Ok,  I've had time to digest this and ponder a little bit, and i now believe i have a grasp on what exactly has been proposed.   Have not set it up in Excel yet to test anything, but am confident i have the idea. 

First of all, let's back away from the trees to see the forest. 

First a concept:

1.) LWWLWLWWLLWLLL

2.) RBBRRBBBRRBRRB

We all know what these are. 
We call #1 a win-loss registry. 
We call #2 a permanence of color. 

In either case, we can put these STREAMS into an Excel sheet, graph them, and produce a chart.   The chart will go up and down and theoretically cross the zero line now and then.   When it crosses the zero line, we call it "balanced" because there are equal number of reds on upside and blacks on the downside. Same with wins/losses. But given a random world, the streams will eventually stray away from zero, and we call this "deviation". 

Given four streams, we can have several combinations of deviation.   Take colors for example.  One might be balanced with equal number of reds and blacks, two might be deviating into the black zone, and one might be deviating into the red zone.  Could be several configurations, with four going red at one extreme, or all four going black at the other extreme. 

Now, we all know what "reversion to the mean" or "mean reversion" means, right? It's the idea that these streams can't stray too far from some average "mean", and you expect them to return, sometime down the road, to a more equal "balance" between reds and blacks, wins and losses, ect.   For example, some people have worked on the idea that if the "standard deviation" reaches a number like 3 away from the mean, then it's time to bet that it will now start to return to the mean, after some indicator.   

Moglizu's idea is a variation of the above scenario.   However, he seems to have brought one or two novel ideas to the table, worth consideration. 

Instead of streams built of wins and losses, or reds and blacks, he proposes to build streams of "runs" and "changes".   I think we all know what that means.   Two reds is a "run".  A black followed by a red is a "change".   And like any of these kinds of streams, you could bet that a deviation will "revert to the mean", if you were that foolish.   But the way Moglizu bets on reversion to the mean does seems to be an original idea. 

Take these four streams:

1.) CCRCRRRCCRCRR  +1 deviating into the "R" (run) zone.
2.) RRCRCCRRCRCCC  +1 deviating into the "C" (change) zone
3.) CCCRCRRCCCRRC  +3 deviating into the "C" zone.
4.) RRCCRRRCCRRCR  +3 deviating into the "R" zone.

Now, if you were to bet on all four of these to "revert to the mean", then:

1.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +1).
2.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +1).
3.) Bet for a run, because it's deviating into the change zone (by +3).
4.) Bet for a change, because it's deviating into the run zone (by +3).

In the situation above, we are disregarding how much the deviations are, and simply betting on a reversion to the mean.  If we bet one unit on each stream, it's obvious to see that our bets could cancel each other out.  But we don't know that yet until we see what colors (or other EC) we are supposed to be betting, for our bet to represent either a run or a change.  By examining the color bets that produced this run/change stream, we might find the following:

1.) To bet on change, we need to bet on RED.
2.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on BLACK.
3.) To bet on a run, we need to bet on RED.
4.) To bet on change we need to bet on RED. 

In this case, we can see that two of our bets will cancel out, leaving us with a predominantly RED bet over all.   How much to bet on RED depends, and Moglizu has his own formula.  Moglizu proposes to disregard any deviations less than 2 points. So, we would disregard #1 and #2 above, leaving us still with a predominantly RED bet, by a factor of 2.   But as you can see, it's possible to have a situation where your bets would cancel each other out, leaving you with NO BETS at all.  Moglizu says this happens about 50% of the time. 

Another  detail about his betting formula; when Moglizu says bet on HOW MANY of the deviations, not HOW MUCH, he means...well, let's take the above example of four streams again.   You can see that the two "qualifying" streams (streams deviating by 2 points or more) give us a total of 3+3=6 points.  This is HOW MUCH.  But Moglizu says he does not bet on HOW MUCH.  Instead, he bets on HOW MANY, which would be, at most TWO (in the above example), because he is betting on TWO streams that are deviating more than 2 points each.   So, two chips of RED.   

That's one way to do it.  You could also bet just one chip on the dominant color, no matter how many 'qualified' streams were deviating by two or more points.  A spreadsheet test could tell what is best, but from what we can gather, Moglizu will bet as many as four chips on a color, if indeed there were four streams deviating all in the same direction.   

One more detail.  In the above example, the 'LOOK BACK' period over all four streams is thirteen (13).   This is a detail Moglizu has failed to clarify.  Since Moglizu says he leaves the casino after a gain of 5 units, it implies that his LOOK BACK period starts at the earliest whenever at least one qualified stream starts to deviate by at least 2 points.  The earliest that could be is after 6 spins.  Then, he just lets his look back period "grow" and "grow"...until he reaches FIVE UNITS profit, leaves the casino, and/or starts over.   In this scenario, there would be no fixed and/or no 'rolling' look back period.  It would always look back to the beginning of a session ending in 5 units. 

Now, if these four streams had come from four independent wheels, we would likely have a losing proposition, given everything we know about betting on reversion to the mean.   But Moglizu has come up with a way to relate these four streams to ONE WHEEL, and ONE (the last) SPIN.   Again, this is the novelty of the idea, making it worth consideration.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen. 

Only now do we need to talk about how these four streams are related, and i think this issue has been resolved and understood, given Badger's latest spreadsheet example.   

The idea is to come up with at least four streams using some unconventional counting methods, relating  four spins from the recent past, to the latest (5th) spin. You could come up with more, but Moglizu has settled upon four. 

The idea is that, when these four streams are related in this way, a bet on predominantly RED, or predominantly BLACK has MORE WEIGHT than betting on any one stream, or any number of unrelated, independent streams.   

Notice, I've been able to explain the whole concept without ever using the term "linearity" even once.   The choice of this stupid term is really where Moglizu screwed it up, and dropped the ball.  This unintelligent term does not help one bit to understand this concept.   I could not find a more confusing term if i tried. 

What should we call it when we bet FOR THE REVERSION TO THE MEAN on the AGGREGATE OF SEVERAL RELATED STREAMS?

Anything but #$@ "linearity"!!

I wouldn't even call it 'singularity'. 

I might call it 'gang' or 'bank' betting. 

That's basically it. 

Everybody should know how to develop four related streams, pegging each of the past four colors (or any EC) to the latest color, and marking down whether it represents a 'change' of colors, or a 'run' of colors.  This has been covered, and no one needs to ask any more questions about it. 

Back up from the trees to see the forest. 

This is a bet on reversion to the mean on an aggregate of multiple related streams of information made up of "changes" versus "runs"...in the hopes that the weight of the aggregate will help predict the next color (or EC)...if and when reversion to the mean does prevail.  Screw 'linearity'.  What kills this bet is, like any such bet, a continuation/trending of deviation away from the mean. 

I don't know IF it works, but THAT is HOW it works. 





 

   

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:59:08 PM
its really funny that some people that can t get it are trying to hurt my feelings LoL.
well ... don t be bad boys.. just try harder.

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 01:56:38 PM
still helping people that deserve it.

still throwing people under the bus that don't.

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 06:31:24 AM
so use it and make money. and don t bother with my method

Because we collect winning methods like baseball cards.  We have decided to trade you this winning card for your winning card:

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 06:21:56 AM
so if you already have a winning way , why are you bothering with mine?

I was just sent to interview you for possible membership.   Mainly, they want to know if you would get into an IQ contest for no good reason.   

We had to let the other guy go, who performed below average on EC's.  Here is a chart of a member still in good standing. Notice now long, how straight, and how far it goes:

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 05:27:39 AM
But of course.
You re all waiting for the easy and ready solution ... without the need of know the mechanics behind the method.

But even if some of you have the need of understanding , they don t have the brains to understand ...

so all cases are lost cases

We don't have any of those kinds of members.   Here's a performance chart of one of our average members...and this is just on EC's! 

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 05:18:24 AM
It seems that the copy/paste is doing nothing .

He's from this site.  We have trusted and admired members who are able to understand your whole method in the first three sentences, and able to write a tracker before you can finish explaining.   

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:56:14 AM
You can go to the other forum.
A person copy /pasted all my deleted posts.

I am still laughing.

Yes, we are clever too!

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:34:56 AM
they are clever .
They know that if they are gonna step forward you are gonna kill them with questions of how my method is being played.   

Yes, that's the most probable happenstance. For others,  it would be good to know who operates this way as "members" so they can avoid sharing with them anything that can actually make money, in keeping with the same code of ethics.  It would also save some other members time, not to waste reading any methods they propose, knowing they would never propose anything that would actually make any money. 

Anyways, thanks for what you did share, as long as you did share it, as well as for the latest addendums that might be helpful to the dullards left behind. 

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:25:30 AM
The members that understood my method are clever+expirianced in randomness behaviour .
And a clever+experienced person that recognize a real original strong way to play roulette needs to know that the method is not gonna be played by a lot.( for protection reasons)

So all I did was respect their needs.
I can t blame them. They are correct.

Ok, makes sense.  You did what you thought was right.  I'm not asking, but i do wonder who here was clever enough also to convince you to pull the plug before too many others found out.  I don't expect you to answer that, but i do wonder if those three, four or five will step forward and let us know who they are, and how long they've been operating this way. 

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 04:11:05 AM
""""you came here and gave away some information"""

NO.
I came here posted my hole method !!!!!!
I have said this 100 times but you never pay attention.
This is the reason why you did not understand my method.... because you do NOT pay attention.

I'm a late comer here, having found out about it just hours ago.   My apologies for characterizing your whole method as some information.   Having given away your while method, are you saying that those who don't yet understand it are trying to "grab" it from you, while a few members here, behind the scenes, have literally grabbed the whole method from the majority of others?  Is that what has happened in the last few hours?

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 03:55:58 AM
The tracker is almost ready.

Ok, makes sense. 

Just for the record, correct me if i'm wrong: you came here and gave away some information, and then, the majority of those who did not comprehend it fast enough are now being characterized as trying to "grab" something from you...for asking questions?  In the meantime, should i understand that a few people here have literally grabbed the information for themselves, leaving the majority with vain questions? 

Quote from: moglizu on March 06, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
Hello people.
Some members are still wondering why I took the desecion to delete my topic.
I have already answered but I am starting getting used of you people that you do not pay attention so I will say it again.
Some members that understood my method tested and played and made money.
After this they sent me Pms by morivating/advising me to delete me thread because they didn t want for a lot of members to understand my method.
I just respected their wishes and I did it.

VLS told me that he understood my method from my 1st post.
The other members that understood my method , also understood it fast.

I see members that after all the explanation on me and Atlantis have not understood anything.

that's life. Some people are smarter than others.
it still makes no sense to me that after posted the exact rules , almost none (except 5 members) understood the method.

Instread of trying to be a predator and grab a winning method that some one posted , try to make-engineer your own method.
Do you have the brains to do so?

I'm just a disinterested party, who, like several people on this site, has the ability to quickly program/develop a tool that allows you to track EC's, Dozens, Columns...whatever you want, the exact way that you want it.   

I'm not expecting any answers because as you have said, you have agreed with a small handful of people here,  to remove previous explanations, and now limit any further clarifications.

I'm not asking, but i do wonder who the three or four folks were who, having been given the idea, encouraged you to shut down the lines of communication that might lead to the enlightenment of those folks who may have been born with a few points fewer IQ?

Victor does not strike me as that kind of person.  Understanding it, he CAN give you a nice tracker in return. And so, you really have no more use for this thread. 

I am guessing that is why you posted in the first place (to get a tracker), since you don't seem to me like the kind of person who would get into an IQ measuring contest without a good reason. 

So, if i was a programmer/developer who was willing to deliver to moglizu a product that fulfills his exact specifications, i would want to ask a few questions, in order to provide moglizu with the exact tool he would want to carry into a B&M on his smart phone.  This is assuming the B&M will allow him to log spins into his smart phone while sitting at the table.   If not, there is still the possibility that with the phenomenon of personal permanence, he would be able to leave the table, log the number, get the calculations, and come back a few spins later, without missing a beat...due to the phenomenon of personal permanence.

Before i asked my questions, as a developer, i would simply remind my client that both of our time is valuable.  The sooner i get what i want, the sooner he gets what he wants.  I am guessing that RESPECT for the questions i may ask would translate into the FASTEST possible delivery of the money-making tool he can carry around in his pocket. 

If i was to ask three questions at this point, they would be:

  1.) What is YOUR definition of "deviation"? 
  2.) What is YOUR definition of "linearity"?

Nope, that's it. Just two questions.  That ought to do it, but if not, i can come up with a couple more...so that moglizu get's the tool he wants in his pocket as fast as possible.

I'm not asking.  I'm just saying, those are the kind of questions i would ask, if i was a developer trying to narrow down the specifications for the product a client was trying to acquire. 

For example, we all know what "standard deviation" means.  A series of red and black can "grow" away from a "mean", and become "imbalanced" in favor of red or black.  When measuring for the imbalance, i would want to know: What is the "look back" period?

This is all very very simple to solve, made hard only by miscommunication. 

Quote from: 8OR9 on March 05, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
I guess I'll ask again for the third time.......if you understand this, how about showing us you would bet these actual roulette results ?

I don't understand why no one would want to explain the method with the actual roulette results  described below.......unless it was actually really profitable.


R=Red   ( don't confuse this R with the R which means a run )
B=Black

R
R
R
B
R
B
0   ( zero )
B
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B

I took your colors and put them into Badger's spreadsheet and came up with this information.  This format uses R's and C's in "event" columns, instead of X's underneath R/C columns.  So not exactly the same as the original examples, but seems to accomplish the goal for Excel tracking purposes. 


RESULT   1st Event   2nd Event   3rd Event   4th Event
               
      5th result   5th result   5th result   5th result
      vs 4th   vs 3rd   vs 2nd   vs 1st
               
               
R               
R               
R               
B               
R      C   R   R   R
B      C   R   C   C
0      C   C   C   C
B      C   R   C   R
B      R   C   R   C
B      R   R   C   R
B      R   R   R   C
R      C   C   C   C
B      C   R   R   R
R      C   R   C   C
B      C   R   C   R
B      R   C   R   C
R      C   C   R   C
R      R   C   C   R
B      C   C   R   R
B      R   C   C   R
R      C   C   R   R
B      C   R   R   C