Winning Structurally

[Badger]

A really interesting structure to look at would be

Spin 1      Positions 1,2&3
Spin 2      Positions 1&2
Spin 3      Position   3

This reminds me of RRBB's "proof" that roulette can/can't be beaten.

[Blueprint]

Look back at the beginning of the RT thread.

VdW is structural.  Why?  At most, you will have 4 bets within 9.

[MoneyT101]

Look back at the beginning of the RT thread.

VdW is structural.  Why?  At most, you will have 4 bets within 9.

Ok cycle betting is a form of a structural bet.   So basically some form of mechanical betting with a fixed number of options.


If this, then that…

[Blueprint]

Ok cycle betting is a form of a structural bet.   So basically some form of mechanical betting with a fixed number of options.


If this, then that…

First time I’m seeing the if this then that thread.  Good luck with the chops on that one.

[Blueprint]

This place bores me but I'll add the following.

Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...

Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries.  With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.

[6th-sense]

It bores a lot of people...here's a quote

You remember pigeon hole principle? Think of this correlation. Pigeons are lines in the first column. Roulette lines. Holes are the
position or derived lines. Last column.
Now what does the principle suggest. Some holes will have two pigeons. So essentially some positions will have two roulette lines
coming in.
Also one pigeon cannot sit in two holes. So the same line in your sequence cannot sit in two positions.
Think about it.
Yes. Am talking about a sequence of spins. Not a single spin.


You do realise the importance of this quote ?...

I'll just leave it at that

[Blueprint]

Enlighten us... seems everyone has it all figured out.   I wonder where that came from.   

[MoneyT101]

Im really interested in the topic but if feels like any other topic where no one is really open to speaking.  So are we going to just hide behind info or actually share something worth investigating?

It bores a lot of people...here's a quote

You remember pigeon hole principle? Think of this correlation. Pigeons are lines in the first column. Roulette lines. Holes are the
position or derived lines. Last column.
Now what does the principle suggest. Some holes will have two pigeons. So essentially some positions will have two roulette lines
coming in.
Also one pigeon cannot sit in two holes. So the same line in your sequence cannot sit in two positions.
Think about it.
Yes. Am talking about a sequence of spins. Not a single spin.


You do realise the importance of this quote ?...

I'll just leave it at that

6th sense, Pri already shared this info with detail in rrbb thread so not sure why its being mentioned in cryptic fashion when the solution has been shared to this exact quote.  Now this solution works most of the time but you still have losing cycles which makes it not even worth attempting.  Something is still missing to make it fully work.  Here to get everyone up to speed o the quote.....

3Nine - the whole post started with ordinality or ordinal numbers. They are nothing but the position of spins.  The second stream that you created - “derived stream” - is the ordinal set. 

The term low derived straight, low derived lines is a form of using the ordinality. If it is unclear I can explain with an example.

Now if you combine both sets and play them you will apply some form pigeon hole.  This solution can get you many wins. You can use a progression and win more.  But it will come at an expensive cost which many might not play and also if zero comes out then you will risk a bigger lost.

[MoneyT101]

Will we actually have a Conversation in this thread or will it all be cryptic talk?

Should i start my own topic where we can speak more freely?

[MoneyT101]

This place bores me but I'll add the following.

Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...

Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries.  With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.

I find this confusing. 

3 cherries would imply its all the same partition....once the second cherry comes automatically a new cycle begins.  so wouldnt it be 1 cherry by the time we get to 3?

So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1

[MoneyT101]

Will we actually have a Conversation in this thread or will it all be cryptic talk?

Should i start my own topic where we can speak more freely?

So new topic it is

[Blueprint]

3 Cherries - Lines 1, 4, 6. 

3 Cherries - Street 7, 4, 9.

Cherries are elements in a set. 

[Blueprint]

And to respond to 6th. 

Here's a similar example.

Think of a baseball team lineup.

X as players on the team (of size 9 in the case of baseball)
Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)

The "pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order.
Each player is somewhere in the list.
No player bats in two (or more) positions in the order.
For each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position
Two or more players are never batting in the same position in the list.

[MoneyT101]

Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...

Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries.  With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.

3 Cherries - Lines 1, 4, 6. 

3 Cherries - Street 7, 4, 9.

Cherries are elements in a set.

I find this confusing. 

3 cherries would imply its all the same partition....once the second cherry comes automatically a new cycle begins.  so wouldnt it be 1 cherry by the time we get to 3?

So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1

i do see your talking about creating your own set.

My reply to you is still correct and you confirmed it..... 3 cherries would imply its all the same partition(elements in a set)

So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1!  it wont always be one for the other set only half the time if youre using lines/streets

[MoneyT101]

And to respond to 6th. 

Here's a similar example.

Think of a baseball team lineup.

X as players on the team (of size 9 in the case of baseball)
Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)

The "pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order.
Each player is somewhere in the list.
No player bats in two (or more) positions in the order.
For each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position
Two or more players are never batting in the same position in the list.

I created a system based on this logic using rrbb out the box.

You create both tables original set and derived set.  Then based on where the numbers are you play.  there are only 4 combinations to choose from

very interesting to see cause and effect