Author Topic: PHILOSOPHICAL ALCHEMY AND CHANCE  (Read 6246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2019, 09:07:00 PM »
Corners and Streets include the zero.


« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2019, 03:55:59 AM »
There is no way to have a high hit rate and bother with the losses. These 2 things are simply not compatible.  You can play offencive or defencive , all other solutions is a road to nowhere.

If you are playing a few numbers at 35-1 odds with a high hit rate then losses may be insignificant but if you are playing more numbers with a watered down 2-1 or even 5-1 odds then the losses become significant even with a high hit rate.
Take Palestis Single Dozen System or the Dozen Drive; both have a high hit rate over 3/4 spins but losses significantly influence the potential to profit.
I should have mentioned this in my post above.
That has a lot to do with available B/R.
If for example you had $100,000 B/R and your basic chip value was $5, there is no way in the world you could lose, no matter what dozen system you play. You will have to lose a few dozen triggers back to back. Which will never happen in a million years.
  Take any system ever posted here.
Test it with $100,000 B/R and play it  with the absolute minimum chip value.
None of them will lose.
But who in the world with $100,000 B/R goes to a casino to win $200?
Yet a lot of players go to a casino with $1000 and expect to win another $1000 or more.
Consistent winning requires huge B/R's and reasonable win expectations.
A very important part of a system/strategy has to take into account B/R availability as it relates to win expectations and starting chip value. 

« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 03:59:20 AM by palestis »
The following users thanked this post: kav, Sputnik, Third


« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2019, 06:43:51 AM »
I have soooo noticed that  B & M casinos love to tweak these things in their favor, especially the minimum chip value.  Online casinos have relaxed this practice and I can only assume its because of the massively decreased overhead.


« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2019, 06:02:52 PM »
Greek, I will answer your question sooner (longer). What I can say is that I'm thinking of doing a test with sequences of 64 spins (no patterns because more stable) that have a significant gap in the game, and show what happens with the following spins. I did a test 20 years ago in somewhat similar conditions and I noticed that the side ahead made series less often and shorter than the side late. There are, in fact, many ways to look at things and I will prepare a text to better answer your question. however, my belief is that you have to look for differences to find after a fairly strong trend and reduce the risk for the player.
The following users thanked this post: Greek


« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2019, 09:21:35 AM »

“Is there another "law" that captures the tendency of small numbers?”

Greek's question makes me think of "JS", an old author from 1825. Moreover, Marigny de Grilleau seems to have found his inspiration thanks to this author who was already talking about the deviation-compensation concept. This old author was an officer cadet and with his military friends, he wrote and studied 150,000 spins. The goal was to look on all types of bet spreads (even on the straight up by taking at least 3 numbers). This was a really gigantic study without a computer.

I give a general example. On the DS, he was expecting a direct gap. Then, he looked in the recent past if this gap was not a return to the balance of a reverse gap. Finally, he played 10 spins to "catch" a DS trend. I point out that there are 66 ways to form a DS with the 12 Streets.

This author had understood, without knowing the law of small numbers, that it was necessary to look into the recent past. This observation of the past makes it possible to go beyond the frame of small numbers to avoid playing completely random spins. The "law of equilibrium" can therefore intervene in a larger frame than that of a few dozen spins and provide compensation.

100 years later, Marigny published "The scientific gain of one unit per attack". In his book he speaks quickly and once of this observation of the past before the gap. Very few of his followers understood the great importance of this observation. So for 100 years the players think and say that the method of Marigny is losing.

I presented this topic on the law of small numbers because many authors publish methods not to mention this problem. But the less the players have theoretical knowledge, the more authors can sell anything. To understand this (elementary) law on small numbers is really to start coming out of certain illusions about roulette and Hazard.

However, if methods, for example on EC, select 5 or 10 spins on average over 64 spins, it is necessary to think that the profit in % will be established in time, within the framework of the law of Bernoulli. There will be in a scheme (in flat bet), a causal chain between all the shots played, then a profit is possible.

What does not work in practice is to fix an attack in a small frame (for example the trigger of 2 red indicates to play for 12 spins column 3, loaded in red). This attack is "only" related to other accounting attacks. The spins played in all attacks are not related to each other in a global structure; there is no overlap between the spins played; they are independent attacks. In this case it is certain failure, but often the misinformed player will think that a progression will save his method. Indeed, vary his bet will create links between attacks. It's a good idea to compensate for an ineffective method, but as the spins played are totally random, so with a strong deviance to predict, the progress will require a huge bankroll (so for a ridiculous profit). And over time, the probability of the player losing his bankroll will also become huge.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2019, 09:33:04 AM by Stratege »
The following users thanked this post: kav, Greek, Third


« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2019, 03:54:02 AM »
Gaps are great on top performing selections.  I have recently started attacking them with this interesting recovery progression:


So that if our debt is 100 units a fully successful progression would run:

50 units
12 units
7 units

for a total of 68 units recovered.  All subsequent bets will be flat.

This progression is designed with cumulative probability in mind, where each coup attempts is more likely to miss and so less money is at risk.

The higher the hit rate of the selection, the longer the recovery progression can run.  I will typically run a progression up to 50% cumulative probability to hit and then start flat betting.

This is a "down as you win" progression and I use expectation for the length of my coup attempt.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 04:00:18 AM by Third »
The following users thanked this post: kav, Stratege


« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2019, 06:32:06 PM »

                                                                 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 betterthan 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.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 07:11:51 PM by Stratege »
The following users thanked this post: kav, Sputnik, vitorwally


« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2019, 07:15:23 PM »

I can explain the exact same playing model with other words and understanding, I have this work printed and explained by Marigny from a Swedish author.

The playing model is founded from singles versus larger series.
When singles are overrepresented with 3 STD you attack for balance +1 unit where larger series will unfold.

The original idea comes from singles versus larger series and has the following math values:

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 the value continues to grow

With Stratege example you would have the following values:

Series of five has the value of 1
Series of six has the value of 0
Series of seven has the value of 1
Series of eight has the value of 2
Series of nine has the value of 3
Series of ten has the value of 4
And so it continues to grow

One famous march is to play after +1 unit ( then you know you have regression ) other solutions is to start from the equivalent series that indicate regression and if you lose you start from smaller series to catch up.

You can track all three EC and get 900 trails during one visit and during two to three days observation getting one or more 3 STD triggers.
One important thing about an underrepresented 3 STD sequence is that you want it to happen within the first 100 trails.
Then you have 200 left to solve the puzzle because the situation can be hovering around plus minus noll values for a while and you would then not play until you have a valid indication to bet.

So if you would start from 200 trails you might not find a situation to involve any real play as there is no indication to place a bet.
The STD can grow stronger and stay with the same strength with no regression for many trails, therefore you want your trigger sequence with 3 STD in the beginning.

100 x 3 EC equals 300 and two to three days 1000 trails where you will have one or several 3 STD triggers.
This also depends on how many different levels you measuring the STD and X versus larger series.

Singles versus larger series.
Series of two versus larger series
Series of three versus larger series.
Series of four versus larger series
Series of five versus larger series
Series of six versus larger series

The following users thanked this post: kav, vitorwally, Stratege


« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2019, 04:12:43 AM »
I correct the given calculation: 23 - 5 = 18, the square root of 28 (23 + 5) = 5.3; 18 / 5.3 = 3.4 STD.

Sputnik, I see a little better your approach (but not really understand). Thank you for your explanations. I discover that you also use a "combinatorial" way and that you really play what you say. If you with a small example to present, I would be very interested. One small thing, I talked about the law of small numbers. I have 2 questions then. Do you look at the sequence that is before your STD value, to find out if there is not a deviation to the contrary? In general, how many spins do you have to form a deviance of 3 STD? 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 04:19:04 AM by Stratege »


« Reply #69 on: April 07, 2019, 03:57:44 PM »

Stratege I can share with you simple simulation software and you can see a regression with your own eyes and make your own conclusions and observations.
This is software find and measuring 3 STD sequences with singles versus larger series.

a) When singles are overrepresented with 3 STD or more you will get series strike and creating regression/correction.
b) Then if you use a series of two versus larger series or series of three versus larger series the result will be the same.

1) Download the attachment and unzip the folder.
2) Download 10.000 random bits from and save the text file into the same folder.
3) Open the software - Ecart - and load the text file with 10.000 random bits from random org.
4) Click on the Ecart software button - Find Next - and the software will show you the first 3 STD sequence.
5) Now click on the - Spin Button - and you will get the results one by one and see how regression unfold.
6) You can click on the box to save the output into a text file and you can observe and research your 3 STD sequences for different attack modes.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Stratege


« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2019, 05:02:49 AM »

If you take singles versus series you will see two things part of regressions.
There is as many singles as there is series.

So series will chop and strike after each other.

One common pattern is one single between two series:
So the singles don't grow stronger and the series chop.


The other common pattern is series after series.


This two patterns are part of regression/correction.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 05:04:31 AM by Sputnik »


« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2019, 10:58:20 PM »
If singles are as likely as a series then it's 50/50 that the color will repeat( minus zero).
 Let's ignore 0..
  Case 1.
 We are at the beginning of serie ( previous color no repeat)
 Case 2.
 We are in the middle of the serie
    No way to know serie length,  so no way to know if color repeat.
  Case 3.
 We are in the end of serie.
   Same thing... we do not know if it's the end or if next spin is single or beginning of other serie...
   So where to bet?
 Now let's remember that 0 actually existing. ..


« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2019, 06:36:40 AM »

Sputnik, thank you for this software. With your explanations, I better understand the use of this model single = 1, serie of 2 = 0, series of 3 = 1 ... In fact, it is the counting break / repetition. For everyone to understand, a series of 2 is a break (first hit of the serie) and a repeat (second hit of the serie). So, break + repeat = 0. With the series of 3, we have a first hit "break" + two hits "repetition". So, the difference = 1.

It is important for players to understand that the "break / repeat" game is better than the "red / black" game. This is simple to understand. If we have observed a negative difference on black, for example 6R 1B 7R 1B 6R 1B 5R (24 Red and 3 Black, the difference = 21), we think that black is late and that he will come back "soon" in serie . This is actually not correct! In fact, the game has already given a lot of series, we cannot hope that the series will continue on black. This is the mistake made by many players who have not studied EC enough. The game here would be rather singles or small series on both sides. This phenomenon is explained with the game "break / serie". If we watch this game, we have 20 hits "serie" against 7 hit "break". The difference = 13. This game "break / serie" shows a difference much lower than the game "red / black". Following the game "break / serie" does not have this drawback of colors.

It is imperative that players avoid this error of believing that a series of 15 to Red will then bring a compensatory series to Black. This for the reason explained here and for another reason explained with the law of small numbers. So all research on gaps that use color can never provide the best solution. It's the same with dozens and columns!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 06:40:19 AM by Stratege »
The following users thanked this post: kav, Sputnik


« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2019, 02:14:27 PM »

Stratege I will show you something interesting about balance and imbalance.
There is a book with the name 'Conquer the Casinos'' by Philip Koetsch.

He simulate 60.000 placed bets with 1.7 House Edge.
83% had at least one reversal during 100 placed bets samples flat betting.

Will post the complete test with all parameters.
I use them as a reference when the testing selections.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Third, Stratege


« Reply #74 on: April 15, 2019, 02:34:33 PM »
Sputnik, your message yesterday reminds me of three kinds of compensation that we can look for: a single unit, a few units, a larger number of units (your "wave-compensation"). Last week, in my message about series 6 or more, I was talking about looking for a few units with few chips. On average it revolves around 15 spins played per gap, or about 0.4 unit systematically lost by zero (15 x 2.7 / 100). In my example, the good stability of the game can be explained by the fact that playing 6 or 7 attacks does not modify enormously the value initial 3 STD initial, this value remains between 2 and 3 (or more).

The waves sought in my demonstration are small (like those of the Mediterranean) but the "oceanic waves" you are talking about are different. I'm wondering about your goal of "compensation wave" because according to the theory of 3 STD (about), if we play too long (to reach a strong wave), this 3 STD value can almost disappear, so this hoped-for wave is more a compensation but a "random" deviance. It is probably for this reason (falling of the STD value) + a lot of spins played (a lot of zeros to pay), that you had difficulties. Long attacks also have an effect on the bankroll (more units are needed). These 3 disadvantages (not to mention an inappropriate progression leading systematically to disaster), form a "vicious circle", while the search for a single unit or a few units is likely to remain in a "virtuous circle". It is a major challenge that you embark on,
wanting to reach a fairly pronounced wave. Alas, to succeed in 90% of situations does not tell us at all what we lose during the 10% of losing attacks. There is often a subjective effect that can deceive us in this relationship (probability of winning / lost).

Your study is complex because you have to determine the height of the wave in a realistic way. I think this is determined by the STD value + the duration of the deviance. Example, 3 STDs on 25 spins (20 vs. 5) make 15 statistically late "wins". But 3 STD out of 81 spins (54 against 27) made 27 "wins" late. A wave is more likely if we have this delay of 27 (or more). It is therefore absolutely necessary to have spin ratios (I mean singles and series ratios) that are quite large. Logically, it is after the great deviances that there are large waves of compensation!

You know my point of view about the size of the samples because of the "law of small numbers". In your case, the number of figures (singles + series) that form the gap could determine the height of the desired wave. The number of zeros encountered can very quickly ruin the game. How to find a happy medium? Your progression  suggestion with Brett Morton (which I do not know yet) is a study that you could do next. If you find a flatback advantage on the bank (to compare flat bet and Morton progression).

I remember now, a few years ago, a player on a forum asked me to explain a method (a variant of the Marigny method) with this calculation of singles and series with points, maybe exactly likeyou said it.It was a German method. I then specify that if you are looking for your deviations only from points, and over 25 or 30 spins, it cannot beat zero. The principle is always better than following red / black. Don’t hesitate to tell me what difficulties you have;)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 02:47:51 PM by Stratege »