ALWAYS THE SAME QUESTIONS

*(a sufficient theorization contains the essential answers)*

The methods (in construction) presented on roulette forums systematically propose too uncertain hypotheses.

After a few rules (without explanation) for the practice, it is finally Always the same questions that come back. How to play? When to play? How long to play? What progression? ... To provide an "interim answer" to these questions, it is essential to have a theorization (laws, concepts, techniques, strategies, previous studies) to assess the potential of a future method.

For example, my favorite theorization uses the concept of "deviance-compensation". I have an understanding of some pattern distribution laws about EC, as well as techniques and strategies for choosing the best situations. But my goal is always to win one unit per part. I now wish to "study" the concept of "trend" to hope to gain several units per part.

My study will now focus on series 6 or longer on EC. I know that out of 1024 spins, there are 16 series of length 5 that oppose 16 series of 6 or more (this is a statistical fact). I then know, according to the concept of "deviance-compensation" that I must find a gap of 3 STD in this game of opposition between series of 5 / higher series, this on at least 25 series in total. I take a situation encountered recently, to be clear. About 1000 spins, I found 23 series of 5, and only 5 series of length 6 or more. The deviance of 3 STD is therefore sufficient (23 - 5 = 18 and the square root of 25 = 5, 18/5 = 3.6 STD). My theorization on the gaps, also tells me to choose exclusively situations that have an "interior gap". I watch if my 5 series are rather "weak". That is to say, if it is rather a series of 6 and 7, this to hope to capture the real game longer series (which will compensate for the gap). I am therefore looking for 2 favorable probabilities (with two different differences). I also know that working on 800 spins or more, brings a very high stability of selection, according to the law of "balance". So, in my study, I have three favorable effects (which are more than just hypotheses).

I still know that I do not have to play too long, otherwise the strength of my 2 deviations can fall and cancel my advantage. My game criteria are temporarily: wait for the return of a series not too long (trigger), then, when a series of 5 comes, I play for continuity, until the break, because the long series has (according to my theorization) a higher probability. If the series stays at 5, I lose a unit. If the series goes up to 6, I win nothing (gain + loss = nothing), so this situation is zero, not counted. If the series is 7 (series of 5 // + 1 + 1 - 1), I have ++ -, so only one unit won. If I meet a serie of 12 (5 // +7 - 1), I have 6 units won. My theorization indicates to risk a maximum of 5 units (in flat bet). I then have an average of 6 or 7 attacks per part. Among these 6 or 7 attacks, I often meet 1 or 2 series long enough to bring me my profit.

On the question of the risk, my theorization indicates to risk in general 5 units maximum (here, 5 attacks with 1 unit). This risk of 5 units also seems interesting with this game on the "trend". I also note that it is very pleasant and distracting to test such a method, because we very often record several units gained. I also have the impression that this game, about 800 minimum spins, is better than my classic game on the gaps with 300 to 500 spins, to win only one unit per game. This better stability in this study on the "trend" could also be explained by a fact already observed: the series have a weaker deviance than intermittences. The chains of several spins forming a medium or long series have a greater weight on the distribution of the hazard and then, the deviance is less strong.

The presentation of this study shows that it is possible to give on a roulette forum, the essential lines for a "performing" method in flat bet. But the players who would like to test this way will have great difficulty, if they do not build their combinatorial model. Because it takes (without combinatorics) 80 000 or 100 000 spins to find a part that will bring a very interesting advantage! On the other hand, players can add to their theorization, the general principles that I use here (or elsewhere). I point out that in this study, there are 3 or 4 effects that add up. **It's obligatorily by the mechanism of several effects that we can find spins to play which are better****than the others**. A roulette theorization must "understand" a number of effects in order to provide a "provisional or approximate" answer, before starting a search. Without this, we are wasting our time and motivation. The risk with the absence of theorization is also to remain an "Eternal beginner", never clearly understanding the choices we make. This "trend" study also brings me a new question to study. Can this game earn more units than my classic single unit per game search?

I also remember that **Greek** had said "*but how to capture the trend?* ". Each player will have his answer, because there are several possible theorizations and several possible goals. My answer here is only about the "trend" applied to series on EC.