TOPIC 1

This is deep and advance gambling theory about bet selections based upon math and probability.
It does not get any better then this.


Every thing i write in this topic is based upon experiments.

I start with one mehtod based upon Marigny de Grilleau.
The method is based upon singles contra larger series.

This mean that you have a benchmark or a window of events that reach a big imbalance of singles.
Then your expectation is that larger series will start to show after that.

The window of events (singles) should reach 3.0 STD.
After that you wait for triggers or indications before you attack for larger series.

The french word for STD is Ecart

First you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So lets assume you have an sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.

Then you take 14 - 2 = 12

Now we want to get the statistical ecart so we continue with...
14 + 2 = 16

Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4

And finally we divide the absolute ecart whit the sqr
12 sqr 4 = 3,00

The Statistical Ecart 3,00

- - - - - - - - - -

This is the values for singles contra series:

Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
And so it continues

Lets for example say you have 14 singles and alot of series of two and no series of three or any larger series present.
Then when the first series of three show, then the imblance stop to grow.
That is not a trigger or indication that we getting regression twoards the mean.
The only thing that happen is that the imbalance stop to grow, after that the imbalance could continue to grow stronger.
So if we would have bet then we would have been chasing for regression.

If we get more singles and series of three, then we have a bumpy ride where the balance and imbalance alternating.
So that is also no trigger or indication for a bet.
But i am not sure if we should avoid this kind of wave, we could bet on it and win, even if we don't strike larger series.

But if we get a series of four, then we get more then a stop growing as i mention above.
Then we have a tiny regression towards the mean, that is a indication and a trigger.
Because then the regression has started to show and are present.
But that should only be valid if you measuring a window of 3.0 STD (having a window with overrepresented events).

This means i can back track the random flow and see how it behave based upon this playing model.
This without measuring a window of 3.0 STD.
This means we let the random flow unfold like a flower and show us the truth of balance and imbalance and strikes.

I just put a win for each series of three that show and more wins for all the larger series that show.
That way i can see how common or not common strikes is using this playing model based upon math and proabability.

I can see how ofthen i get tiny, medium or large windows of imbalance.
I can see how ofthen i get tiny, medium or large strikes.
I can see how chaotic the random flow is, the true nature.

So the only thing left is to see what kind of indication some one would chose.
If you want to catch tiny strikes you might need to chasing for events.
If you want to catch medium or large strikes you might need a window of 3.0 STD.
I don't have the solution for that.

Lets take a look at the random flow and see how it unfold...
Here you can see how common there is with tiny, medium and large strikes:

WL
WWL
WL
WL
WWWWL
WWL
WL
WWWWWL
WL
WWWL
WL
WWWWWL
WL
WL
WWL
WWL
WL
WWL
WL
WL
WWL
WL
WWWL
WWL
WL
WL
WWL
WL
WL
WWWWL
WL
WWL
WWWWL
WL
WWWL
WWL
WWWWWL
WWL
WWL
WWL
WWWL
WL

So next time you read that Asian players at the baccarat table always follow a trend and not bet against it.
Then now you understand the playing model to catch larger series and can make your own observations base upon strikes.

Cheers

I once read a topic about a guy show post the names of 200 systems - he wanted to trade and non of the 200 system made him a winner.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 02, 2014, 02:34:42 AM
What kind of bet is this showing so many wins and almost negligible losses?

Albalaha i just showing the examples where line 3 or 4 sleep, then it was many windows where line 3 or 4 did not sleep and i don't show does examples.
This is why it looks that there is so much winnings.

But its true that this example only fail once during 300 trails or got one loss.

I run today random org file and show you the hole file:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL
WWWWWWWL
L
WWWWL
WL
WWWWWWWWWWWWL
WL
WWWWWWL
L

6
4
4
3
5
1
2 SKIP

2
4
1
5
6 (LINE 3 SLEEPING)
4 W
6 W
1 W
6 W
5 W
1 W
2 W
2 W
1 W
4 W
4 W
4 W
1 W
4 W
2 W
3 L

1
3
3
2
1
5
2
4
3
1
6 SKIP

3
5
1
2
5
6 (LINE 4 SLEEPING)
5 W
1 W
1 W
3 W
6 W
6 W
6 W
4 L

3
2
1
2
6
1
5 (LINE 4 SLEEPING)
4 L

3
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
5
6 SKIP

6
4
1
4
2
2
4
3
4
6
6
2
1
3
6
1
2
4
3
5 SKIP

2
3
3
6
6
6
3
3
1
2
4
5 SKIP

1
1
5
6
2
5
4 (LINE 3 SLEEPING)
1 W
2 W
4 W
6 W
3 L

2
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
6
1 (LINE 4 SLEEPING)
2 W
4 L

3
6
2
6
3
3
4
2
6
6
6
2
1
3
3
2
6
1
6
1
5 SKIP

1
4
6
6
2
1
1
6
5 (LINE 3 SLEEPING)
1 W
6 W
2 W
5 W
6 W
6 W
1 W
4 W
5 W
2 W
4 W
6 W
3 L

6
3
4
5
5
5
1
2 SKIP

5
4
5
4
2
5
4
1
4
4
6 (LINE 3 SLEEPING)
1 W
3 L

2
3
6
5
2
5
1 (LINE 4 SLEEPING)
2 W
1 W
5 W
6 W
1 W
3 W
4 L

6
1
1
1
5
6
6
6
4
1
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
1
4
5
4
4
4
3
6
2 SKIP

2
5
2
1
4
5
2
4
4
4
6 (LINE 3 SLEEPING)
3 L

3
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
1
1
6
6
4
4
4
6
1
4
1
6
3
5
6
4
2 SKIP

5
5
5
3
4
4
3
2
2
6
4
5
1
3
6 SKIP

3
2
3
3
6
1
4
1
2

I just test one selection for fun.
Wait until line 3 or 4 fall into sleep.

Today random org file ...

5
2
6
1
4
5 W
2 W
1 W
1 W
6 W
6 W
6 W
1 W
6 W
5 W
2 W
6 W
4 W
5 W
6 W
3 L

- -

2
1
5
3
6
5 W
6 W
1 W
6 W
3 W
1 W
3 W
6 W
4 L

- -

6
2
4
1
5
6 W
1 W
3 L

- -

6
5
3
5
3
5
5
3
1
3
3
2
4 L

- -

2
1
5
2
6
4
2 W
4 W
2 W
1 W
5 W
2 W
4 W
3 L

- -

1
6
5
5
5
3
2
1 W
5 W
5 W
6 W
5 W
2 W
1 W
2 W
1 W
6 W
6 W
4 L

- -

2
3
1
1
6
3
6
1
5
5 W
3 W
5 W
3 W
6 W
6 W
6 W
1 W
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 W
1 W
1 W
6 W
1 W
2 W
5 W
4 L

- -

-

Even if i know i can win, so will it not last forever.
I can now see why some say flat betting and progressions are the same thing.

Even if i might be up so am i pretty sure loses will chop.
Is just a matter of time.

I test a straight regression where i was staking 54321.
I test another clustering selection.

50 sessions
159 units won
80 units lost
total 79 units

Results ...

+1
+6
+0
+14
+10
+1
+6
+0
-20
+0

- -

+10
+0
+10
+0
+1
+6
+6
+1
+1
+1

- -

+0
+1
+1
+13
+1
+10
+17
+6
+1
+23

- -

+1
+0
+0
+1
+1
+0
+0
+0
+1
+1

- -

+0
-20
+0
-20
+0
+1
-20
+6
+20
+0

Quote from: split-monster on September 27, 2014, 07:44:03 PM
Excuse my ignorance! What do you mean by strikes Sputnik?

Thanks

-

Ok lets take it from the beginning:
All that we see is negative progression, is very common.
You lose your first bet and you bet more chasing to catch a winning event.

Positive progression you never see and is not common.
This is because you don't see any one developing selections for strikes.
A strike is 23456789 winning events in a row.

So option one with negative progression has a winning sequense looking like this:
LWLLLWLLLWLLLLLLWLLWLWLWLLWWLWLWWWLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLWLWLL

The other option using a positive progression has a winning sequense looking like this:
WWLWWLWLLWWWLWWWWWWLWWWWLWWLLWLWLLWWLWLWWWLWWLWWWLW

This is a exampel from random org testing to hit long strikes or break even or bet at most three attempts.
I use a positive progression: Regression Up & Pull



This is the LW-Registry ...
Here you can see how hard it is to catch longer strikes:

2014 09 27

WL
WWWWWWWWL
LLW
WWWWWWL

2014 09 26

WWL
LW
LW

2014 09 25

WWL
WWWWWL
WWL
LLW
WWWWWWL

2014 09 24

LW
WL
WWWL
LLW

2014 09 23

LW
LW
WWL
WWWL

2014 09 22

WWL
LW
WL
LLL
LLW

2014 09 21

WL
LLL
WL
WWWL
LW

2014 09 20

WL
LW
WL
WL

2014 09 19

LW
LW
LW
WL
WL

2014 09 18

LLL
LLL
WWWL
WWL

How do you catch strikes?

Is a very good question as we have flat betting and positive progressions.
I have never seen any one write about a bet selection that catch strikes.

Why is that?

Quote from: Chrisbis on July 05, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
For those of lighter dispersion...............like my goodself, I thought I would run a parallel
thread with just +1% per day too.


Especially if your method might not stand up to the rigour of making +1% per day.

---

Who would like to join me in New Topic based on making +1% net gain on theirBank Roll, each and every day?"The power of compound interest." (at 1%)Make just +1% of your bank roll per day.Lets say U start with BR =£100.00In 5 days your BR would have risen to :-£100x 1.015= £105.10Like that?How about a working month, with weekend off?£100x 1.0122= £124.47(22 working days average in a calendar month)Or, what about a full month of 30 days?£100x 1.0130= £134.78              That's a tasty +£34⁺ profit in just 30 days!How about 6 months "work"?£100x 1.01182= £611.63                      That's £600+ !!...not bad for 6 months little work!(182= 6 months, giving U Christmas day off, still!!)So, what we need now, is a team of people, who would like to join me, with their £$E100and we will find ways of just making that magic +1% per day, that then we stop!(Bet U can not get these rates in the bank at the moment! lol)Will someone please check out my "Compound Interest" figures please...........I don't believe them myself!

Chrisbis i test something similiar.
Winning +1 unit each day or break even.
66% of the times i win +1 unit or break even.
The other 33% i hit the hole being -2 units and have to recover them.
It can be a long and very difficult fight.
Still testing.

Cheers

Quote from: Mathemagician on September 18, 2014, 11:48:01 AM
Hi Chris

Just updating my emails and I noticed one from you relating to an early Ebay listing
Well I think its you from Staffordshire

Anyway you mentioned BetVoyager have a look at http://roulettekeygold.com/latest.html

There are links to 17 videos of me increasing my capital by 4% a day or more!

Peter Preston

That is the 20/100 flaw and you need to change the money management ...
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/test-results-double-your-capital-in-less-than-20-sessions-proof-!/msg31718/#msg31718

Quote from: Maxwell on September 17, 2014, 09:23:53 AM
What happened to the poster Bayes?  Anyone?  I see he started this thread.

When I click on his name it doesn't pull up any contact info like when you pull up other names.


Thanx

He is no longer a member of this forum for certain reasons.
He was a member of the betforum, but it does not exist as the founder Stef let every one down, he had personal issues and gave up the betforum.

I ask Bayes to open up new forum, but he did not reply, so i hope all is well with him.
I can email him again and see if we can open up a new gambling forum.

Thank you very much muggins!

Cheers

Some one suggest that JP have wrote about similiar method with regression in his baccarat book - i will buy it ...

But i prefer the origninal.
And i run same file from random org with hudge difference ... Results +15 and -7

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
-1
+1

I got the same results - this is a bad session +19 and -16 ...

-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-5
+1
-5
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

Read this:
http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/test-results-double-your-capital-in-less-than-20-sessions-proof-!/msg31718/#new