I gave a few examples on how to look for 3.0 STD imbalance following the law of series (using Series Vs Singles, although there are more options) and ways of betting with it.
So know i will show another simplistic way of looking for imbalance. The pdf with the examples should be self explanatory.
Here is the graph and the LW registry.


[attachimg=1]


LW registry:
W W L W L W L W W W L W L W L L L
W W W W L L L
W L L W W W W W W L L L
W W W W W L W W L W W L L L
W W L W W L L W L L L
L L L
W L L L
L L W W W W L W W W W L L L
W L W L W W L L W W L W L W W L L W W

---

And there goes the thread... 

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 02:41:02 PM
RELIABILITY Bryan. Gambling is by definition risk taking. Doing something with no certainty of success.
What the methods I speak of with VIRTUAL LIMITS do, is take away alot of the uncertainty. They have identified something random struggles to do efficiently. And they simply exploit that.

Nothing more or less. To answer your awakening to the idea that maths explains all. Through your given example of the guy betting against 20 reds. 1, that was no VIRTUAL LIMIT to begin with.

And 2, the time invested wasn't justified. I have never even waited 100 spins to get a game with the methods I use. One of them often matures inside 20 spins.

That is the WHOLE POINT to find realistic and playable VIRTUAL LIMITS. Not ones that take ages to mature.

Like if you could be sure that if you waited for 300 spins you had a "sure win", you wouldn't do it!

That's what happens with portuguese. In Brazil they speak portuguese too, but in a different manner. In the last few years we have been struggling against a treaty to unify the language.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 01:08:16 AM
MG - please learn the difference between "lose"and loose"- <big grin here!!> 

It was a typo. English is my fourth language, i am sorry  . Error corrected.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 12:20:53 AM
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?

For me, Long Term:
-is the Overall Permanence of a method.
-is you Personal Permanence. (your LW registry of actual placed bets).

Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 12:20:53 AM
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms?  If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms?  In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?

As you can deduct from above, my opinion is Yes, the long term is just the sum of x short terms.  

---

"Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground"   

Quote from: VLS on January 04, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Long-term = no, according to math.

Short-term = yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.

Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives

30 Years of roulette, playing 300 spins a day would be something like 3.25 million spins

They are at the poll thread - does-a-consistent-winning-flat-bet-already-exist/


See reply #38 & #43 in particular:  http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/does-a-consistent-winning-flat-bet-already-exist/30/ 

I believe i posted 2 methods that can win more than lose Flat Bet.

If you know Marigny Grilleau work you must be familiar with this approach. He wrote two or three books on this, so it is a bit hard for me to explain it all. In the most basic form as i show, you track series and singles and search for a window frame that has 3.0 or more STD (Ecart in French). After that huge imbalance found, you have to develop a march to try and capture correction. There are 3 essential concepts.
Raw betting, based on Gamblers Fallacy, expecting immediate correction to manifest and accepting fluctuation.
Play after indication that correction may start ...
Play after a tendency for correction manifests itself.


Check Ego's writings and also Bayes works on regression to the mean.


As the vast majority of you i think this is almost impossible to do in a casino by yourself, as huge tracking is involved to get a betting opportunity. But this is the best method for flat betting that i have ever came across. At least the one with the best Z-score.


I can show minor applications based on this concept that are more playable. As i thought there would be a general BUUUU from the readers, i can submit another method to the test. However, the results will not show as amazing as with the former.

I am sorry for the delay but i can not seem to get the tracker going, so i will have to post results of the first 1k spins.
As the vast majority of you expected from my nickname, the system is no secret.


[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=3]

I am back. But it will take me a while, i am sorry. I wish i had an automated way of betting this, but i still do not.
Very nice results Kat.

Cool 

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
How about doing a simple 10k real spins test? I will give 10k spins from a verifiable place.

Ok. Let's do it.  Obviously i am not betting every spin. So If needed we can continue until 1000 placed bets or so... You decide the terms.


Glad to contribute with something.
Cheers

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 01, 2013, 09:57:33 AM
The whole MYTH on roulettes invincibility is conceived of the notion that mathematically it is impossible to overcome the house edge in the longrun.

Now where was this belief pulled from?. FLAT BETTING. So why do countless minds bang their heads against the wall of the obvious?. As if to try and be that extra bit smarter than the rest of us.

And say "Hey look over here im real smart, I can beat the game of negative expectancy without ever increasing my stakes in the longrun".

Too much time is wasted living in this dream world. While at the same time seeking to sneer at and ridicule anyone who dare say the game can be taken using a progression. Or a system of staking that breaks away from the FLAT.

Flat betting can beat this game if executed in a multi-level fashion. Other than that it takes at least a mild progression at some point to negate the things that keep the myth alive.

Anyone who says they can flat bet their way to longterm success, simply because their bet selection is superior to the rest of us. Has to PROVE IT. And put their money next to that claim. And so far no one has had the inclination or nerve to do so.

I claim this game can be taken longterm Using a progression, And that will be proven. So anyone who claims they can do it flat has to PROVE IT. 

If you get no zero roulette and play ec bets there is no house edge