Quote from: Drazen on May 12, 2015, 12:42:34 PM
Well if you simply aim to bet on singles, it is the same as betting on R or B all the time, as those bets have same mathematical correlation. I don't understand how you think you will get significantly lower variance with that.

Cheers

I test betting red and black all the time - but i could not get same results - i gave up after 300 trails.
Maybe i was unlucky.

Here is a losing session, i Think 20 units would be a nice loss limit.

I notice something else - that if you look at longer strikes - then they end with a single or a serie of two - so that is a win or break even.
I test this and got pretty good results.

If you try different windows with different options - then you will notice that you can not change settings with roulette extreme.
I have email Les about this - four times now and no fix or new update.

I can not test regression as i can not play minimum bets as i can not change settings with roulette extreme.
Just one example.

Look at this video and you will see what i mean.

How can he sell a Product that is not working.

https://youtu.be/pzMVoS4JvGM

Advance:

Let assume you only follow one dominant - one colour - for example black.
Then you get less variance and fluctation.

You capture two demension of the random flow.
The first dimension is singles as we know them.
The other dimension is that you will get one isolated serie as single event, not two series that shop after each other.
And both dimension will come as single event and as series of singles.

I will post some videos.

 This is how i see it.

The entering Points and exit Points.

You have 1000 singles and 500 two's and 250 or three's and so on.
Then when you see a serie of Three or larger you bet that a wave of large sereis will begin.
But then can also include series of two's and one isolated single.
Because the exit Point is two singles.

So a dominant chart can look like this.

XXX
00
XXXX
0
XXXXXXX
00
XX
00000
XXX
000000000
XXX
00
XXX
00
XXXX
00000
XXXXXX
00
XX
0
XXXX
0
XXXXX
00
XXX

Singles start with one isolated single to show and can become a wave of singles.
Then signles and series of two's wins and break even.
That is how you start from the beginning of each dominant wave.
(one alternativ is to also attack after a series of two's but then you will face more variance)
The exit Point is a serie of Three or higher.

XX
O
X
O
XX
O
X
O
XX
OO
X
O
XX
O
X
O
XX
OO
XX
O
X
O
XXX

That is how i got the result above.
I also test to bet both.
But i prefer to aim for singles as i feel you get more advantage that way and it's a great feeling sitting out large series when they chop, just observe with out betting.
But same way goes no matter what you play.

The thing is that is as many series as singles and is a great feeling see how they come in Waves as i describe above.

Cheers

I also test only playing streak's and get the same results.





https://youtu.be/FEO4IMYfTXs

 ND mention one old method for me and it made me think of a similiar method "Point & Figure".
You can download it from my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7fqb170zh36kx0v/pnf.pdf?dl=0

It speaks about how the flow comes in short Waves and larger Waves - as we know as choppy table or streaky table.
I have been testing this method with succés - that means that it has been pretty easy to win some during 1000 trails.
There is some variance and fluctation, but i assume all methods face that after 1000 trails and more.

This is how it looks with choppy tables:













https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwEFn7_OJIU

Quote from: albertojonas on April 14, 2015, 10:55:49 PM
To clarify what i am sugesting. This is how i get the string of wins and losses, a W L registry. I always compare present spin with the 10th last.
example:

2   
2   
1   
1   
2   
1   
1   
1   
2   
2   
1   L
1   L
2   L
2   L
2   W
2   L
2   L
2   L
2   W
1   L
1   W
1   W
2   W
1   L
1   L
2   W
2   W
2   W
2   W
2   L
1   W
2   L
1   L
1   W
1   W
2   W
1   L
2   W
2   W
2   W
2   L

I don't understand why you bet same after 10 random events - it should be different.

"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

@albertojonas

I don't understand how you play FTL using RTM - can you explain step by step.

I understand how Drazen does with his example.

Now i will show you have i experiment, for example if i take 8 contra 8 (random events) then if i get 14 same and 2 oppisite i have 3.29 SD.
This means that if i only get same i am not betting as there is no RTM present, but after i have two oppisite to show i might bet.
That way i play agains't window of propability of 3.29 SD

Now i can change my benchmark to 4.08 SD window of probability that would be 11 contra 11

This is how it looks like: WWWLWWLLWWWLW


2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1

2 S
2 S
1 S
1 S
2 S
2 O
2 O
2 O W

2 S
2 S
2 O
1 S
1 O
1 O W
2 S
1 O

1 O
2 S
2 S
2 O
2 O W
2 O
1 O
2 O

1 S
1 O
1 O
2 S L
1 O W
2 S
2 O
2 S

2 O
1 S
1 S
2 S
1 S
1 O
1 O W
1 O

1 O
1 S
1 S
2 S
2 O
1 S L
1 S L
2 O W

1 S
2 O
1 S
2 S
1 O
2 O W
1 S
2 S

2 O
1 O
2 O W
1 O
2 O
2 S
2 O
2 S

1 O
1 S
1 O
1 S L
1 O W.
1 O
1 O
1 O


I test this and got the code:

10 trails is 4.52 SD (20 in a row
11 trail is 4.74 SD ( 22 in a row
12 trails is 4.96 SD ( 24 in a row
13 trails is 5.16 SD ( 26 in a row
14 trails is 5.35 SD ( 28 in a row
15 trails is 5.54 SD  ( 30 in a row

This is when you take for example 10 random outcomes to match 10 future ones.

Is not working,
I run 2000 trails several times and when i up 20.000 trail almost all have hit 20, 22, 24, 26, 28

So this is not better then betting agains't 10 11 12 13 14 15 in a row

I never forget this quote from WIKI:

"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

So i run 1 million trails to see the worst and extreme for even money bets:

Low: 18 in a row (once)
High: 18 in a row (once)
Red: 19 in a row (once)
Black: 20 in a row (twice)
Odd: 18 in a row (twice)
Even: 18 in a row (once)

Well i have test several times at different days to connect to your site and is not working.
It say i need an inventation from the owner and that i am blocked to view that site.

Cheers

The worst and extreme is 50 loses and 7 wins or 40 loses and 5 wins.
Ecart 5.09/4.47

ND i don't want to make this topic about me - but i took John Patrick's advise working part time and gamble part time.
That way i can feel the  psychological war and see if i can handle it.