Quote from: Albalaha on December 25, 2013, 10:44:58 AM
I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.

I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.

I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 25, 2013, 09:54:10 AM

Because they do not have any, they only have fallacies and they love to pamper them day by day.

I assume you are one among them or am i wrong ?

QuoteYou are betting on red, every spin, now you're losing heavily. The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?

The classical playing model for RTM aim to find one window of overrepresented events - then attack.
If you search for windows on a rolling basis, so is the last present window the current state, so the answer to you question is 3.0.
Each window is independent with overrepresented and underrepresented events.
Its based upon what benchmark you use as reference point when playing and measuring the distribution.

Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 01:36:43 PM

Not sure what you mean by "predetermined window of events". If it's predetermined, i.e., it doesn't use any history, then you run the risk that your predetermined sequence (or the opposite of it, depending whether you are betting for or against it) may show up, so to my mind this is no better than betting randomly.


Another option which could be used in a B&M casino is the old technique of betting the opposite of whatever sequence has just appeared. Norman Squire has a section on this in his book "How to Win at Roulette". He suggests betting the opposite of the last 37 spins, the rationale being that it would be virtually impossible for the exact same sequence to repeat immediately (You could suppose that you had been betting that same sequence over the last 37 spins, in which case you would have had 37 losses in a row). The flaw in that theory is that the sequence needn't repeat EXACTLY in order for you to still get substantial losses, and the longer the sequence is, the more likely you are to get bunched losses, which is what you're trying to avoid in the first place. I've tried this method in the past, and it isn't very effective.

Similiar toward what i was thinking, but ...

A match is one event and has the value of 1.
A miss-match is one event and has the value of 1.

Same as ...

Same is one event and has the value of 1.
Opposite is one event and has the value of 1.

This means ...

That if you have 37 past results you can aim for what is underrepresented, no matter if its is same or opposite.
And in the beginning of each sequence you will notice what is overrepresented.
With other words so can i get 5.00 STD with same as overrepresented or opposite as overrepresented.

The question is how you do this in real life.

One loss is one event and one win is one event.
One loss has the value of 1 and one win has the value of 1.

So 40 loses and 6 wins as Bayes mention is 5.06 STD

One red is one event and have the value of 1.
One black is one event and have the value of 1.

As i understand it, so does Bayes software using patterns of certain length.
Then the software match or miss-matches does with the real results to find the worst or highest STD.

So how do you do that in real life in real casino?
No software and only pen and paper.

I think i have the solution for that using predetermined window of events (random bits).
Then the benchmark is set before you start playing.
Could be Bayes example with 40 loses and 6 wins or 5.06 STD ...

But it would be interesting to hear what Bayes say about the subject.
How would you charting by hand using RTM methodology.

I know gamblers fallacy and i know red can stay ahead for one year at one table or wheel.
You are not telling me anything new that i did not know.

You're not alone in your misinterpretation the real fact that the hovering state and the draw-down state is part of correction.
Then come in tiny, middle and large waves, no matter what experts or what you say.

I have simulate at least 1 million trails, so i know for a fact that does two states show after 3.0 STD.
The world record is 5.24 STD and guess what happen after that, yes it either start hovering or getting a draw-down.

When you say even out it has not have to do that, nothing even out 100%.
Correction comes in various random bits, that is reality.

You can read all nonsense you want, i base my assumptions on significant statistical research.
I do that as hobby and would not be fool by assumption taken from wikipedia.

But you missing one important part ...
The hovering state when it stop growing and not getting weaker just stopping growing is part of correction and draw-down.
So you have 2 against 1 or 2 in 3 probability.

The states of correction is not 1 in 2 possibility as you state above.
Is just show me your misunderstanding.

Now assume that one red is one event and have the value of 1.
Also black is one event and have the value of 1.

Then 14 reds and two blacks is 3.0 STD or 14 blacks and two reds are 3.0 STD.

Assume the random flow comes in waves of STD.
Small, middle and large STD waves.

Now to the twist.

I can pick 8 random trails and match or miss-match them with the future 8 random bits.
If i get 14 matches and 2 miss-matches i would have 3.0 STD.

So when i pick the random bits and compare so will one side get ahead with 3 miss-matches or matches.
Then i play opposite as its the underrepresented regression towards the mean.
To prevent getting 14/2 events or window of 3.0 STD ...

The bets is 3 to 4 attempts depending on how the random bits unfold.

Quote

2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2

2 S 2
2 O 1
2 0 1
2 S 2
1 O 2
2 O 1 L
2 S 2 W
1 0 2

1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1

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

2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2

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

1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1

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

6 sides of a dice have 98.5% repeating and 1.5% that each side will show once.
What is the statics with 8 sides ?

RRR
RBR L
RRB L
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LLL

LoL i reduce the bets down to 12 covering 24 independent trails.

You just bet the formation at first state with 4 bets.
Then you cover colours and no repeats for the next 12 outcomes placing 8 bets.
Following the march i describe.

 - LOL - this is still new for me and i discover its only 13 attempts covering 24 trails.
Correcting this topic.

RRR
RBR LL
RRB LL
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LL

Wrong again i was thinking right the first time.
The last bet is to cover three bets.

RRR
RBR LL
RRB LL
RBB LL
BBB L
BRB LL
BBR LL
BRR LLL

So its 14 but still amzing.

Quote from: AMK on December 11, 2013, 11:23:59 AM
Hello Sputnik!!

In my opinion this is just brilliant analysis, amazing how you see these angles Sputnik.

I have a few ideas but have to work them through.

Looking forward to your next post Sputnik!

Many thanks!! : )

AMK i test the march and it is very stable and i notice you only place 6 bets at the first state as you wait for one pattern to show.
Good news and that is 6 + 8 = 14 steps.

I will test this with a 6 step progression to win or break even as first level.
Then the other level with 8 step as recovery plan.

It is pretty amazing that you can reduce it down to 14 attempts covering 24 trails.

Quote2    2    1
2    1    1 LL
1    2    2 W
1    2    2 LW
2    1    1 W
2    1    1 LW
2    2    2 LL
2    1    1 LW
1    2    2 W
2    2    1 W
2    1    2 LL
2    1    2 LW
1    1    2 W
1    1    1 LW
2    1    1 W
2    2    2 LL
2    1    1 LW
1    1    1 W
1    2    1 LL
1    1    1 LW
1    1    2 LW
1    2    1 LL
2    1    2 W
1    2    2 W
1    1    1 LL
2    2    1 W
1    2    1 W
1    1    1 LL
1    1    2 LL
2    1    1 W
2    1    2 LW
2    1    1 LW
2    2    2 LL
1    1    1 W
2    1    2 W
1    2    1 W
1    1    1 LL
1    1    1 LW
2    1    1 W
2    2    2 LL
2    2    1 LL
2    2    2 W
2    1    1 LL
2    2    1 LL
1    2    2 W
2    2    1 W
2    2    2 LW
1    1    1 W
1    2    1 LL
1    1    2 LL
1    1    1 W
2    1    1 W
2    1    2 LW
1    1    2 W
1    1    1 LW
2    1    1 W
2    1    1 LW
2    1    2 LW
2    2    1 LL
1    2    2 W
2    2    2 W
1    1    2 W
1    2    1 LL
2    2    1 W
2    1    1 LL
2    2    2 LL
1    1    1 W
2    2    1 W
1    1    2 W
2    1    1 W
2    2    2 LL
1    2    2 W
2    2    1 W
1    2    2 W
1    1    2 LL
2    2    1 W
2    1    1 LL
2    2    1 LW
2    2    2 LW
1    2    1 W
1    1    1 LL
2    2    2 W
2    1    1 LL
1    2    2 W
2    2    2 W
1    2    2 W
2    1    1 W
2    2    1 LL
2    2    2 LL
2    2    1 W
1    2    2 W
1    2    1 LW
1    1    1 LL
1    2    1 LW
1    2    1 LW
1    2    2 LW
1    2    1 LW
2    1    1 W
1    1    1 W
2    1    2 W

Well there is one issue or loop hole with this method.
I will try to explain later.

We all know the principal of 1/3 where we clustering patterns into three outcomes / groups.
I come up with an idea how to cover all possibilities that not all 8 patterns / combinations will have a show.
That is a sequence of 24 trails.

Now i will try to explain how it is done.
First we will start with out colors and just look at the formations.

There is 4 existing formations.

XXX
XOX
XXO
OXX

Now no matter what formation show first i bet same will repeat with one single bet.

XXX
X

Here i would bet X next
Or if we hade following formation

XOX
X

I would bet O next
If no win then i get two different formations

XOX
XXO

Then next bet, the second bet would be betting that one of does two formations would repeat.
Then you wait to see what formation will match before you make one single bet.

If the formation starts with XO then you would bet for XOX
It the formation starts with XX then you would bet for XXO

Lets say we lose and get three unique formations.

XOX
XXO
XOO

Now you have only one formation left if not one of does previous three will repeat.
And we have only placed two single bets.

So now XX or XO will be dominating formation and with this example above it is two formation that start with XO.
So next bet would be for a change XO, the third bet.

XOX
XXO
XOO
X

Lets say will lose

XOX
XXO
XOO
XX

Then we would place our last bet that XXO would show.
This is a total of four single bets.

Now we lose them all and all 4 formation show.

XOX
XXO
XOO
XXX

Now if you do this with colors you bet as follows.

If the first color is Red then you bet first there will be black.
If not you then follow the march i describe above.

So that is a total of 7 single bets.
If you would lose you would get all 4 formation with the same color.

RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB

Next would be playing Red as not black would show following the same march as i describe.
Does would be 8 single bets and a total of 15 single bets to cover the 24 trails or that all 8 patterns would have a show.

RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
BBB
BRB
BBR
BRR

Hello ...

Sunday again and i don't have much to say today.
Will mention do, that the small signs that indicate that a post is new at this forum board is a little bit irritating, flashing ...

Then also that it has been to much about Kimo Li this week.
I don't have anything against his methodology,,,I just think for do who search solution among his work should join his forum.
It seems no one is expert about his work.
My 2 cents.

Cheers