Roulette Stat question

Add to that the weak side pattern and you can really kill it.

 

Yes, I understand that concept and can also be used to find the perfect state where you find two figures being underrepresented.

Ideas using Marigny De Grilleua methodology.
- - -
I come up with something that can be the perfect state or the perfect window of events where you get more than one ordinary imbalance with underrepresented events.
This is based on two different playing models.
- - -
Singles versus Series
Singles versus Larger Series
- - -
Illustration and explanation:
- - -
Singles versus Series is based upon to find singles being overrepresented with 2.5 or 3.0 STDV
Where the underrepresented series should recoup with small, medium or large correction.
- - -
Singles has the value of 1
Series has the value of 1
- - -
Singles versus Larger series is based upon that singles and series of two are overrepresented and larger series are underrepresented.
After an imbalance of 2.5 or 3.0 STDV, the expectation is that larger series will start to show with a small, medium or large length.
- - -
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
And so it continues ...
- - -
The Perfect State including two sequences with imbalance into one window of events reaching 2.5 or 3.0 STDV
For example:
Five singles and one series of three and five singles and one series of three and five singles
That is 3.16 STDV
- - -
Now one more series would create correction with Singles versus Series and make the window of events drop to 2.66 STDV
Now one more series of three or one above three in a row would create correction with Singles versus Larger Series and make the window drop to 2.66 STDV.
- - -
The concept is different than any other known way to tackle imbalance and we might develop this kind of equilibrium further.
For example, a 2.5 window would look like this:
Four singles and one series of three and four singles and one series of three and four singles.
- - -
Question is if we have to wait for a 2.5 or 3.0 STDV window of events or if we can attack after four singles when we have the expectation.
We have defined the variance and have a road map how the variance looks like and how it would unfold with our reaching 2.5 or 3.0 STDV.
- - -
This is how you define a selection based upon match and probability where the regression towards the mean is anything then fuzzy description of random bits.
Maybe there are more complex ways to incorporate imbalance several times into the same window of events.
- - -
This kind of concept needs to analyse the gaps between the small, medium and large sum of corrections to build a way of entering the attack in the right moment and know when to exit.
There is a huge difference using the law of series measuring underrepresented and overrepresented events opposite to Red and Black.

 

Yes, you are looking at the possibilities. The trick is to know if you are in a losing, grinding your way down session, or a winning, grinding your way up session. In EC betting, like the Red / Black options, you have one next bet to confirm if a trend will continue. Every lost bet is a signal that the trend is ending or that the trend is still continuing because the losses are flowing in singles or doubles only. So from those guesses you get data. From that data you will know if you are sliding downhill or sliding uphill in the season. By seeing the bigger picture you can deal with what randomness is serving up that day. There are no triggers that improve your guesses. You just get data. That information tells you about the current state of your session. You will get sequences that are perfect winners. You will get chaos that just results in no definable direction, up or down. You will get perfect losers too. Your guesses are one thing. Your results, data, are a complete other thing. Play the biggest picture, the session, and act on what you are getting. Blind, rule based, systems never have methods for dealing with the ups and downs that sessions encounter. That is the flaw in all of these so called hair-brained ideas that permeate the gambling forums. But it is fun to watch how excited players get when they think that the casino is now their own personal ATM machine. Yikes!

 

I don't take it too seriously, for me is just theory and fun way to see how variance behave.

Cheers

 

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." - Paul Newman

It's not just theory for me. But it is great to read your thoughts on all this.