Randomer Thoughts

[RouletteGhost]

I don't agree - but then again no one would have expected me to either lol.
Congrats on finding ways to bend information this way and that while not changing a thing.
You can cut a pizza into various complex shapes and cut it into sections and compare them to each other or even stack pieces on one another based on some formula  but you haven't changed the fact that it's the same pizza. But go on ! It is great reading and maybe a learning process for some as well - which can never be a bad thing.

[PeaBea65]

I truly believe this. After what I'm seeing and testing.   

Agree, GUT is nothing short of brilliant if used correctly.

[Priyanka]

maybe a learning process

Don't know for anyone else.  But definitely for me. 

[Turner]

Agree, GUT is nothing short of brilliant if used correctly.

Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.

[NextYear]

Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.

Thanks for info Turner, maybe there could be Topic with info who has multiple names and which are they?

[PeaBea65]

Thanks for info Turner, maybe there could be Topic with info who has multiple names and which are they?

That would be good, I would love to see who I am supposed to be, as well as who I am now.  Should be interesting.

[Priyanka]

Why is personal permanence so important as a concept to go through.  Why is it important to have a random sequence for your personal permanence. I don't know the answers.

But this is what I think. We started our journey with cycles and certain statistics and distributions associated with these cycles.  If our selection process does not result in a random sequence but instead on a predictable pattern will these stats and distribution hold good. Commonsensical answer is it may or may not.  But we want them to hold good so that we can do something about it. Like Turner said if we keep on combining 10s then we will be having only cycles of length 1.  This is the reason it is important for me to have a random sequence for personal permanence.  Whether we place virtual bets or actual bets is outside the equation though. 

One quote that I think going to be useful in this process is "even if I add a million zeroes infront of an infinite random sequence then the sequence still remains random". Enough of personal permanence for us to go and explore what else is out there.

[falkor2k15]

Interesting insight once again, Priyanka! Taking the non-random out of random and leaving a personal permanence trail that has a pattern? My biggest question is what happened to "parallel universes" - was it ever covered?

I'm out of my depth, but I'm starting to understand some of this stuff. Even if we can take on board half of what Priyanka teaches we'll be in a much better position to survive the next trip to the casino and impress our girlfriends...

[RouletteGhost]

Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.

Lol he has done this since day 1. He is helena to i think

Its funny cause on one name he would bash me and on the other he would be my friend

Creepy

[Priyanka]

There was once a discussion around sequences and the probability of sequences. There was always a twist to it.

It went like this, consider the sequences RB, RR, BR, BB. ¼ is the likelihood of each of these sequences to occur. So you are playing for the sequence RB. Place a bet on red. Red comes through. Now what is the probability that you will get a sequence RB after a red has come through? It is 50% and not 25%. Simple as it may sound, but a complex subject to get your head around it.  Why complex? It seems a very simple thing. The odds of next spin is always the odds of the position you are playing. Hmm! Let me think again.

Transfer that thought to dozen cycles. We established that probabilities of cycles of length 1, 2 and 3 are 1/3, 4/9 and 2/9. Yes, definitely the first thing we discussed. No doubts. Lets play for cycle 1. Very straightforward. The odds of cycle 1 occuring are as good as the dozen to repeat. Fair.

Now lets play for cycle 3. After two unique dozens appear, what is the odds that the next dozen will occur. Is it 1/3 which is the odds of next dozen or is it 2/9 the odds of cycle length 3? Getting the answer for this right is significant for us to progress. As I said, no hints, no puzzles. So the answer is 1/3. Why is it not 2/9. It is not 2/9 because at the point when two dozens have rolled, the probability of the cycle length being 1 has to be ruled out. It is a question of whether it is going to be cycle of length 2(4/9) or cycle of length 3 (2/9). If those are the only available probabilities, it is very clear that one is 2/3 and other is 1/3 and hence cycle length 3 forming after 2 dozens appear is at a probability of 1/3. Which again is equal to the probability of a single dozen.

The important learning here for me is â€" Turbo will love this - the odds of an event doesn’t change whatever sequence or pattern you put it in and hence whatever has happened in the past. The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant. Obvious for some, not so obvious for many including myself. It took a long time to get my head around this.

[Bayes]

Priyanka,

Good post.

I added a little section on this in my Gambler's Fallacy article ("Diminishing Runs"). I've lost count of the number of systems which assume that somehow the probability of a sequence is "conserved" as successive spins move along it. So on this assumption if the probability of getting at least one hit in a sequence of R/B is 90% then it's still 90% even though one of the spins has gone. Wrong! - you need to recalculate the sequence to find the new probability of at least one hit in the reduced sequence. The birthday "paradox" seems to be popular and several systems have been created around this idea, but they all commit the GF. It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.

And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.

[RouletteGhost]

My take on virtual bets

They can be a waste of time

Unless you have the time

If you create a selection that rarely has 3L you can sit and wait for 2L then begin

By definition it is fallacy. But if it works.....

[maestro]

@Bayes...got question...say we got 37 possible outcomes but they are not equally likely so is there a formula to calculate probability for repeat ...in other words how many uniques can be drawn before repeat..you had a formula but is for equally likely outcomes...thanks

[falkor2k15]

Is this a contradiction to what Priyanka said before?

It went like this, consider the sequences RB, RR, BR, BB. ¼ is the likelihood of each of these sequences to occur. So you are playing for the sequence RB. Place a bet on red. Red comes through. Now what is the probability that you will get a sequence RB after a red has come through? It is 50% and not 25%. Simple as it may sound, but a complex subject to get your head around it.  Why complex? It seems a very simple thing. The odds of next spin is always the odds of the position you are playing. Hmm! Let me think again.

But stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.
Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.

Or is Priyanka describing two different things? Bayes? Priyanka?

[falkor2k15]

Is Bayes' statement compatible with Priyanka's statement regarding virtual bets?

Priyanka,

Good post.
... It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.
And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.

As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them. 

In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.

Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?