes, what is your final conclusion on this?

I mean, does this bet differs than any other with playing 3 numbers?

Apparently it has no mathematical edge, but can we say at least variance is lower?

Cheers

Hm.. Bayes I am sure there are some members who can find this too complicated and problematic to do.

I believe your simple verdict can explain better then someone trying to find on their own like this...

Drazen

Then this I think might be out of help for you.

All asian handicap stuff as you say, explained

http://www.valuepunter.com/asianhandicap-table.htm

Best of luck

Quote from: klw on February 07, 2014, 11:21:33 AM
These are Metz to win AH0 , so if I'm not looking at the right displayed odds am I just unlucky that the 2 accounts I've opened are not particularly generous /

Yeah, you must be resented to those bookies somehow... 

Drazen

 

This sounds very  fishy at the first.

You didn't mentioned possibility of losing at all  so some money back guarantee in case of "magical" lost is possible I presume? 

I must say that if someone gives money to a person who says it can ennoble it on roulette without any actual proof (few winning sessions doesn't prove anything) and without above conditioned in contract, is total ..... for me.


Drazen

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2013, 05:21:09 PM

The average in 10 spins is ALWAYS the same, no matter what has gone before (independent trials, remember?)


The point is that if you go into a game "cold" (i.e., without the 3 SD+ trigger) the chance of you encountering a severe run of losses is higher. With the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses. The only way you can deny this is if you insist that losses can be infinite, which is a purely mathematical assertion.

Yes, but even with this fallacy being interfered, this way of playing and that MM serves me very well



Cheers

having your head in the sand isn't the best way to welcome new year...

I wish you all the best, and even more to understand what I am talking about.

Best of all

Drazen

No you don't. 

In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement... And as more extreme measurement is, stronger RTM effect is.

Pay attention to the bolded word. It means measures have to be the same, right? So it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about. That is fallacy, I agree, but we are not talking about probability only for the very next spin here.

Offset, right?

Khm...

After 10 reds in a row RTM says that next ten spins have better chance to be closer to the average (then without it), which means 5 hits for each EC as we are dealing with 50:50 situation (mind HE for a moment)...

Let say that happened. And after initial 10 reds in a row, our offset is negative, -10. We have 10 more reds then black. In the next 10 spins we got 5 reds and 5 blacks. So in total now we have 15 reds and 5 blacks.

Is offset the same? 

RATIOS will tend to balance, but not absolute numbers, which will "stretch" as you get more results.

Drazen

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 03:04:17 PM
A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities.

I am not talking about balanicng, but starting to go more balanced... Can you understand the difference?

Xander I don't want to argue with you as obviously you don't understand what I am talking about at the first place.

No one here talks that if 9 reds come out win is due on the next spin. You can't compare sequence of 9 bets and only one after that. That doesn't makes any sense.

There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out.

True. It doesn't have to even out for many many spins after some point but, decisions must start going out more evened as deviation is more severe. That is not the same what you are talking about.

Drazen

Quote from: Pockets on December 31, 2013, 12:50:29 PM
Thanks Drazen. Are you able to explain this bit?

Ok just a bit

It originates from martingale. In highest concentration it is a pure venom, but in smaller it is a medicine

Cheers

Quote from: Turner on December 25, 2013, 10:22:41 PM
There are different ways to look at exposure to the wheel. Another is not to expose too much BR during a session or cycle.

Turner I really like this what you have said.

By waiting for a strong deviation from my point of view we just want to reduce length of a losing streaks, nothing more nothing less. As deviation is becoming higher and higher, losing streaks will be shorter.

But we must study the game enough to understand the "limits" and how bad something can get.

For example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.

So as RTM says as deviation over some sequence is stronger, RTM will be stronger in next sequence.

Lets say we started after 10 in a row and we lost next 9. That would be first stage of staking. If W/L in those 9 spins are around 50:50 we will made at least 1 unit and as we HIT we RUN!

But suppose we got 9 losses in a row after initial 10 and now we have 19 losses in a row. That can cost as 20 units. If betting 0.1 we would be 2 € in down. But now we are at -4.24 std and know that losing sequence will become shorter from now on by RTM definiton. So we want to use that.

Ok can we now "buy" those losses for 1 unit? So only 1 unit plus from now on will break even for our all previous losses? Sounds fair. And we know that from now on we won't have so long losing streaks and we start to bet 2€. If we hit on first we break even and immedietaly can lower our stakes to the first stage. If next after that is won we earned +1 and as we HIT we RUN.

But let say we face very nasty deviation and even after that we got 6 losses in a row which would brings us to incredible 25 losses in a row.  That would bring us to DD of -20 units in 2nd stage and total DD of 220 units with -4.87 std (it isn't too much concerning that we know that from now on losing streaks will be even shorter and that we are on far end of the worst what can hit us, so some wins will come and we are certian that nasty losing sequences like those before can't happen in next sample) So again we can buy that DD for only one 1 unit. And if that 1 unit is earned in next few spins we break even in total and lower our stakes to the first or second level again....

Of course we don't have to take 1 unit to recover all previous level losses. We can take like 2-3 and bet even less but of course need to earn 2-3 units to break even for that level...

Now it is everyone to his own how much he feels comfortable to bet at which stage in exchange to recoup how many losses before that...

RTM works, if you know how to deal with it 

Happy new year!!

Drazen

Oh well how then your typical session looks like?

Can you end in plus any 300 spins session?

Drazen