Royal Panda roulette

Author Topic: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory  (Read 4121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MickyP

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2019, 06:19:03 AM »
Well, talking about realistic; Scepticus, you actually play roulette (on B/M tables) whereas PMS has no idea what a casino chip feels like.
It's like playing war games on a computer versus the real deal. With gaming you can die over and over without learning anything but in real life when you lose your bankroll you don't want it to happen again so you learn and prepare better.
Theory is not hard fact. Theory is not reality. Theory is a guideline that may correctly direct an action but you cannot win 100% of the time by simply following theory.
 

Sputnik

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2019, 12:38:41 PM »


I have not so much time to talk and show working methods for Marigny - i make several thosand trading sports.

Now this work with all of Marignys playing methods, same principal for all.

One event versus another event can be any.

Loses versus wins
Singles versus series
Series versus singles

Singels versus series of three and higher
Sereis of two versus series of four and higher
Series of three versus series of five and higher
Series of four versus series of six and higher

One side only, for exampl black

Singles black events versus series of blacks
Series of black events versus series of black singles

The combinations are many

Now you try to win two within 7 attempts with one fictive loss.

For example Black

B Fictive trigger now you try to win two times for the next six attempts if you win once you lower the count -1.
B
B
R Win
B
B
B
B
B

Now you did not win twice and you have 8 loses and 1 win.
After next win you will get two winnings or regression.
If not you have 3.5 STDV

I can flat betting 300 trails with 6 units and win over 10 units without progression.
But if you play in the long term you would use 111111 222222 444444 666666 888888
Losing all levels is around 4.5 STDV with my example 2.5 STDV for each sequence - window

I assume without testing that you will win many years before you bust.
But you do this on your own risk.

See video

https://youtu.be/wgjejsMBy7s

Cheers
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 12:44:29 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: Stratege

Stratege

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2019, 01:57:47 PM »
I checked a few points with my combinatorial process. Singles + series of length 2, can come from time to time 30 to 50 times without any higher series.

I think that the most important quotation from Marigny is "[to win,] the statistical difference, alone, is not enough, this for several reasons ... We must add to the statistical difference a probability of agglomeration".

This quote means that a direct statistical gap, before playing will not suffice. It is therefore certain that if I check an attack after 20 or 30 figures (single + series of 2), my test will be lost. So, to add a probability of agglomeration, it will be necessary, for example, that I observe on 60 or 70 figures, that there were only a few higher series (very short, either length 3 or 4), and they did not come in groups. The goal will be to wait for two series of length 3 or 4 (or even 5) to form a first agglomeration (ex: 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 or 1 1 2 4 3 1 2 1). This agglomeration (trigger) indicates that the higher series can return in a group (or at least a very long series). So when a higher series comes back, it will be necessary to wait for its break to play in the direction of a second higher series (it is necessary to wait for a series of 2 come and we play hoping that it will be superior to 2). If we lose, we always have 2 probabilities in our favor (the long series that we will win or the agglomerations of higher series). I present this basis of work because if there is not a statistical advantage on the wheel, a progression will not work properly.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 02:22:07 PM by Stratege »
 

ludo8400

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2019, 07:46:36 PM »
@ stratege
In his book Marigny says a group of 4 intermittences is like  a group of 4.
Ex. B b R b r b rr the middle group is not 4 intermittences but one group of 4.Ludo8400
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Stratege

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2019, 04:30:28 PM »
Ludo, sorry, I do not understand your example. Is "group" of 4 = "series" of 4, for you? A group of 4 intermittences (or 4 singles) is equal to a group of 4 any series (or an agglomeration of 4 series). But, 4 intermittences arn't equal to a series of 4, their probabilities are different.

In fact, there is a great variety of figures by associating singles with series. For the Sputnik exam, it should be noted that singles + series of 2 make 75% of the figures (3 times more than the higher series). So yesterday, in my suggestion to take 60 to 70 figures, this is the equivalent of the gap 20 against 5 (with 25 figures). This value of 3 STDs with the example of Sputnik is therefore 3 x 20 = 60; therefore 60 (singles + series of 2) against 5 higher series. We can also use Marigny's principles differently.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 04:32:13 PM by Stratege »
 

Sputnik

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2019, 01:35:53 PM »


I will not answer questions - have no time - but I will point to winning method or the right direction.

Experiment and this can be done with any existing combinations with or without Marigny playing modells.

Six reds and one black are 2.07 STDV and have 1.5% probability to happen.
This means that your expectation is to get at least one more black with 98.5% likelihood.

That is two black with any combination with six reds or less with 98.5% probability.
And with 1.5% probability not to happen.

Next example, six reds, and one black and six reds and one black is 2.5 STDV
If that is not going to happen you will have three blacks and twelve reds.

Now assume you do what Brett Morton did in his book - waiting for a pattern of six in different shapes and betting against them, parlay.
Then we now can calculate what his expectation is without losing six bets in a row.

Now take six reds and look at the likelihood or what you can expect if you do not get twelve reds in a row.

You get one black among twelve reds and you have 3.06 STDV
You get two black among twelve reds and you have 2.50 STDV
You get three blacks among twelve reds and you have less than 3-2.5 STDV

There you have it - the blueprint with Brett Morton strategy - he's most common strike ratio is three or more after a pattern of six.
And he apply a specific money management strategy that increases the likelihood to stay ahead as a winner.

Marigny is no different, look at this ...

Here Stratege misunderstand concept with a series of two.
Playing model by Marigny.

Singles are ignored.
Series of two has the value of 1
Series of three has the value of 0
Series of four has the value of 1
Series of five has the value of 2
Series of six has the value of 3

Now take six series of two and six of them among any amount of series of three.
Then your expectation is three series of four or higher within the next formations of series of two.
If not then you have 3 or 2.5 STDV
That would be twelve series of two in a row with same probability as twelve reds with no blacks.

This also applies to the original strategy, wait for 3.00 STDV and you catch regression within the next coming six events where you will win at least two or three events being part of regression.
If not the 3.00 STDV will grow to 3.82 or 3.96 STDV and assume you will lose the next window of six events 4.53 or 4.64.

With a four-level progression, it will take you many years to lose with no present regression winning two among six in any combination.

That is what I send you Stratege.

You can pick 5 6 7 8 9 or any other combination and you will have AT LEAST 1 2 3 events coming as part of regression towards the mean.
If not then you have 3.0 2.5 or higher STDV values.

AND NO ONE SAY THAT YOU SHOULD BET WITHOUT INDICATION OF REGRESSION SO ONE HIT INDICATION GIVE YOU TWO EVENTS TO WIN.

Cheers
« Last Edit: August 27, 2019, 01:39:24 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Stratege

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2019, 05:14:33 PM »
I think I understood the "points" with Morton, I only thought of a variant with singles + series of 2. But my example is very bad, it was just a nascent idea, to bring things back to the classical schema of Marigny.

But what I don’t understand with Morton is that in your example with series of 2 (value 1), series of 3 (value 0), series of 4 (value 1) ... it would be necessary here that series of 2 "value -1 ", for the total to make zero with equality between the lengths of the series. To return to the singles game (value 1), series of 2 (value 0), series of 3 (value 1) ... if singles (value -1), the calculation is like that repetition / break. My question, what is the advantage of mixing single = 1 and series of 3 = 1 too ?

I also mentioned Marigny's quote to remind that without a "probability of agglomeration" we cannot win mechanically. Using a progression that will lose in a few years is a gamble, we don’t know if the wrong scenario will not repeat 3 or 4 times before its "normal" time. This is the problem that players encounter when testing progress. Their progression is modified and modified again, so it resists long enough because it follows the particularities of the spin history that is tested. But once in front of a roulette table, the player will encounter "normal" losses, conform to statistics, and that will make his failure.

Sputnik, I will analyze your messages to tell you my opinion.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2019, 05:18:27 PM by Stratege »
 

Sputnik

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2019, 10:24:58 AM »


Stratege now we can verify other claims from famous gamblers - for example, John Patrick mention in his book that if he sees a strong trend with reds or blacks he will jump on board and betting.

Now we can explain and test the truth behind this claims using math and probability with STDV calculations.

Let's start with eight blacks and one red in any combination, then your expectation is at least two reds among the next six trails.
If you don't get two more reds you have a 3.0 STDV or above.
With nine the selection is slightly stronger.

But John Patrick plays reverse and for the STDV to grow stronger or show even if there is strong regression.
So he waits for nine blacks and one red. than bet black, this means he is betting against two sequences not become opposite with 2.58 STDV
Assume he doesn't win two blacks and get nine reds and one black, same as nine black and one red, that is two 2.58 sequences after each other.
One imbalance with 100% regression.

Now, this also true with six blacks and one red and your expectation is two reds for the next six trails.
If you don't get two more reds you have a 2.5 STDV or above
With seven the selection is slightly stronger.

This means that the claims from authors like John Patrick and Brett Morton are true and now I can prove them right with math and probability calculation using STDV.

This is breaking news with gambling - in the past, I never understood the reason behind betting the ways they do.

Cheers
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Stratege

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2019, 05:21:22 PM »
Sputnik, I specify things. Playing a progression that "must" lead to a positive result on only a few dozen spins is to stay in the "law of small numbers" (LSN). The fate of the player is known in advance. What I want you to understand is that without the "combinatorics", you will stay within this narrow framework of the LSN. Using the series 2 / higher series figures will be almost the same, because all of your spins played will only be a few dozen shots to the maximum.

I invite you to build your combinatorial system to find statistical differences much more interesting than on 6 or 7 spins. If only one member could understand me on this forum, about combinatorics, I would prefer it to be you! Some spins cannot be a trigger. I'm sorry to contradict your favorite authors but, I believe the LSN is a sufficient argument to change his thinking about roulette, especially with R / B, dozens, etc. With combinatorics you will find statistical differences of 4 STD on 50 spins (or 50 figures) or more. Personally, I can find 4 STD on 100 figures, or 3 STD on 200 figures. It is necessary to respect the authors but perhaps, they don’t know (or don’t say) all that one should know!
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 05:24:26 PM by Stratege »
 

Sputnik

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2019, 06:33:22 PM »


Stratege - did I mention that one punter won 30.000 Euro with the staking plan I send you and yes it bust and he ends up with 25.000 Euro and continue - my selection with several bets within one using multiply playing models by Margniny into one selection makes my solution as good as hes method that made over one year of income.
I only make small adjustment and will be playing this both online and real local casino in Sweden Stockholm.

Now I move this beyond any one's imagination.
I am so confident with this solution that I convert an old visual ballistic solution from Pierre Basieux - parts of it - with a combination of Laurance solution for Europen wheel and the wheel mapping strategy into one very strong visual ballistic playing model that I will play with regularity.
Confident this can make 30K year after year in any casino as I implement the selection above into the calculation.
And with physics and visual ballistics measurements, you will get a more solid ground to bet on.

Problem is that I can not post it in public but are willing to share in private.
And is sad this forum don't have a visual ballistic board where you could talk about such playing models.
I can see a section in the forum but it has nothing to do about physics or visual ballistics, just one persons post about hes fantasy world.
Would never get involved or being part of that.

Stratege I want to say thank you for your invention to develop and tackle your playing model and I hope you don't take this the wrong way.
But I have to follow the money with this one and it has been proven or confirmed by several punters that the method above is a winning one.

Cheers Patrik
 

MrPerfect.

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2019, 02:46:23 PM »
 There is in fact no vb section on this forum. I think you could convince kav to delete rests of it or nominate you a moderator of it. Feel free to delete everything,  sorry didn't finish clean up.
   What's up about not posting now? Are you that afraid of me commenting on it? Do not worry, l will tell no one that your "basieux solution" is for these who do not know better and that Laurence do not play the way he has written on the book. Feel free to make a fool of yourself in open, no need secrecy. 
 

Sputnik

Re: Marigny De Grilleau - Abstract Theory
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2019, 03:49:16 PM »


No worries, you just manage to make a fool out of your self running that section :-)

Have a great day :-)