EDGE â€" Four letters that every gambler looks for. Whether it is roulette or baccarat or blackjack. Whether it is real life or casino life. Whether it is advantage play or system play. Every gambler looks for an edge. Unfortunately it is Casino who has kept it locked in a safe and every gambler plots to break that safe. There are some who has the access to the key to this safe, but prefers to keep it a secret so that you don’t kill the golden goose. There are some who doesn’t even know how a key looks like but quite good in theoretical plots around designing it. There are some who takes pleasure in weaving stories just like the captain flight in Planes, where in actually doesn’t have a clue. In between all these are a confused set of individuals who has the majority to win an election if there was a vote. What a strange world.
So where is the key. How do we locate this thing called edge. Let us restrict our discussion only to roulette, apt to the title of this forum. To start with let us assume that there is no edge. Is that a right assumption? Can we prove this assumption with an evidence. A very intelligent mathematician might calculate, point to the house edge and say there is no edge. A smart physician or an engineer might point at the balanced wheel say there is no edge.
A person who has access technology advancements beyond our imagination like Jack palmer in 24, might say that I can predict using complex formulae and advanced capture mechanism to predict where the ball lands when the ball is released might say… Ahh! Here is your edge! Just like everyone cant get to the moon, this technology might not be in everyone’s reach. Just like you cannot take calculator to a KS1 exam, you might not be allowed to take this technology into a casino.
If someone assumes that I am going to explain that I have an edge that everyone can play, read back what is stated in bold. To start with let us assume that there is no edge. One who is following this thread, will gain nothing more that some amusing ramblings and cryptic videos where I will boast of my winning sessions. Just setting the expectations straight. :P :P >:D
Some may be aware of this question, some may not.
"How many elements of some structure must there be to guarantee that a particular property will hold?"
A bit complex to comprehend. British are always a bit complex to comprehend (My personal opinion). A british bloke called Ramsey is behind this question. Hmm! Not the one from the bolton family. The one from bolton family might be inspired by this old bloke to cut a structure from Theon into a piece and then fry it to see whether it will hold. Hang on, how is this question relevant to Roulette? Why am I interested in structures and properties.
Our relevance comes through a dutch bloke who followed Ramsey. His name is Van der Waerden. What he believed is slightly complex. To make it too simplistic, we can restate it by saying
“in 9 spins of roulette yielding black and red, there will be one arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding the same colourâ€
Let me explain the scientific term here first before proceeding further. The term is “arithmetic progressionâ€. It is nothing but a sequence of numbers where the difference between consecutive terms is constant.
1,2,3,… is an arithmetic progression
1,3,5,7… is an arithmetic progression
1,4,7,10.. is an arithmetic progression
2,6,10, 14… is an arithmetic progression
Now coming back, lets take a set of 9 spins.
RBR BRR RBB
123 456 789
Lets check whether what the dutch said was true. See the arithmetic sequence of spins 1,3 and 5 â€" I get RRR. There are 512 combinations that can happen, but none of them will fail to have an arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding same colour. Interesting isn’t it!
Now look at some boring boasting of a session
link:://youtu.be/AIvAeaHzKVY (link:://youtu.be/AIvAeaHzKVY)
For a moment lets forget that we need to win. Lets see the possibility of applying what the dutch said to the roulette. Lets not play the game of random numbers and guessing. Lets play the game in finite 9 number cycles. Lets play the game using a template and let the casino catch us rather than we going after predicting the casino. It is paradoxical to note that even though we are playing based on a what we see as previous spins, we are not making any guesses here, but playing to a fixed template. The casino is trying to predict and win over us rather than we predicting what the next spin is. We are just playing to prove the theorem right.
First spin â€" B
Next â€" R
An arithmetic progression of 1,2,3 is not possible.
Next â€" R
An arithmetic progression of 2,3,4 is possible. So we play as per our template to prove the theorem and play R.
Alas â€" B. A loss.
No arithmetic progressions possible at this time (1,2,3../ 2,3,4…./3,4,5…/, 1,3,5/ 2,4,6)
Next â€" B
Only possible progression is 4,5,6 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.
Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.
The outcome is LLW
Lets play another game.
First spin â€" R
Second â€" B
Third â€" R
Fourth â€" B
We could get 1,3,5 to be RRR.
Oh my god â€" B. Lost
Two progressions possible now. 2,4,6 or 4,5,6. Both point to BBB
Bingo â€" B. Won
Outcome is LW
One final game before I get to bed.
First spin â€" B
Second â€" R
Third â€" B
Fourth â€" R
We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB
Awesome â€" B. Won.
Outcome is W.
Any thoughts here?
Now look at the following 8 spins.
BRRBBRRB
If we play based on the theorem, what will we play for the 9th spin? Black or Red? Leaving you with these thoughts.
I think that there are two choices:
1. B - because you have 1,5,9 as a possibility.
2. R - because you have 3,6,9 as a possibility.
BTW thanks for the interesting posts.
is this going to be a PA topic
As shuttle said...
Although I prefer "B" because it seems to be on a run of forming the "terrible twos" :)
A.
It could also be that new start points of arithmetic progression can over lap with existing ones!
I would play R because it's a 3.6.9 a.p.
Nottophammer â€" I will let you decide and answer that question as I don’t know the answer to that question :-X
Very interesting perspectives. Shuttle â€" you are absolutely right. We cannot play the ninth spin. Of all the 512 combinations, this is an example of a combination where you will be left with a loss if you choose to play based on this theorem.
There are two main ways to think about roulette and its outcomes.
- Conditional probability, Odds and random â€" This is the common if not traditional way to approach the game. There is nothing wrong with any of these methods unless you are fighting to beat the random (note, am using it as a noun :P. Very bad influence!). Repeaters, variance, 3SD, playing the last, playing the opposite, playing for streaks and chops - whichever method you use to deliver your bet selection, what you will finally select is a random selection. You are just trying to see whether you can align the random to the laws of probability and you will not get a 100% correct selection. Knowingly or unknowingly, you are trying to fit things within a distribution pattern. I reiterate, there is nothing wrong in doing this, this is one common way of approaching the game seeing the outcomes as random.
Not everything is random â€" This is the most uncommon way of looking at roulette outcomes. Again there are two interesting sections here.
- Physics â€" This is a way to approach the game where the physics of roulette play a major role. The speed of the rotor, the position in which the ball is released, the speed in which the ball is released, the abnormalities with the ball and the wheel a lot of physical aspects of the game come into play here. This is not random. The accuracy of prediction is greatly improved with the random variables coming into play being very limited like the air pressure in the room, sweat from the dealer hands impacting the speed in which the ball rolls, dirt falling in the roulette table impacting the wheel friction â€" it goes on and on. But in summary, this is another way to play the game. I will reserve my opinion on whether it is an advantageous way to play over playing a random game.
- Maths â€" It is a little bit more complex to explain (especially as it is not the common way to play). Let me see whether I can try to take an example to explain this. Of three spins that yielded red or black numbers, there will be at least two red or two black. Hmm! This is not random right. This is an absolute result. The dutch theorem that I explained is another example of things that are not random. The difficulty in this is the practical applicability. And hence very uncommon way to play.
So what? It is very very important to know when your selection is random and when it is not. Atlantis â€" very interesting perspective in the way you explained to avoid double hell. The moment you approach it that way, it becomes a random selection. Chrisbis â€" you are forgetting the combination of 1,5,9 as well. If you are chosing to play 3,6,9 and forgetting 1,5,9 - then it becomes random.
The above example of 9 spin finite cycle non-random behaviour can be done for any set of numbers. For example for a dozen, this limit is 27. We cannot not have an A.P of length 3 of same dozens in a set of 27 spins.
It is debatable whether to call it non-random or limits of random. You can device a way to play even chances or dozens using these. The lower the number, the higher the complexity and difficulty to track and play. Try playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.
I will try posting a few sessions for the benefit of someone who is following the thread (I hope someone is ::)) but will be able to better understand this with a few spins on the board (We all like keeping things simple and straightforward right :-\ :thumbsup:)
This is just the first stepping stone. Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens,
“A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
So here i have picked up the first few spins from table 2 yesterday from wiesbaden. Without getting into the complexities of money management lets adapt a simple 1-1-2 approach for EC which will suit our finite 9 spin cycles and a finite up 1 for 2 losses for dozens which will suit out 27 spin cycle.
| Spin | Red/Black | | Dozen | |
| 18 | R | | 2 | |
| 19 | R | | 2 | |
| 19 | R | Win. First set finsihed. | 2 | Win. First set finished |
| 9 | R | | 1 | |
| 31 | B | | 3 | |
| 21 | R | | 2 | |
| 17 | B | | 2 | |
| 25 | R | Win. Second set finished | 3 | Loss. |
| 26 | B | | 3 | |
| 27 | R | | 3 | Win. Second set finished |
| 36 | R | | 3 | |
| 31 | B | Loss. | 3 | |
| 17 | B | | 2 | Loss. |
| 34 | R | Loss. | 3 | |
| 13 | B | Win. Third set finished | | 2 | |
| 0 | 0 | | 0 | Loss. Ignore zero spins for the moment |
| 12 | R | | 1 | Loss. |
| 26 | B | | 3 | Two possibilities here***. Third set finished with a loss |
| 12 | R | | 1 | |
| 12 | R | | 1 | |
| 10 | B | Loss. | 1 | Win. Fourth set |
| 36 | R | | 3 | |
| 12 | R | Win. Fourth set finished | 1 | |
| 18 | R | | 2 | |
| 23 | R | | 2 | |
| 0 | 0 | Loss. Ignore the zero spins. | 0 | Loss. |
| 1 | R | Win. Fifth set finished. | 1 | Loss |
| 10 | B | | 1 | |
| 6 | B | | 1 | Win. Fifth set |
| 30 | R | | 3 | |
EC goes - W W LLW LW LW - +2 units
Dozen goes - W LW LLL W LLW - +3 units
Overall - +5 units
***This is an interesting point in dozens. The more the number of outcomes you are trying to fit the arithmetic progression, the higher this phenomenon of confusion will occur. I have taken the approach of absorbing the loss if there is more than one possibility. Another way to play this is absorb the loss only if all the possible outcomes are possible. In case of ECs, it will be both the outcomes becoming possible. In case of dozens, it will be all three outcomes becoming possible. If one takes this approach then the game swings between playing single dozen and double dozens. Remember, there is no right or wrong way of doing things here. It is just to understand the concept that roulette can be played without getting lost into random.
Interesting reading so far.....look forward to more :thumbsup:
EDIT : Question had already been asked to her....
Sorry :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
O0
Quote from: ddarko on Sep 16, 11:40 AM 2015
EDIT : Question had already been asked to her....
Sorry :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
O0
What happened?? 8)
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 16, 12:46 PM 2015
What happened?? 8)
I had asked a question that I'd originally asked you many moons ago, seemed silly to
repeat said question. My apologies, feel free to these posts :thumbsup:
O0
QuoteTry playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.
Can't think how they could possibly help each other? For ECs perhaps we are trying to avoid this situation:
BRRBBRRB
But in the above situation would we be anymore likely to get a win from the dozens instead?
QuoteThis is just the first stepping stone. Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens, “A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
I think they are all the same? I think the prediction would need to be changed based on each arithmetic progression? I don't see how the distribution is affected or how random can be combined. Any experiments you suggest we try?
Why assume there is no edge, when we all know that there is house edge?
@Priyanka. .....I didn't forget 1, 5, 9...........It just didn't look instinctively right to format that sequence, and I should have concluded the same as Shuttle.
;)
Could winkel's GUT be based in part on non-random events, i.e. crossings - coupled with random distribution? Perhaps the distribution part comes into it when, say, a crossing is initially slow to occur, so we might expect future crossings to be quicker?
Again, regarding arithmetic progressions, I'm struggling to see how distribution would affect both ECs and Dozens. Perhaps we would be more opportunistic in monitoring all 3 of the main ECs or the 2 overlapping columns/dozens?
I've now got a little simulation running for this, but with only 1 detection rule to start with... before I code the other rules governing the aforementioned arithmetic progressions affecting ECs and dozens, can anyone spot any bugs so far from the attached sample?
(link:://s27.postimg.org/wrwgg5ng3/image.jpg)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 17, 01:30 PM 2015
I've now got a little simulation running for this, but with only 1 detection rule to start with... before I code the other rules governing the aforementioned arithmetic progressions affecting ECs and dozens, can anyone spot any bugs so far from the attached sample?
Falkor - Let me take the first set of 9 numbers.
BBRRRRBBB
If am right, you are using to play using the example that i highlighted "At least one arithmetic progression in 9 spins".
B - No bet
B - No bet. Bet on the next spin to B for an arithmetic progression.
R - Loss. No bet next.
R - Bet on the next spin to R for an arithmetic progression.
R - Win.
This is how i explained. I find that you are playing only the first three positions to be all the same colour. Thats not what i mentioned. Hope my explanation is not confusing.
Quote from: Chrisbis on Sep 17, 03:17 AM 2015
@Priyanka. .....I didn't forget 1, 5, 9...........It just didn't look instinctively right to format that sequence, and I should have concluded the same as Shuttle.
Exactly Chris. I never thought you forgot the sequence, all am saying is there is no instincts that will come into play here. Instincts will appear in random selection. Here it is a strict mechanical rule. When in dilemma we don't bet. Easy peasey O0 (Trivia - There is one person in this forum who always ends his post with O0. Who is it?)
Quote from: vladir on Sep 16, 04:28 PM 2015
Why assume there is no edge, when we all know that there is house edge?
Vladir â€" The edge that I called out is the edge for the player. I should have been more explicit. My fault!
However, it is also easier for me to get to the problem of house edge a little later. Tackling house edge becomes better once we have found an edge that will overcome the expectation. If am talking about edge in even chances am talking about getting more than 50% wins always(
YES, always 100% guaranteed, but am not promising I have the solution) and every time over a finite number of spins. Once we establish this edge it is easier to attack the house edge equation.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 17, 05:25 AM 2015
Could winkel's GUT be based in part on non-random events, i.e. crossings - coupled with random distribution? Perhaps the distribution part comes into it when, say, a crossing is initially slow to occur, so we might expect future crossings to be quicker?
Again, regarding arithmetic progressions, I'm struggling to see how distribution would affect both ECs and Dozens. Perhaps we would be more opportunistic in monitoring all 3 of the main ECs or the 2 overlapping columns/dozens?
I think Winkel alluded to something like this by seeing the trots at specific intervals and then deciding based on the trot speed on whether to bet a crossing or not.
Professor is the best person to comment on the question as he is the creator. Regarding the question of whether “Crossing†is a non-random event or not, it is difficult for me to answer as am not able to make up my mind on either side. For an event to be non-random there has to be a limit that need to be defined and the event has to happen within that limit. In a single zero table, if you say “there will be at least one crossing between 0-1 in 37 spinsâ€, this is definitely a non-random event. But the way Professor explains crossings and plays, am not 100% sure.
However it is good that you brought GUT for the discussion. The most important learning that I have learnt from Winkel is an adoption of Parrondo’s paradox. In GUT, if you keep betting on the same crossing you will ultimately lead to a -2.7% expectation. However switching between crossings, and betting different crossings is a different beast altogether. The answer to your question around dozens and ECs lie there.
.
I know. Your explanation was clear, but:
QuoteB - No bet
B - No bet. Bet on the next spin to B for an arithmetic progression.
R - Loss. No bet next.
R - Bet on the next spin to R for an arithmetic progression.
R - Win.
The above is the only part that's coded so far in my simulation (for both ECs and Dozens).
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 17, 01:50 PM 2015
I know. Your explanation was clear, but:
The above is the only part that's coded so far in my simulation (for both ECs and Dozens).
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Falkor - May i know what is the intention of coding?
The coding is to test the principles discussed herein and try to find out what advantage, if any, there is to playing both ECs and Dozens against the same data.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 17, 01:55 PM 2015
The coding is to test the principles discussed herein and try to find out what advantage, if any, there is to playing both ECs and Dozens against the same data.
Sure. Great job. If it helps, I can give you some of my inputs.
The principles - Yes it will give you an advantage if this can be matured further. 100%.
The example - As written by me in its raw format - No, it won’t give you any advantage on its own. It will give you a loss, if you play it ditto as I have explained in a step by step manner. The examples that I depict are for explaining the principles for better understanding. This is only a part of the puzzle. Let me explain why.
Without 0(
yes even if there is no house edge), just consider only R and B as an example. There are 512 combinations of 9 spin sets possible. Out of this 512 combinations, 406 combinations will give you a win and the rest will give you a loss. Sure a high win ratio inching towards 80%. But, the risk of losses will outweigh the impact of wins. See the following possibilities out of 512 combinations.
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
If we play all 512 combinations the way the example suggests, in terms of individual outcomes, we will get 406 wins and 406 losses.
50-50, nothing more nothing less. Not any different from the 50-50 chance of next spin being red or black. Unless you can find a way to make this 50-50 tilt towards one side for a set of all the possible combinations, this doesn’t have an edge on its own and it’s a failure. Some runs will give you profit, some will give you loss and if you add Zero to the mix you will get -2.7% equating to a single zero house edge. I don’t think the example need a simulation, unless you are planning to study the simulation and observe the principles and cycles. If you are using it for latter, I will be very happy to answer any questions as always. Good luck :thumbsup:
These are all coded now (see attached), which completes Red/Black:
1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
1,5,9
Result: +307, but had to double up to 256 several times!
It doesn't seem humanly possible to keep track of the dozens without a tracker since there are many more arithmetic sequences (will be difficult to code all these in my simulator):
1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
8,9,10
9,10,11
10,11,12
11,12,13
12,13,14
13,14,15
14,15,16
15,16,17
16,17,18
17,18,19
18,19,20
19,20,21
20,21,22
21,22,23
22,23,24
23,24,25
24,25,26
25,26,27
1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
6,8,10
7,9,11
8,10,12
9,11,13
10,12,14
11,13,15
12,14,16
13,15,17
14,16,18
15,17,19
16,18,20
17,19,21
18,20,22
19,21,23
20,22,24
21,23,25
22,24,26
23,25,27
1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
4,7,10
5,8,11
6,9,12
7,10,13
8,11,14
9,12,15
10,13,16
11,14,17
12,15,18
13,16,19
14,17,20
15,18,21
16,19,22
17,20,23
18,21,24
19,22,25
20,23,26
21,24,27
1,5,9
2,6,10
3,7,11
4,8,12
5,9,13
6,10,14
7,11,15
8,12,16
9,13,17
10,14,18
11,15,19
12,16,20
13,17,21
14,18,22
15,19,23
16,20,24
17,21,25
18,22,26
19,23,27
1,6,11
2,7,12
3,8,13
4,9,14
5,10,15
6,11,16
7,12,17
8,13,18
9,14,19
10,15,20
11,16,21
12,17,22
13,18,23
14,19,24
15,20,25
16,21,26
17,22,27
1,7,13
2,8,14
3,9,15
4,10,16
5,11,17
6,12,18
7,13,19
8,14,20
9,15,21
10,16,22
11,17,23
12,18,24
13,19,25
14,20,26
15,21,27
1,8,15
2,9,16
3,10,17
4,11,18
5,12,19
6,13,20
7,14,21
8,15,22
9,16,23
10,17,24
11,18,25
12,19,26
13,20,27
1,9,17
2,10,18
3,11,19
4,12,20
5,13,21
6,14,22
7,15,23
8,16,24
9,17,25
10,18,26
11,19,27
1,10,19
2,11,20
3,12,21
4,13,22
5,14,23
6,15,24
7,16,25
8,17,26
9,18,27
1,11,21
2,12,22
3,13,23
4,14,24
5,15,25
6,16,26
7,17,27
1,12,23
2,13,24
3,14,25
4,15,26
5,16,27
1,13,25
2,14,26
3,15,27
1,14,27
falkor2k15
Thanks for those results, much appreciated.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 17, 03:13 PM 2015
These are all coded now (see attached), which completes Red/Black:
Result: +307, but had to double up to 256 several times!
Falkor - Great. One thought, the way I play the spins, just playing Red and black amounts to the following graph, using the spin data that you have produced. Hopefully I will be able to share all the ideas that I have before the end of this thread so that you can define one using these ideas to play the way you are comfortable with.
Simulator is now complete for Red/Black and Dozens.
One observation: the Dozen sets rarely reach a dead end where all 3 dozens have a potential sequence on the next spin (represented in the simulator by "Multiple Sequences" - in Orange).
How to change this strategy between ECs/Dozens to improve advantage? Any ideas?
QuoteOne thought, the way I play the spins, just playing Red and Black amounts to the following graph, using the spin data that you have produced.
Priyanka, are you saying that you can gain an advantage just from playing Red and Black alone?
(link:://s16.postimg.org/ypu22wuk5/ap2.jpg)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 18, 06:31 AM 2015
Priyanka, are you saying that you can gain an advantage just from playing Red and Black alone?
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 18, 06:58 AM 2015
:thumbsup:
OK, but in your video you switch between Red, High and single Numbers, so are additional bet selections - besides Red and Black - needed for you to gain that advantage?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 18, 07:05 AM 2015
OK, but in your video you switch between Red, High and single Numbers, so are additional bet selections - besides Red and Black - needed for you to gain that advantage?
No. ;) The video is to explain different ways of play and playing multiple games within a single game. The game I depict in the video is not necessarily the game am playing. All am saying is by the time I reach the end of this thread, I would hopefully able to explain all the concepts that I use in my play and pulling those concepts together you will be able to figure out a method which will give you an advantage even if playing only red and black. Non-random events is one such concept.
OK, just concentrating on Red and Black I don't see many options for potential advantage with regards to the non-random concept of arithmetic progressions?
QuoteW â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
This equates to:
50.00%
9.38%
20.31%
6.25%
7.03%
3.13%
1.95%
1.95%
So might we gain some advantage by keeping a tally of each outcome based on the set (1 cycle?) - and change our bet selection based on whatever outcome(s) are trailing behind the above percentages?
How about we change to the following units after each kind of set has finished?
1 unit: W â€" 256 times
2 units: LW â€" 104 times
3 units: L â€" 48 times
4 units: LLW â€" 36 times
5 units: LL â€" 32 times
6 units: LLL â€" 16 times
7 units: LLLW â€" 10 times
7 units: LLLL â€" 10 times
So if we lose a set LLLL or LLLW then the next set we bet 7 units?
Falkor - I like the way you are thinking. :thumbsup:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 18, 09:59 AM 2015
How about we change to the following units after each kind of set has finished?
So if we lose a set LLLL or LLLW then the next set we bet 7 units?
This again goes into the equation of waiting for LLLL to increase your units so on and so forth. I havnt tried it, but my expectation is you will get into LLLL 3 times or 4 times in a row to wipe your bankroll or gains.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 18, 08:30 AM 2015
OK, just concentrating on Red and Black I don't see many options for potential advantage with regards to the non-random concept of arithmetic progressions?This equates to:
50.00%
9.38%
20.31%
6.25%
7.03%
3.13%
1.95%
1.95%
So might we gain some advantage by keeping a tally of each outcome based on the set (1 cycle?) - and change our bet selection based on whatever outcome(s) are trailing behind the above percentages?
I would encourage you to think a bit harder. You are again getting into distribution and probability area where things are left to chance. Unless you are able to increase the Win% which is currently standing at 50% in the above set (406 wins and 406 losses), whatever variance based methodology or progression that you use will drive you down. Good luck :thumbsup:
I did have a system once where I kept a running total of Red vs. Black. When one or the other fell 5 or 6 behind I would bet on the opposite colour. And the more virtual losses I waited for before betting, the greater the ratio of wins over losses. I think this is what you guys call "variance"? I called it fluctuation. For whatever reason this system failed (I can't remember why - I think it had something to do with the virtual losses going out of proportion the longer a set continued). If I applied this within the arithmetic progression framework I'm not sure if it would be any different to betting Red/Black normally?
Anymore clues/concepts you can share with us?
QuoteW â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
How about this: if the Ws are under 50% then bet normal, otherwise wait for 1 virtual loss before betting is commenced on each set?
What is the point with this topic - i have not learn anything new and i don't think there is any great discovery.
If it was then you just have to explain it.
I seen topics like this one before and seen members like this before.
There is hints and empty claims with no real solution.
Pretty boring if you ask me.
Cheers
Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 16, 03:32 AM 2015
is this going to be a PA topic
Quote from: ego on Sep 18, 01:24 PM 2015
What is the point with this topic - i have not learn anything new and i don't think there is any great discovery.
If it was then you just have to explain it.
I seen topics like this one before and seen members like this before.
There is hints and empty claims with no real solution.
Pretty boring if you ask me.
Cheers
OK, I reckon we might gain EDGE if we bet on the opposite colour for first bet (if the Ws are greater than 50%)?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 18, 04:04 PM 2015
OK, I reckon we might gain EDGE if we bet on the opposite colour for first bet (if the Ws are greater than 50%)?
Why only first bet? You are getting there mate. :thumbsup:
Nottopharmer - Am not able to decide whether Ego wrote what he thought or what he was expecting was a response from me. But at least i can be sure that you were expecting a response from me on "is this going to be a PA topic". Well my answer is NO.
It is going to be a Priyanka topic. .
Quote from: ego on Sep 18, 01:24 PM 2015
Pretty boring if you ask me.
Ego, Completely agree :thumbsup:
Quote from: ego on Sep 18, 01:24 PM 2015
If it was then you just have to explain it.
Hmm.. I will have to think about better ways of explaining this. I PMed two members this morning. Told them, I will explain a mechanical system step by step but on one condition. They should be able to understand what i have explained so far in this thread and should be able to play three sets of 9 spins the way i have explained (Offer is not open to everyone, only to two members i have PMed). Unfortunately, both of them couldnt understand what i have explained so far. Which means, I have not been able to explain things properly :). I will try and aspire to explain better. But one thing is for sure, i am not going peel the banana and push it down the mouth.
I am a real fan of the saying -
"If you feed a hungry man a fish, you will make his stomach full once. If you teach him how to catch a fish, you will kill his hunger for his lifetime" O0 (darko style :xd:)
hope you publish it pryanka---- if not , you don't lol
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 18, 04:44 PM 2015
Why only first bet? You are getting there mate. :thumbsup:
That was just to start with - I will need to make further calculations for possible 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets.
This bet selection, espoused by Priyanka, is one of the best example, of how we 'dilute' the variance.
Btw, Bleep, also espoused this in the other thread.
This bet selection, if only for betting BLACK/RED,
will always AROUND 50%.
Thus if u only bet that , the variance will hit, now and then..
But,
If u bet THREE together,B/R,H/L,O/E...
then the variance, of each, will "DILUTE" by the other two ...
It is like betting a B/R, on THREE table, at the same time, where a single table's variance, will off set by the other two tables.
for example,
ask three persons, to throw a coin.
note down, the results, in order, of 1st, 2nd, 3rd person,
and viola, u will see the variance, will not long, and the winning will CLUSTERED, with huge win, even with flatbet.
Thus the worst is, ALL three produce VARIANCE, at the same time!..which is HIGHLY unlikely.
PA - boss, betting on all 3 ECs don't help on variance. Pls don't mislead people. I would strongly suggest you to do some reading on variance. It is not a simple loss avoidance. Playing all of them together is nothing but playing three individual games together leading to negative expectation. You will lose at a faster rate. If I remember right STEVE explicitly mentioned this in your thread.
Ofcource it doesn't. Every EC has his own variance or fluctuation.
I made three graphs of the same bet.
1. RB
2. HL
3. OE
The graph is made on bets. I just track per W or L.
Per 10 bets i check how many W's i have and put that in the graph. So every new bet is a new ratio of W and L of the last 10 bets. This way you can see the variance easy.
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 19, 04:35 AM 2015
It is not a simple loss avoidance. Playing all of them together is nothing but playing three individual games together leading to negative expectation.
I mean, if u bet with TRIGGER,
but, if..,
U mean, u have POSITIVE EXPECTATION???!!
100%,All the way?!
[after all the spins combined?]
THANKS GOODNESS!!!
seriously,...
That a HG...
Then I am out of league here, I mean out of topic.
Sorry, for posting wrong idea...I am out of here...
sorry for misleading...
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 18, 05:46 AM 2015
Falkor - Great. One thought, the way I play the spins, just playing Red and black amounts to the following graph, using the spin data that you have produced. Hopefully I will be able to share all the ideas that I have before the end of this thread so that you can define one using these ideas to play the way you are comfortable with.
Was that graph using a positive progression?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 19, 07:22 PM 2015
Was that graph using a positive progression?
Yes
This hasn't gained any edge for some reason: (after 100,000 spins)
Simulator settings: RED/BLACK only and ZERO disabled, i.e. Betvoyager style.
Normal
(link:://s8.postimg.org/p6qdx3nr9/image.jpg)
1st bet opposite when W > 50%
(link:://s8.postimg.org/j72mtg2yt/image.jpg)
All bets opposite when W > 50%
(link:://s8.postimg.org/jxvcz85c5/image.jpg)
I guess we should be following the wave instead of going against it?
Flat-betting Normal actually made more profit than doubling up per set:
(link:://s7.postimg.org/gpm0bb663/flat.jpg)
Have received suggestions of possible modifications, so will test those next... we want to try to beat 50.6% wins (or at least stay on the winning side)
Unfortunately, the suggested mod performed badly against the above data (perhaps it would perform better if Ws were less than 50%):
(link:://s11.postimg.org/887qyn0kj/mod1.jpg)
This data hovered above and below zero before ultimately finishing with more total losses, so I am going to use this as a benchmark for future tests:
(link:://s1.postimg.org/psiqdrgnj/data.jpg)
Highest balance was 20204
For this data, the suggested mod has finished negative again, but at least transformed the losses into more wins. Highest balance was 20203.
(link:://s7.postimg.org/ku0fu82uz/mod1b.png)
My original mod (First bet opposite), but on all bets, has finished similarly (+20104 max but flat-betting) to the suggested mod - though it hasn't converted as many losses into wins:
(link:://s3.postimg.org/41sl4mk5f/1st.png)
My other original Mod (all bets opposite) took longer to recover but finished positive and converted more losses to wins (slightly higher percentage than the suggested mod):
(link:://s14.postimg.org/8ku02j9vl/mod1c.jpg)
I need to try this doubling up and compare more closely to the suggested mod.
The suggested mod seems to handle the negative data set better than the logical way of betting opposite to the arithmetic progressions:
(link:://s8.postimg.org/r2avjjct1/chart.png)
How to combine the mod with the normal way of playing? (next project)
I just started looking at this.
These are the combinations where the arithmetic progression can "win"
123
135
147
159 = all these can only "win" on an ODD spot (3-5-7)
234
246
258
269 = all these can only "win" on an EVEN spot (4-6-8) the 9 spot would be a no bet because either could win
345
357
369 = only "win" on ODD spot
456
468 = only "win" on EVEN spot
567
579 = = only "win" on ODD spot
678
Falkor...in your data is it possible to look at what combinations win more or less if that's possible?
Just thinking out loud here..I could be totally off base and just stating the obvious ..dont chastise me if wrong or have wrong thought process Priyanka :girl_to:
Priyanka,
What happens in situations like these? Is it always a no bet? Is there any tricks to handling this?
Falkor,
How did you handle these in your coding
2
2
1 x
1
2 x
1
1
1 nb
2
1
1
2 x
1
2
1 nb
2
1
1
2 x
1
1
2 nb
2
1
2
1
1 x
1 w
1
1
1 w
1
2
1
1
2 x
2
2 nb
Can you go into some more detail so we can learn what you are talking about with the EDGE betting R/B
Quote from: Big EZ on Sep 21, 01:44 PM 2015
I just started looking at this.
These are the combinations where the arithmetic progression can "win"
123
135
147
159 = all these can only "win" on an ODD spot (3-5-7)
234
246
258
269 = all these can only "win" on an EVEN spot (4-6-8) the 9 spot would be a no bet because either could win
345
357
369 = only "win" on ODD spot
456
468 = only "win" on EVEN spot
567
579 = = only "win" on ODD spot
678
Falkor...in your data is it possible to look at what combinations win more or less if that's possible?
Just thinking out loud here..I could be totally off base and just stating the obvious ..dont chastise me if wrong or have wrong thought process Priyanka :girl_to:
Not sure if you have the right understanding? Every 9 spins 3 of the same colour will form an arithmetic sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
So we can guarantee that at least one of these 3 will be of the same colour (all red or all black), but we don't know which one:
1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
1,5,9
So we start looking for 2 matching colours: if spin 1 and 2 is red then spin 3 could be red; if spin 1 is black and spin 5 is black then spin 9 could be black, etc. So we would bet the 3rd spin to be red or the 9th spin to be black. But actually we would never bet on the 9th and final spin - instead forfeit the set - since red and black would both have an arithmetic progression. Priyanka is better at explaining it than me, so maybe re-read first 2 pages.
Quote from: Big EZ on Sep 21, 02:20 PM 2015
Priyanka,
What happens in situations like these? Is it always a no bet? Is there any tricks to handling this?
Falkor,
How did you handle these in your coding
2
2
1 x
1
2 x
1
1
1 nb
2
1
1
2 x
1
2
1 nb
2
1
1
2 x
1
1
2 nb
2
1
2
1
1 x
1 w
1
1
1 w
1
2
1
1
2 x
2
2 nb
Can you go into some more detail so we can learn what you are talking about with the EDGE betting R/B
1 = red; 2 = black? Or are these dozens?
There's no trick to handling them. If there's multiple sequences available for both red/black then we can't say which one is more likely, but if there's only a possible sequence for red then it can only be red (or a different sequence will match further down the line before the 9 spins are over). Again, Priyanka explains it better than me.
The strategy to gaining edge is secondary to the basics: certainty that 3 of the same colour will match in an orderly fashion within 9 spins.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 21, 07:49 PM 2015
Not sure if you have the right understanding? Every 9 spins 3 of the same colour will form an arithmetic sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
So we can guarantee that at least one of these 3 will be of the same colour (all red or all black), but we don't know which one:
1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
1,5,9
So we start looking for 2 matching colours: if spin 1 and 2 is red then spin 3 could be red; if spin 1 is black and spin 5 is black then spin 9 could be black, etc. So we would bet the 3rd spin to be red or the 9th spin to be black. But actually we would never bet on the 9th and final spin - instead forfeit the set - since red and black would both have an arithmetic progression. Priyanka is better at explaining it than me, so maybe re-read first 2 pages.
Falkor, I understand perfectly whats going on with the simple explanation, thanks. In fact my numbers match yours except I forgot 7-8-9 in mine :o
When I say has to win on ODD I mean the last place holder in the arithmetic sequence is ODD
12
313
514
7= all these can only "win" on an ODD spot (3-5-7)
I hope this explains what I was trying to say a bit more clear
When there is multiple sequences for red and black, do you cut the 9 spin window at the no bet spin and start over? Is that how it is done in your programming?
Oh, and 1 and 2 are just representing any even chance (red/black,player/banker,etc)
Quote from: Big EZ on Sep 22, 01:34 AM 2015
Falkor, I understand perfectly whats going on with the simple explanation, thanks. In fact my numbers match yours except I forgot 7-8-9 in mine :o
When I say has to win on ODD I mean the last place holder in the arithmetic sequence is ODD
123
135
147
= all these can only "win" on an ODD spot (3-5-7)
I hope this explains what I was trying to say a bit more clear
When there is multiple sequences for red and black, do you cut the 9 spin window at the no bet spin and start over? Is that how it is done in your programming?
Oh, and 1 and 2 are just representing any even chance (red/black,player/banker,etc)
OK, but if you understand then why are you concerned with novelty attributes like whether numbers are odd/even during an arithmetic sequence of numbers?
Yes, if there are multiple sequences (including both red and black) then the law governing the sequence is guaranteed to be satisfied on the following spin, but we can no longer say which colour is more likely, so we don't bet.
OK, I think I understand what Big EZ means: yes, we aim to win on the 3rd number within an arithmetic sequence. I guess one could aim for the 2nd number as well, but it's already quite complicated as it is.
Playing both Normal AND the suggested Mod together:
(link:://i61.tinypic.com/wkpj79.jpg)
Average of both:
(link:://i57.tinypic.com/21kavbn.jpg)
First data set:
(link:://i59.tinypic.com/2a5b47p.jpg)
Quote from: Big EZ on Sep 21, 02:20 PM 2015
Priyanka,
What happens in situations like these? Is it always a no bet? Is there any tricks to handling this?
Yes, always no bet. There is no magic to speak against the mathematical truth.
Quote from: Big EZ on Sep 21, 02:20 PM 2015
Can you go into some more detail so we can learn what you are talking about with the EDGE betting R/B
I will refer back to the paradox that i had highlighted earlier. Just by looking R and B as R and B, will not help the cause. You could play, four or five games here. If you refer to my earlier posts, i was pointing to play multiple games before a session is complete. As an example, you could play every alternating spin to be part of the 9 spins and hence 18 spin as one game instead of just 9 spins. You could play single and series formations to complete an AP. You could play three sets of alternating spins with one set for completing AP and two sets for not forming an AP. The possibilities are endless, but the key is finding that set of games where 1+1 <> 2
Let me take another example of a game, to illustrate a different game you can play. You can play the fastest colour to reach 3 to complete an AP. Take a set of spins that we saw earlier.
| Spin | R/B | Fastest to 3
|
| 18 | R |
|
| 19 | R |
|
| 19 | R | Red wins. Outcome 1
|
| 9 | R |
|
| 31 | B |
|
| 21 | R |
|
| 17 | B |
|
| 25 | R | Red wins. outcome 1. Now play for AP to complete on red to become fastest to achieve 3.
|
| 26 | B |
|
| 27 | R |
|
| 36 | R | Bet red.
|
| 31 | B | Black appears. Loss. Bet red. |
|
| 17 | B | Loss. Outcome 2. Our outcomes read 112 |
|
| 34 | R |
|
| 13 | B |
|
| 0 | 0 |
|
| 12 | R |
|
| 26 | B |
|
| 12 | R | Red is fastest. Our outcomes read 1121
|
| 12 | R |
|
| 10 | B |
|
| 36 | R |
|
| 12 | R | Red fastest. Outcomes read 11211. Outcome 1 on next set will complete the AP
|
| 18 | R |
|
| 23 | R |
|
| 0 | 0 | Loss.
|
| 1 | R | Win. End of set. It read LLLW for this set.
|
| 10 | B |
|
| 6 B |
|
| 30 R | |
Am not suggesting you play the ways i have played here as is. All am trying to get at is look at non-random possibilities that has a limit, as opposed to random variables (AP is just one example), create multiple games that can be played at a frequency can lead to a potential edge you could look at.
Hopefully that short break has helped in pondering over what is written a couple of times. Before I move my thought process into an interesting concept of Parallel universes, I would like to explore another aspect of non-randomness.
People always say Roulette is a random game. But they do forget that it has its limits. They do forget that non-randomness is part and parcel of this game and embedded in it. There are numerous situations which are really finite in roulette.
To understand this further, lets take directly jump into an example. As usual, we will ignore the zeroes throughout until we get to a place where we have managed to explore an edge. Let us consider that we are playing dozens. Can you predict the next dozen? If I bet on the negative, the odds will be better than what i will get from playing roulette. However, what we can say for sure is there will be at least 1 repeat of a dozen in 4 spins. Hmm! Is that random? Or is it a finite characteristic and hence non-random?
See the following spins. Construct them into sets of 4.
21 - Dozen 2
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
24
12
36 - Dozen 3
18 - Dozen 2
29 - Dozen 3. At least one repeat of a dozen
2
17 - Dozen 2.
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
19
10
16 - Dozen 2
7 - Dozen 1
11 - Dozen 1. At least one repeat of a dozen
20
How can we take advantage of this non-randomness. Now here is where Probabilistic and non-probabilistic approach has to go hand in hand.
How many of us have wondered why a few systems always work well at the start and then the graphs grow towards the south? If you are not one of those who has experienced this, then you have not played enough roulette. The law of large numbers always catches up. This is why when some one tests thousands of spins, you always get a southward graph. So what is the issue? Your playing sessions are not short enough to stay ahead of the curve for forseeable future.
Unfortunately, playing the game as is will always lead to the session being long enough to catch up on the game edge. For some it could happen in a minutes. For some it could happen after building a solid bankroll over a year or two. However, if you see roulette as a game made up of a number of finite non-random events, it can help you constructing your sessions short. Short not in its literal sense of minutes or seconds or few spins, but short enough to avoid the game edge catching you forever.
Hello . . .
I have coded a system that uses a 4 spin cycle. Excel Tracker attached.
1st Spin you bet the last Dozen(FTL). If it wins, then No Bet the next 3 spins.
2nd Spin you bet the last 2 Dozens, win or lose No Bet the next 2 spins.
Also attached is a resulting graph for 20,000 spins.
The progression used was a mild to aggressive one. There is a separate progression for the Single Dozen Bet (spin #1) and another progression for the Double Dozen Bet (spin #2).
You can adjust the Progression Divisors. For a more conservative progression, set them for 1,000 which would be Flat Betting.
Enjoy
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Oct 09, 12:25 PM 2015
I have coded a system that uses a 4 spin cycle. Excel Tracker attached.
:thumbsup: Cheers Nick. Always useful.
Creating your own playing positionsRoulette is a game that can give you endless possibilities to play. And there lies the beauty of the game and the beast. It is easy to get oneself lost into the complexities of the game. But if you are able to
breakdown those complexities into simple principles, then you will be able to effectively play it with a better understanding of what to expect at the end of every session. Sure one or two odd session may turn out to be exceptional, but you will figure out that a 98-99% of the games will fall within your expectation (win or loss!).
Too many numbers! Too easy that a child can play! â€" Two differing views on playing ECs. 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.
25 - 1 unit on red. Win.
27 â€" Place both units on blck. Loss.
7 â€" 1 unit on red. Win.
29 â€" 2 units on black. Win. We got the win at odds of 3/1
4 â€" 1 unit on red. Loss
18
27 â€" 1 unit on red. win
10 â€" 2units on blck. Win. We got 3/1 odds
14
28 â€" Won this sequence
34
27 â€" lost this one
6
16 - lost
12
20 - won
This is not a progression. This is not letting it ride. This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return. Now the possibilities are endless and everyone can create opportunities based on their comfort and style of play. You can create dozens, quads, splits, all possible odds through stitching together these components.
Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example.
Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points?
Hello Pri
I am very carefully watching this thread on daily basis and trying to figure out what you are trying to show here.
Also downloaded all your videos of play in hope it will be useful in better understanding. Your bank demand and DD is impressively low and I think it is not coincidence.
Although my favorites are EC-s here I am showing something about dozens and hoping to get your thought and input.
It is about number of combinations and It is what I call betting against perfect state.
Okay we would have 6 perfect states:
123
132
213
231
312
321
And twelve other states:
122
121
232
233
311
313
211
212
322
323
131
133
So if we betting two different dozens in a row not to become 3, we are winning on 12 patterns and losing on 6. Or we can reverse and have odds of 3/1 but winning on 6 possible combinations.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 06:16 AM 2015
I am very carefully watching this thread on daily basis and trying to figure out what you are trying to show here.
Also downloaded all your videos of play in hope it will be useful in better understanding. Your bank demand and DD is impressively low and I think it is not coincidence.
Thanks for the interest shown Drazen. The more interest that you are showing, the more you read these topics again and again, the
more iterations you do differently, you will be able to get the answers to the questions you have asked yourselves. There will come a day when you will be able to see past whats happening on the surface and free from the wheel, felt and the statistics that the pit bosses want you to keep your attention to.
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 06:16 AM 2015
Although my favorites are EC-s here I am showing something about dozens and hoping to get your thought and input.
My favourites are double street/lines/6 numbers. But I agree with you, that the more you push your boundaries and come out of your comfort zone, you will be able to take the learnings back to your favourite playing position and play a completely different game.
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 06:16 AM 2015
So if we betting two different dozens in a row not to become 3, we are winning on 12 patterns and losing on 6.
Lets not do simulations. Lets not do 1 millions spins. Lets not apply this in practice. Lets break down what you are trying to say.
6 combinations against 12 combinations. Making it simple once against twice. On the outset it looks as if 12 combinations are better than 6 combinations hence this looks like a very good selection. But what is the return on those 12 combinations. You will have to play 2 dozens and hence the return is 1/2 (Apologies for people who don’t understand English odds, it is 1$ returned on a win for every 2$ staked). If you see it that way, you are essentially
going back to 6 against 6 (1/2 multiplied by 12). Now you are left to the mercy of deviations, variations and statistic reality to either fail or win.
This is the reason I was pointing back to find out finite, non-random methods within the bet selection process. You have taken the step in the right direction, but I would really encourage you to look deeper.
- What is that you are finding common in those 12 combinations that you have selected?
- Why have you not taken into consideration that other combinations where the dozens have repeated in the first two positions?
- Is there a way you can stitch these dozens together?
- Are you able to find out a common theme between the first and second spins or first and third spins?
- Is three spins sufficient for you to derive that commonality?
I know, a lot of questions ;D. But all I am trying to do is setting your thought process in a direction that can help you think beyond what you see in the surface. I like your avatar. Someone someday said, "Even Einstein cannot find a way to beat the roulette, unless you can cheat the dealer". But world doesnt always stay flat. It became a sphere one day. You have given Einstein some young muscles. Probably he would look at it differently with those fresh muscles added. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 15, 09:16 AM 2015
My favourites are double street/lines/6 numbers. But I agree with you, that the more you push your boundaries and come out of your comfort zone, you will be able to take the learnings back to your favourite playing position and play a completely different game.
It seems to me that way you analyze or dissect this game is kind general, and can be applied to any part or odds in the game? One just needs to understand it right.
Yes, such approach would be out of my comfort zone, but Pri in any aspect of life is a rule: No pain, no gain... So if you want to gain, be prepared for some not very pleasant period of hard work and flops. That is how I see it
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 15, 09:16 AM 2015
- What is that you are finding common in those 12 combinations that you have selected?
- Why have you not taken into consideration that other combinations where the dozens have repeated in the first two positions?
- Is there a way you can stitch these dozens together?
- Are you able to find out a common theme between the first and second spins or first and third spins?
- Is three spins sufficient for you to derive that commonality?
Not sure I can answer all straight away but some things are common in those 12 combinations there.
First and second second spins are always different, although 2nd and 3rd can be repeat, and we have 6 of them. Same thing for 1st and 3rd. 6 combinations where they are the same, 6 where are they different.
Well looking at this, it is not all possible combinations we can have.
Not sure what you mean by sticking them together.
So much for now
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 12:14 PM 2015
It seems to me that way you analyze or dissect this game is kind general, and can be applied to any part or odds in the game? One just needs to understand it right.
You are so right there. Unless you dissect the game into simple parts irrespective of bet placement and odd, you are not going to understand game.
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 12:14 PM 2015
First and second second spins are always different, although 2nd and 3rd can be repeat, and we have 6 of them. Same thing for 1st and 3rd. 6 combinations where they are the same, 6 where are they different.
Yes Drazen there are 27 combinations possible and you cannot use 18 and leave the other 9 around. Simply because that is the reality. You cannot play a waiting game waiting for your favourable event to occur. What you have stated as answers are straightforward yes or no answers. I would like you to look beyond the surface for these questions to get answers which will help you not to repeat the same way you are playing currently.
Looking at your examples and combinations, lets see whether we can convert into an alternate way of play. I will give you some detailed initial pointers and set the direction, but the rest you will have to figure out yourselves.
The first and foremost thought process should be how can I make it finite rather than making it a game of chance. In other words, how can i reduce the non-predictability aspect of the game and move closer to predictability. Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances.
I said there are 27 different combinations. Don’t have to know maths. Dont have to be a scientist. Dont have to be a complex programmer. Any person sitting with a pen and paper can in the highstreet williamhill shop can write all of them down. (Not that programmers, mathematicians and scienitist do not go to the billhill)
111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333
Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat.
Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always.
That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen. A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.
Second sample 111 131 111 122111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.
Third sample 321 311 223 312321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win. Now here I pause. One can play every session until a win happens or until the combinations repeat. For those who want a win to happen can stop playing here this set and start fresh with a new set. For those who will want a combination to repeat will go for the next spin. For the combination to repeat the next dozen has to be 2. Play 2 and lose. Two combinations are available for us to replicate. All dozens to be different and only one dozen to repeat.
223 â€" We cannot play after the first spin here. We will not be able to make a decision after the first spin as for one combination to repeat the second spin can be any of 1,2 or 3. So we play only on the third spin. As we have seen 2 and 2, we know that this is not all dozens different. So we play for two dozens in three spins. So our choice for next spin is 1 and 3 and we win.
Fourth sample 132 112 123 111132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.
So what did we do. We did not leave our destiny to the hands of chance. We are playing for something that we know will definitely happen. You are building a game based on limits to the randomness of roulette or the non-random aspect of it.
Now you can think about statistics and progression in that sequence. Not before and not in a different sequence of progression and then statistics. Typically we tend to focus on these two subjects first, leaving ourselves buried deep into the big hole.
Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is like drawing a ball from a bag of 3 red balls, 6 green balls and 18 blue balls, then putting it back in and repeating this whole process. Your chances of drawing a blue ball is higher. There is an irregularity and the statistically speaking the 12 spins (4 sets of 3 spins), there is a higher probability of 2 dozens in 3 spins to come through. One way of using this statistic is to bias towards one set when a conflict occurs for your bet selection. Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is left to your imagination, your mood of the day or a mechanical way that you prefer.
Thinking about progression now. Depending on how you chose to play, you can see the irregularities here and you can focus on tuning your progression to maximize your wins. Key is low drawdowns and achieving those low drawdowns using elements that are fixed and finite.
Hope this helps clear some questions that you have posed and help you in the thought process of defining an alternate game.
:thumbsup: Like!
Thank you very much for your time and big efforts here. Very appreciated.
Plenty of things to consider here.
Drazen
Pri
If I am not wrong, there must be a few more other things to consider before creating full model play from your thoughts.
As it seems to me it isn't enough just to break down spins into finite blocks like you said and apply progression.
I would say to get an edge some more concepts are missing here. I wonder also how many of them you are using and how many different it is required to get an edge?
I just hope you will at least say few words about each of them.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins.
And I have question about difference in those combinations.
It is not the case that in every 27 combinations of 3 dozens there will be perfectly equal distribution of sets of 3 as you showed above. So what are extremes here and how much that can negative influence on us?
Coz we know that for example we can face 27 (or even more) of the same dozen in a row, which would be 9 sets of 3 in a row, which should happen 3 times in a verage in 81 spins. And we know that already in 30 spins we can face 10.
No matter how you dissect the game and which odds you create, at this stage this is still fight against variance.
So just this is one proof that in order to achieve so low DD or creating an edge there must something else or more elements to it. In this form this is still just pure fight against variance, isnt it?
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 17, 10:06 AM 2015
So just this is one proof
Drazen - may I ask you to explain with an example what you are trying to prove here. To be honest am not sure am understanding what you are trying to say.
OK I ll try again
Well this what you showed on dozens (although without progression and MM) would not be excatly the way in full how would you choose to play dozens for example? Or it would?
I am trying to say that here we will also face variance as I see it. Not all 27 possible combinations would look the same every time. As you said, on average out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. Such ratios wont be like this every time. Sometimes in 27 combinations we can have one dozen in 3 spins 5 or more times, two of the same dozen 14 times (instead 18) for example and so on.
I mean it is possible that we get caught with rolling patterns of all different combinations and that will dig hole for us.
Am I more clear now?
Cheers
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 17, 01:09 PM 2015
OK I ll try again
Well this what you showed on dozens (although without progression and MM) would not be excatly the way in full how would you choose to play dozens for example? Or it would?
I am trying to say that here we will also face variance as I see it. Not all 27 possible combinations would look the same every time. As you said, on average out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. Such ratios wont be like this every time. Sometimes in 27 combinations we can have one dozen in 3 spins 5 or more times, two of the same dozen 14 times (instead 18) for example and so on.
I mean it is possible that we get caught with rolling patterns of all different combinations and that will dig hole for us.
Am I more clear now?
Cheers
My worry too. Even if we live in the casino for a week, its a tiny amount of spins and variance could be the word of the week.
You would punch a person in the face if they uttered the words "on average"
Quote from: Turner on Oct 17, 05:18 PM 2015
My worry too. Even if we live in the casino for a week, its a tiny amount of spins and variance could be the word of the week.
You would punch a person in the face if they uttered the words "on average"
Thank goodness, I saved a punch. Turner, am not saying there will not be any variance. Quoting exactly what i mentioned below.
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances.
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 17, 01:09 PM 2015
Am I more clear now?
;D Drazen, you were clearer with your point on variance earlier as well. But my question was what were you trying to prove? I wanted you to think twice about the point that you were trying to prove. I wanted you to think away from the usual way of thinking. No one is trying to say here that all 27 combinations would look the same every time.
Were you trying to prove that we will get caught in the variance? Were you trying to prove we will get to that dead beat sequence that I explained in the fourth sample back to back and back to back so that any progression that you develop will dig yourself a hole? If you were trying to prove this, then probably you need to read what I have written again.
The direction I am trying to steer you is towards thinking away from statistics based selection as the primary selection. Thinking towards selection that focus on events that definitely happen. There is no variance involved in here. In this case such an event happen every 12 spins. Hope there is no confusion here and is very straightforward as I have explained clearly with examples of winning and losing propositions. I am trying to be very clear and straightforward here as I know it is difficult to get a grasp on as it is a significant shift in the way of thinking. From here on, it is up to you to define how to utilize this finite event. Statistical relationship will come in handy first followed by progressions. I am not trying to steer towards all 27 sets will look the same or on average we will have similar sets. All I was pointing to was there are imbalances here which could be utilized for your selections and progressions. Don’t do the mistake of trying to play exactly the same way as I have detailed out in the example. I thought you are a bit more clever and creative than that.
Regarding your question around other principles, yes I do use others. But using only the concepts so far I have mentioned you can play with an edge. It depends on whether you are able to look through what I have written.
(link:://st.depositphotos.com/1010613/3469/i/950/depositphotos_34690081-Confused-Man-Looking-At-Paper.jpg)
Picture copyright acknowledged.
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 17, 09:59 PM 2015
Were you trying to prove that we will get caught in the variance? Were you trying to prove we will get to that dead beat sequence that I explained in the fourth sample back to back and back to back so that any progression that you develop will dig yourself a hole? If you were trying to prove this, then probably you need to read what I have written again.
Excatly like this. But I wasnt trying to prove this, as it seemed to me I naively went in wrong direction here by taking it literally.
Well all you said was right on the nail, so notthing much to add.
It is not that easy to shift perspectives in understanding so fast but I ll re-read this more times.
Thanks
Just thought this might be of interest to you all.
Quote from: Azim on Oct 18, 03:28 PM 2015
Just thought this might be of interest to you all.
Azim - scratching my head. I could do with a couple of more lines on the relevance
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 18, 05:53 PM 2015
Azim - scratching my head. I could do with a couple of more lines on the relevance
If you asking for more, I do have the begin and partial end to this.
The bot had to login to play so I don't know the final outcome.
@Priyanka
Well the title says it all................."Random Thoughts" :lol:
Quote from: Chrisbis on Oct 19, 01:46 AM 2015
@Priyanka
Well the title says it all................."Random Thoughts" :lol:
:-X :-X :-X O0
Could you please post more about this? I really like your way of thinking and have read this thread a couple of times but i just can't seem to get my head around it.
Your info about the dozens pattern is interesting but it's not enough to get an edge i think. The repeat could come in the 3rd or 4th row when we are not betting and keep on losing. There is no way of telling it will hit on the 2nd.
But, maybe i just dont understand what you're trying to do here. If you have more stats about roulette that will always happen i really would like to know!
I see what Priyanka is saying, and its typical of his out of box thinking which is admirable, but I cant help thinking its a bit of a trick....like slight of hand or something.
Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win.
we started playing after the first spin. Our non random way of playing gives us the rule that one sequence will repeat.
We are playing for "3 different" to repeat and we have 3 hit, so it would be 2 or 1,and we play 2 and 1.
1 hits and we shout "win"
But we didn't win really did we? Well at least not due to guessing a sequence would repeat because it didn't . It was 311, not 312
We won because of 66% chance of winning is in our favour, or luck, but not by some clever sequence prediction.
Turner you are right, but Priyanka explained that even though it was a win, one can still play the set further until the repeat happens. She also stated several times, that this kind of bet selection alone will not give you any edge.
She's just giving us guide lines to create our own games, because the possibilities are endless, and there is no strict mechanical bet selection that we need to follow.
She also mentioned that several games should be played at the same time, combining different bet selections that are based on non random events. How many? I have no idea yet. I have limited free time these days, but I'm trying very hard to put the puzzle together.
Quote from: Turner on Oct 23, 05:43 PM 2015
but I cant help thinking its a bit of a trick....like slight of hand or something.
I cant expect anything less from you :) This is one reason why I value your opinion!
Quote from: Turner on Oct 23, 05:43 PM 2015
1 hits and we shout "win"
But we didn't win really did we? Well at least not due to guessing a sequence would repeat because it didn't . It was 311, not 312
We won because of 66% chance of winning is in our favour, or luck, but not by some clever sequence prediction.
Bang on there Turner! Bang on! The first win is luck. It is not a clever sequence prediction.
But if you read through i have played the complete non-random sequence in this sample. The second bet on this sample was a loss and the sequence repeat as we expected did not happen. So we went ahead and played the third set of spins as well. There we had a repeat in the form of 311 and 223 and that completes our sequence.
The point am trying to prove is
unless you remove the randomness from the game there is no way to beat the monster. This might not be the only thing that we need to do to overcome,
but this is the basic. For all who had been following, you would have by now realized that
while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will make this dead-heats into winning combination.
Quote from: ati on Oct 24, 06:37 AM 2015
She also mentioned that several games should be played at the same time, combining different bet selections that are based on non random events. How many? I have no idea yet. I have limited free time these days, but I'm trying very hard to put the puzzle together.
Good luck with your attempt ati. All I can say is you are in the right direction. There are few more however I use, which I will post here in the near future when I find a simplistic way of explaining them.
Quote from: RayManZ on Oct 23, 11:16 AM 2015
But, maybe i just dont understand what you're trying to do here.
Thanks for the interest RayManZ. Your understanding is correct. The points that you were trying to say are the dead-runs. We need to find a way to overcome those dead-runs before employing this with perfection.
Priyanka
We are good friends. I am here to keep you honest :thumbsup:
Seriously, I am impressed and I get the concept.
You have opened my eyes to "out of box" thinking many times.
You have a knack.
Priyanka I know you like challenges so I am putting here one here for defending.
Question of exploring this paradox has been debated few times around forums. The ones who are saying it is useless in gambling relies on this simple sentence from wikipedia: It serves solely to induce a dependence between Games A and B, so that a player is more likely to enter states in which Game B has a positive expectation, allowing it to overcome the losses from Game A.
Interesting, one of those guys is well respected member Bayes, whose knowledge in math and statistics are more than respectful. He is also programmer and can easily prove any gambling scenario.
Let me copy one of his posts :
Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. Taken both together, the games do result in an overall negative expectation, but the crucial part is being able to select the game which has a positive expectation given what's just happened. But since what just happened has no effect on expectation in casino games, PP cannot work with them.
Also the famous wizard of odds is clearly saying PP cant be used in casino games:
Personally I don’t see what is so interesting about Parrondo’s paradox but you are not the first to ask me about it so I’ll give you my thoughts on it. The thrust of it is that if you alternate between two particular losing games the player can gain an advantage.
As an example, consider Game 1 in which the probability of winning $1 is 49% and losing $1 is 51%. In Game 2 if the player’s bankroll is evenly divisible by 3 he has a 9% chance of winning $1 and 91% of losing $1. In Game 2 if the player’s bankroll is not divisible by 3 he has a 74% chance of winning $1 and 26% of losing $1.
Game 1 clearly has an expected value of 49%*1 + 51%*-1 = -2%.
In Game 2 you can not simply take a weighed average of the two possibilities. This is because the game quickly gets off of a bankroll remainder of 1 with a win, and often alternates between remainders of 0 and 2. In other words the bankroll will disproportionately play the game with a 9% chance of winning. Overall playing Game 2 only the expected value is -1.74%.
However by alternating two games of Game 1 and two games of Game 2 we break the alternating pattern of Game 2. This results in playing the 75% chance game more and the 9% less. There are an endless number of ways to mix the two games. A 2 and 2 strategy of playing two rounds of Game 1 and two of Game 2, then repeating, results in an expected value of 0.48%.
I should emphasize this has zero practical value in the casino. No casino game changes the rules based on the modulo of the player’s bankroll. However I predict it is only a matter of time before some quack comes out with Parrondo betting system, alternating between roulette and craps, which of course will be just as worthless as every other betting system.
So if they are wrong, where is their flaw in thinking/understanding/application?
You are a coder also. So lets presume you are right and you found a way to apply PP in roulette, can you prove this in your simulation?
I hope you can be generaly precise enough without need for detailed revealing in answering this.
Thanks
Drazen
Drazen - Good questions. But I often wonder why are you guided by what others think. What is your opinion? You have asked me lot of questions. What is your answer to those questions? I would be willing and more happy than now to answer if you had explained your point of view rather than the ones from Bayes/WoV and asked me what is the flaw. The reason is simply because when you stimulate your thoughts to find the answers, you will get more questions and the more questions you get the answer and the end goal will be clear.
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 24, 11:16 AM 2015
So lets presume you are right and you found a way to apply PP in roulette, can you prove this in your simulation?
I hope you can be generaly precise enough without need for detailed revealing in answering this.
There are certain things in maths which are quite difficult to explain and I normally do not tend to talk about it, if I can't find a simple way to explain and communicate. I do have mathematical proof that Parandos paradox can work in roulette. One of the simulateions is the graph I posted earlier in this post. However, as you might have sensed through my posts over years, I take things one at a time and try deconstructing in a simple way to explain them. It could take years, but its alright. That gives me satisfaction.
Leaving that aside, lets take the two views here. First one states that PP cant work because the outcomes are independent. Second one states that no casino games change rules based on players bank roll (I wish they did, then things would have been easier for us to win :) ).
PP can't work because the outcomes are independentThe proof against this one is a little difficult to grasp. Read carefully and with clear mind. If not understood, re-read. If again not clear, please do ask. I will try explaining differently.
First of all lets clearly understand the definition of independence.
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other. Keeping this definition in mind, lets take the event of getting the spins.
First event - Spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Spin 2 gets me 24.
Both the above events are independent. Very much independent. Getting 24 in spin 2 is totally independent of getting 20 in spin 1. (Remove all physical factors that might cause dependence). So Bayes is 100% right, the spin outcomes are independent.
Now see the following two events.
First event - spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Sum of spin 1 and spin 2 gets me 44.
Are these two events independent? No. A big
NO.
Lets go to the post you copied from Bayes.
Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. In the above example, have we not created an interaction and made dependent events in roulette outcomes?
As we have managed to create dependent events then the argument of why PP cannot work in roulette doesn't hold good. There is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but
carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.
VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.
Casino doesnt change rules based on players bank rollThere is no flaw or nothing to prove here.
PP never says that you play based on your bank roll. That is just one example to explain it in a simple manner. WoV is true that constructing a PP based on your bankroll will not work. But what is PP? Is PP based on your bank roll. No. PP is exactly what you copied and pasted from wikipedia. It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are
more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. The dependency or the deciding factor of games doesn't have to be based on bank roll.
Let me explain one crude example which you might be able to relate to. Whether
that example works or not is questionable, but it will help you understand the PP principles. One stream of play (Game A) is observing spins. Second stream of play is starting to bet(Game B). You are deciding to alternate between these two streams of play or games with a simple rule. Start playing Game A. Enter Game B if there are ten of an even chance. Exit Game B and start playing Game A on a win in Game B or after 3 spins on Game B. Repeat the process.
What are we trying to do here. We are trying to enter Game B at a point where we believe it will most likely give a positive expectation. There is no dependency of bank roll. So as I said, nothing to prove against what has been said in WoV. It is the just that the basic premise of PP games has to be chosen based on bank roll is wrong. It can be created without bank roll coming into question. You will have to find out that tipping point that is most likely to give positive expectation.
If you remember the example of dozens we discussed the point where statistics comes in/progression comes in. There was an imbalance. One outcome was more likely than other. How we can enter the dozen game when that imbalance is in our favour and most likely to result in a positive expectation is the riddle that you need to crack.
@ Drazen
I got a different sentence from wikipedia.
"There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately."
O0
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 24, 08:44 PM 2015
Drazen - Good questions. But I often wonder why are you guided by what others think. What is your opinion? You have asked me lot of questions. What is your answer to those questions? I would be willing and more happy than now to answer if you had explained your point of view rather than the ones from Bayes/WoV and asked me what is the flaw. The reason is simply because when you stimulate your thoughts to find the answers, you will get more questions and the more questions you get the answer and the end goal will be clear.
Pri I wasn't guided by this. Maybe I should have said that in my previous post that I don't doubt at all you are right about application of PP in casino games. Best proof to that are your withdrawal amounts and winning sessions which are astonishing. Whoever sees that must know that can't be coincidence/luck or some flawed method and I think screenshots are not photoshoped or something. So it is clear to me that you have found a way. That is my personal opinion in short.
In a way I written I just wanted to show some explanations as facts from two respected math guys, for you to deny. I know this wouldn't be a problem for you, so I think for fairness of this subject it should have some cons here too.
Best
Drazen
Could you post more clues and hints in the right direction? I get what we are looking for but i have no idea where to find it...
Oh RayManZ if that could be so easy as you are expecting here >:D
I think we have enough of clues as far as Priyanka is concerned. Who knows how much to the goal we have to work. Although I doubt it is something short and simple.
I think questions in your form here are just making it wrong. My opinion.
AS Pri said two guys here were offered to get a grail simple and straight away, but they were either too ignorant or too uninterested to take it. And he knew that before offering them. Priyanka is extremely intelligent man.
Anyway the biggest question is how the casino world would look like if the grail would show up so publicly and in hands all of us? Maybe that would be even dangerous for some because they couldn't control themselves and would act like drunk gods...And this world is cruel as we know.
With great power comes great responsibility, so It just shouldn't be that we all should get it just like that. It is a nuke afterall :)
Cheers
QuotePriyanka is extremely intelligent man.
Now there's a
trendy revelation...... :wink:
I never thought i would be easy. For me it's almost double as hard. English is not my first language so sometimes it's really hard to understand everything in detail.
I also read about the offer Pri made to two members. Too bad they didn't understand/wanted it. I would really like to wrap my head around it.
I know it's not easy but one can always hope doesn't he ;)
Ray
I admire anyone who can speak a second language. I dont know the stats but I bet native Uk speakers are at the bottom of the league for knowing a second languare.
The French will be top of the league for pretending they dont know a second language.
Take the Eurovision song contest.
Guess who was the only country to not give their results out in English ???
I believe I don't understand quite well how exactly multiple games should be played together.
Normally I would think that ok, let's play the arithmetic progression on 9 number sets for colors as one game, and do the same on hi/lo as another game. Then you wrote this:
Quotebetting on all 3 ECs don't help on variance. [...] Playing all of them together is nothing but playing three individual games together leading to negative expectation.
So it's obviously not the right way of combining games together, but isn't this example on colors and dozens are also two individual games? link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg138657#msg138657 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg138657#msg138657)
How about this? I play 9 number sets to catch an AP on
R and
B. Within the same 9 numbers, I know that either red or black has to appear at least 5 times (no zero), so I'd bet on a color that has already appeared 4 times. Would this be a better way of playing multiple games?
Or this example (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60) is what you really mean by playing two games? If so, then my question is, is it possible to keep track of 4-5 games without a software?
Quote from: ati on Oct 25, 07:27 PM 2015
as another game. Then you wrote this:So it's obviously not the right way of combining games together, but isn't this example on colors and dozens are also two individual games? link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg138657#msg138657 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg138657#msg138657)
Spot on ati. So how can we make a relation. What if instead of colours and dozens, you have lows and highs and dozens. Are we able to derive any relation?
Quote from: ati on Oct 25, 07:27 PM 2015
How about this? I play 9 number sets to catch an AP on R and B. Within the same 9 numbers, I know that either red or black has to appear at least 5 times (no zero), so I'd bet on a color that has already appeared 4 times. Would this be a better way of playing multiple games?
Unfortunately this is not viable. Try playing a couple of games and you will realise. Eventhough I have explained AP in a simple form, if
you have observed carefully, you will notice that it is nothing but playing dominant in case of ECs.. If the selection for AP is not dominant, then you would ideally get a dead-lock.
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 26, 06:44 AM 2015
Eventhough I have explained AP in a simple form
I am not sure I understand what AP excatly means? It is abreviation for what?
Actually it is VdW theorem. But since people have picked up the arithmetic progression used in the theorem and have started calling it AP I am using the same term.
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 15, 06:09 AM 2015
Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example.
Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points?
I think 1 bet on red and 8 bets on black odd numbers is better.
Bet on just red and odd: 10 numbers win
2, 16 numbers win
0, 10 numbers lose
2 Total sum=
0Bet on red and the black odd numbers: 18 numbers win
0, 10 numbers lose
2, 8 numbers win
2.5 Total sum=
0.5
This was probably the catch, because the second way does look better at first, but in reality they should be the same.
10 wins of 2 plus 10 losses of 2: 2*10+2*(-10)=0
8 wins of 2.5 plus 10 losses of 2: 2.5*8+2*(-10)=0
Ati - You are right and perfect. Now the follow up question that one should ask is we can clearly see there are imperfections here. Is there a potential for us to modify the bet sizes across these positions instead of 1 unit bet uniform to create an edge? I will let you ponder on that.
Now enough of Parrandos and Vdw. Lets look at the third concept which is essentially making the sessions short enough to capture the variations. How on the earth do we do that?
As usual let us take a simple example. Going back to the dozens.
If you see the attached picture, let say you are tracking for 1 repeat of a dozen to happen. Quite often you will find that you will have to track all 3 dozens before a repeat can happen.
Now look at the same thing for 2 repeats of dozen to happen. You will find that you are starting to track lesser number of unique dozen for the second repeat can happen. The bigger the number of repeats you are tracking you will find that the number of unique dozens that you will track on an average will reduce. Translate this to a betting position that offers more options like double street, street or numbers. What do you see? Does this ring any bells?
This is just one way of making your sessions short enough to capture variations. However, I hope this gives a fantastic view of how you can make your playing sessions shorter and take advantage of variance.
Hectic days in my life so what is wrong with me here ?
Thanks
Drazen
First 1 repeats
1
1
--------1 dozen repeated. Session finished
3
3
--------1 dozen repeated. Session finished
1
3
2
3
-------3 dozens before a dozen repeated. session finished.
Now 2 repeats.
1
1 - There is a possibility that this dozen will repeat twice as it has already repeated once.
3
3 - Now there is a possibility that this dozen also will repeat twice as it has already repeated once.
1 - 2 unique dozens that we had to track before 2 repeat happened in a dozen.
So the markings are not for dozens with repeat, the markings are for unique dozens that we have to track and bet before we get our tracked bet succeed.
Thanks
Another shift in perspective, that way I didnt understand it straight away :)
Btw is this principle used in one of your videos in the past? If I remember right I think it was called ABC or something like that.
Best
Drazen
Pri can you confirm my example here on dozens is correct? I took numbers from random.org
And this would be example on lines. But like I see higher numbers for 3rd repeats here :question:
Quote from: Drazen on Nov 10, 08:31 AM 2015
Pri can you confirm my example here on dozens is correct? I took numbers from random.org
Sorry, it took me sometime. Was occupied with family.
It looks perfect.
Quote from: Drazen on Nov 10, 08:35 AM 2015
And this would be example on lines. But like I see higher numbers for 3rd repeats here :question:
You are right, however hte first one is not 6 lines it is 5 lines. Rest you are right you are seeing higher number of 3rd repeats. So what do you infer? How about 4th repeat? Is there an optimal number that you can think about, which can help you elongate the session? Is this somehow related to the number of positions (3 in case of dozens, 6 in lines) that you are tracking? What is the relation? Can the relation be utilized to your advantage? After all the ultimate aim is to make the playing session short. How are you able to achieve it?
Forum was lately flooded again with ideas fighting against unattainable randomness. Am I the only one who is day and night thinking about your thoughts here and left all other ideas aside... No other thread for me. From all my knowledge gathered by now, in this thread lies the right way we are looking for. I can't figure it out at first, but the principles you raised to stand behind it are very sound. Then videos of real play winning flat bet easily and many screenshots of deposit/ withdraw, with only one red line (and that was first deposit). All that convinced me enough.
I also studied your videos in depth, writing down every bet you placed. Videos are crypted as you said, and I see contours of couple of playing concepts you described, there. I also notice clear parachuting.
So I would like to ask you this: Is that last concept named "Concept of parallel universes" which you said it will come later? Can it bring advantage by itself or must be combined with WV and Parrondos?
Best
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Nov 20, 06:33 AM 2015
So I would like to ask you this: Is that last concept named "Concept of parallel universes" which you said it will come later? Can it bring advantage by itself or must be combined with WV and Parrondos?
I was watching a movie the other day "THE PRESTIGE". The obvious is already there. It is for you to find the obvious. The most difficult part is obviously "THE PRESTIGE" which is a simple thing if some one tells you, but hard if you dont know. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to invent the obvious. Be assured the hard work will pay off. Till then i will continue my ramblings.
And no, with due respect, am not answering that question.
No Drazen, it's not just you. I barely open other threads as I'm not really interested in the childish arguments and ridiculous ideas. No offense, but some are really bad, like thinking that 5 random numbers tend to hit more, and other "voodoo" things.
Unfortunately I'm very busy these days, constant overtime at work, my current home has been sold, I have to find a new place, etc. So I don't have much time and energy to think about roulette, but I check every day if there is something new shared here.
Good luck to you!
The Prestige is one of the best movies, just like The Illusionist. I should watch it again some day. :)
very nice tread i just read it now..and have only one question @Priyanka> somewhere you said that we have to remove randomness from the game in order to win so question is once you do that remove randomness from the game then would the birthday paradox work for roulette...thanks
Quote from: maestro on Nov 20, 04:24 PM 2015
very nice tread i just read it now..and have only one question @Priyanka> somewhere you said that we have to remove randomness from the game in order to win so question is once you do that remove randomness from the game then would the birthday paradox work for roulette...thanks
Maestro, welcome to the party. Am not sure I understood that question completely. But let me try answering the best way I can.
Regarding removing randomness, all I am trying to advocate is try to play some of the steps in your sessions or some of your moves which are not random. With respect to Birthday paradox, I might question whether it is a paradox at all in the first place. It is close to my heart as well as me and my daughter share the same birthday.
Translating Birthday paradox to play in roulette, translating them to my favourite betting position the double streets, in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%. Surprising, but that is the truth. So chances of getting 134, 156, etc where all double streets are different are better than chances of getting 121, 555, 556, 322 etc. Can that be used to our advantage during the play where some steps are random and some steps are non-random. Yes definitely.
So a short answer to your question Maestro, it is definitely possible to take advantage of birthday paradox. Using it in conjunction with Pigeonhole principle and stopping when you are winning in an attacking session while you are progressing towards a non-random set will definitely give you the edge.
Now coming back to parallel universes, as drazen has asked about it, the whole thing of birthday paradox(problem) works because of these parallel universes. A person on its own will have a lesser probability of finding a birthday match as opposed to a group finding its match as there are more number of pairs involved.
thanks for your time// about that birthday paradox i was looking at it 2 years ago and does not bring much of advantage...just shous how well balanced roulette is...just if people want to know about pigeon hole> one of the thing it says that in 8 pulled numbers we can find that two are multiple of seven...so you get groups like 1,8,15,22,29,36//2,9,16,23,30,//3,10,17,24,31//4,11,18,25,32//5,12,19,26,33//6,13,20,27,34//7,14,21,28,35.....says that in 8 puled numbers we will have repeating group..sorry if i went out of topic
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 20, 06:16 AM 2015
You are right, however hte first one is not 6 lines it is 5 lines.
Yep. A slight mistake.
QuoteRest you are right you are seeing higher number of 3rd repeats. So what do you infer? How about 4th repeat?
Ok I searched for 4th repeat and as it seems just now repeats started to go down.
QuoteIs there an optimal number that you can think about, which can help you elongate the session? Is this somehow related to the number of positions (3 in case of dozens, 6 in lines) that you are tracking? What is the relation?
Hm. I am not sure why you said it helps elongate the session when the aim should be to make session short?
Anyway I got an idea so for easier tracking this time I took quads. In the attached example it seems that significant reduce in repeats this time started on 3rd repeat. So on dozens this was on 2nd repeat, on quads it started on 3rd repeat, on lines it started on 4th repeat...
So we could say that significant reduce in repeats starts at point beyond 50% of all possible positions we could have. Huh very clumsy stated but I think you got the point. So further, for streets it should be beyond 7th repeat. Right?
Still don't see obvious advantage, but can you please first say if this is direction you wanted to steer into?
Best
Drazen
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 15, 08:52 PM 2015
“in 9 spins of roulette yielding black and red, there will be one arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding the same colourâ€
Going back to this earlier concept that began this Random Thoughts topic, if the above is true then would it also mean that the below is true?
9 spins, 3 integers
18 spins, 6 integers
27 spins, 9 integers
?
If we don't end on a win in a 9 spin game, but turn that into an 18 spin game do we gain any edge?
Hi falklor
If I may say few thoughts of mine
Well first is that it seems to me that you have some coding skills and this shouldn't be a problem for you to code what you said and see the truth, right?
Also, Priyanka said that here for gaining an edge can't be used only one concept explained here, and I don't see what you said has more then one. Also we obviously need 2 parallel bet selections and that is what Parrondos paradox is about also.
I watched the movie mentioned by Priyanka and I really really enjoyed it. I think it is very much the same what some of us are trying to do here. We are trying to understand the "trick" actually the "prestige" in a trick which I think by itself isn't complicated at all. It is a simple thing and if you see how Priyanka is playing, you will notice that he needs only a few spins of tracking on even chances to start the attack. Actually on any position and form... Hm... The main question is how the parallel bet which we dont see looks like...
What is interesting in the movie is that experienced knowledgeable professor actually knew and told the way and principles which are the only one there must be standing behind that trick of his colleague to the magician who was so desperate to understand it. Eventhough that same magician was very successful in performing that same trick by the same principles, but for some reason he was convinced that his friend and colleague magician is using something much more advanced. And of course if you look all that through common sense, you will see that there can't be anything else possible. (apart from SF Tesla thing ::) )Very simple thing in the end.
Maybe all that "math principle" for cracking the game isn't complicated by itself, but I don't understand why is something what we are failing to see at first. Priyanka is trying to show something simple, but we are still so blinded with usual way of looking at things...
Turbogenius is the member whose ideas was pretty much the same as ignatus is so stubornly throwing all the time. Hundreds of useless systems but he obviously find the other way to look at things... Maybe similar ones as Priyanka is talking about.
I will be taking the next month off of casino play for the holidays. There is a lot of info in this thread that I need to read back over, and what I will be putting much of my free time into for the near future.
Drazen, I've always wondered why a few systems feature 2 parallel bet selections - can you explain the advantage of this? What's this movie you speak of? I'll see if I can find a link or title in the previous posts before.
I think the movie what Drazen wrote about is The Prestige (! No longer available (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=o4gHCmTQDVI#)). Priyanka noted that in context how people's mind can be confused by a trick.
I think that this matter is very interesting to discuss. Could we consider the roulette table (I mean table layout, numbers arrangement) as something like a trick? The trick, which should confuse player's mind? Just as number's name, dozens, columns, streets etc...
Yes the movie is called "The Prestige".
Falklor point of Parrondos paradox should be to create an edge without using physics. The shortest explanation of that parradox would be: A combination of losing strategies becomes a winning strategy.
So playing two losing strategies at the same time should somehow turn our overall outcome into positive . Let me give the most simple example everyone can understand and test.
We have 2 games observed at the same time:
In Game A, you simply lose $1 every time you play.
In Game B, you count how much money you have left. If it is an even number, you win $3. Otherwise you lose $5.
Say you begin with $100 in your pocket. If you start playing Game A exclusively, you will obviously lose all your money in 100 rounds. Similarly, if you decide to play Game B exclusively, you will also lose all your money in 100 rounds.
However, consider playing the games alternatively, starting with Game B, followed by A, then by B, and so on (BABABA...). It should be easy to see that you will steadily earn a total of $2 for every two games. Right?
Test it for yourself.
So 2 games with negative expectation are under some specific sequence of play are giving positive expectation. Very simple as you see.
That is only one part of the puzzle here. The trick is how to create those 2 bets we need which played independently will lose on the long run but played together after certain point or played by certain sequence will overcome -2.7. We do have some hints and videos of play, but it isnt revealed in full.
Hope this helps
Drazen
Drazen, I understand what you are saying, but Game B is based on the outcome of Game A. In Roulette, however, past results supposedly do not affect future results - so the circumstances of playing roulette seems different to that example.
Quotebut Game B is based on the outcome of Game A
My point of view is that same thing should be in roulette too.
Quotehowever, past results supposedly do not affect future results
In randomness yes. But one of the main objectives is to remove randomness in sequences which we observe, right?
Just re-reading this topic and playing catch up...
Is Priyanka a professional psychopath trying to deceive us all - or is she highly intelligent in a good way? :twisted: (is the movie about roulette or about magicians who deceive people?)
At the very beginning Priyanka spoke about combining "random" and "non-random" together? Are we any clearer on how this works? In the opening video Priyanka is playing one type of game on red and then moves to playing another type of game on high then another type of game on single numbers? It seems that the hit numbers in Game A were deliberately excluded from the bet selection of Game C - one of those games being based on random and the other on non-random - so is that the answer to this early question in the topic?
Looking at random vs. non-random examples at the start of this topic, both examples as far as ECs are concerned ended in 50/50 chance - regardless of which type of bet selection you play? The only difference was that the AP set was over a series of 9 spins maximum instead of 1 spin - but still resulted in multiple sets @ 50/50 each. So what's the advantage to playing non-random games, if any?
What is the difference between "parallel universes" and "non-random"/"random" bet selections? I thought "parallel universes" might describe playing 2 games or bet selections in parallel - but instead does is simply describe the "stitching" of betting "random" only outcomes over a predefined/combined number of spins? Priyanka claims that betting RB,BB,BR,RR to win over a maximum of 2 spins increases the odds (from 1/1?) to 3/1? Does that mean we are expected to end up with a profit over the long run - or are we simply converting ECs into an equivalent bet in-between Streets (5/1) and Dozens (2/1)? What is the advantage of doing that?
Why does alternating between different types of games (as seen in the opening video and drazen's example) offer us any edge, on non-random over random as drazen said, if both are subject to the same odds (50/50 in the first AP example)? And if I am right that the 2 games in drazen's example are not applicable to roulette for whatever reason then it would be like 2 people playing:
game a > wait for virtual spins > game a > wait for virtual spins > game a
wait for virtual spins > game b > wait for virtual spins > game b
How could playing any roulette examples in parallel (not to be confused with Priyanka's "Parallel Universes") result in any edge when combined? When everyone in a casino adds up their combined profit/loss at the end of the night, it's the casino who go away with 2.7%. Based on Priyanka's theory, are multiple games meant to work better specifically because they represent repeated "short" sessions before the law of large numbers catches up - nothing more - or is there some other magic to this method that I am missing?
BTW, just joking about the psychopath bit, so don't take personally... my humour has been known to freak people out for some reason. :P
QuoteFor all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will make this dead-heats into winning combination.
What is the difference between combining 2 non-random games or combining 2 random-games? In both combination types we don't know when they are going to win or when they are going to lose.
It looks like some of my questions are already covered on page 7 where things start to get more interesting - if the topic wasn't interesting enough! 8)
I have to commend Priyanka on her defence against the mathematicians and wikipedia! Well put!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
QuoteThere is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.
VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.
The "stitching", which is presumably from "Parallel universes" is for each individual game - not for one game being dependent on the other. Same with the example of adding up the numbers as you go along? That stitching is all taking place in one game without affecting the other game that is being played in parallel (or alternated)?
QuoteWhat are we trying to do here. We are trying to enter Game B at a point where we believe it will most likely give a positive expectation. There is no dependency of bank roll. So as I said, nothing to prove against what has been said in WoV. It is the just that the basic premise of PP games has to be chosen based on bank roll is wrong. It can be created without bank roll coming into question. You will have to find out that tipping point that is most likely to give positive expectation.
But are you switching/alternating from game A to game B at that point or playing them simultaneously as a "parallel set"?
QuoteIf you remember the example of dozens we discussed the point where statistics comes in/progression comes in. There was an imbalance. One outcome was more likely than other. How we can enter the dozen game when that imbalance is in our favour and most likely to result in a positive expectation is the riddle that you need to crack.
No outcome is ever more likely than another though? Can anyone please quote this "dozens" scenario that Priyanka is referring to?
Oh Falklor
How many questions your posted at once :o If Priyanka would like to answer them all, best it would be to explain the method straight :lol:
Yes this riddle is not easy, and this thread has many views but very few people are actually showing interest. Either they think no merit and Pri is talking nonsense or too hard and impossible to crack. Even after so much time here they rather play Martingales around.
But if Priyanka says hard work will pay off, I believe so.
I can't agree with your joke because calling anyone a psychopath can't be funny even in a joke. And your term "professional psychopath" is the stupidest term I have seen.
But his dedication and especially knowledge about this game is astonishing.
Hopefully he can pop in and say few words about our last posts.
Drazen, Priyanka is she!
My friend maybe you didnt know but Priyanka is one great experienced gentleman. With very nice manners.
Her Profile says:
Gender: Female
Lets not question why that is so. It really doesnt matter.
Lets say Pri has teaching attitude and Priyanka is one of his role plays for easier understanding.
Lets say... :)
Drazen's joke sounds better than mine... kudos! O0
Is anyone able to come up with a Game A and Game B that fits Priyanka's specification - based on non-random and dependency - perhaps using any of the examples in this topic? A this stage it doesn't matter if both games work together to produce a profit or not - we just need to test if the concept can really work in roulette.
To begin this reverse engineering process based on Priyanka's description, let us ask a theoretical question: does game A and B both have to be based on the same bet type (Dozens, streets or EC, etc.) to be compatible in creating dependencies, or can a game be EC and game b dozens? Looking at all the examples that Priyanka posted previously, they all involve the same bet type:
*Running total of Numbers
*RB, RR, BB, BR (ECs)
*Dozens repeating or how many to track before a repeat
*unique Double Streets repeating
*Arithmetic Progressions (AP) on ECs
So none of these examples thus far involve creating non-random dependencies involving more than one bet type on the carpet. Is that by design - or for sake of keeping the examples simple to understand?
falkor somewhere above you wrote all combination in 9 spins you can see that AP like 1,2,3>2,3,4 and so on could hapen 7 ways,andAP such 1,3,5,>2,4,6 could happen 5 ways, AP such 1,4,7,>2,5,8>3,6,9 3 wyas and last AP is 1,5,9 so all possible AP that could be are 16...so for 1,2,3 and so on where common therm in progression is 1 probability is 7/16,for 1,3,5, is 5/16 and for 1,4,7,AP is 3/16 and last one 1,5,9 is 1/16 so if you play only AP 1,2,3>1,4,7,>1,5,9 you should get 0.68 chance in theory
Here's the list, maestro:
1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
1,5,9
You are suggesting we only play for the ones in bold?
no i am not,you can try your bot to play all AP from set 123 +147+159..you see i am looking at them as groups
My bot already ran with the full 16 APs - you suggesting I run it again or remove the 1,3,5 group?
I may never get my head around this topic - poses more questions than answers - but Nick's graph certainly looks interesting so I am posting it again.
Here's a breakdown of the opening video:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvAeaHzKVY (link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvAeaHzKVY)
Bet Amount Result
Red 0.05 2 Black lose (107.95)
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 7 Red win
Red 0.05 12 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Red 0.05 15 Black lose
Red 0.05 31 Black lose
High 9 29 Black win
1,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,35,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 21 Red win
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 11 Black lose
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
1,3,5,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 19 Red win
1,3,5,6,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 27 Red win
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
Red 0.05 16 Red win
Red 0.05 5 Red win
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 13 Black lose
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
20,22,23,24,25,26,28,30,32,34,36 0.5 each (5.5 in total) 36 Black win
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Red 0.05 22 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 30 Red win
20,23,24,25,26,28,32,34 0.5 each (4 in total) 35 Black lose
Same as above but 1.0 units on 20 20 = 1; rest are 0.5 (4.5 in total) 32 Red win
Red 0.05 34 Red win
Red 0.05 24 Black lose
Red 0.05 5 Red win
Red 0.05 28 Black lose
Red 0.05 22 Black lose
Red 0.05 23 Red win
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 36 Red win
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 9 Red win
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31 1,2,3,6,7,8,10,20,25,26 = 1; rest are 0.5 (14 in total) 9 Red lose
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31 1 = 1.5; rest = same as before (14.5 in total) 18 Red win
? (cut) 6.5 in total 12 Red lose
? (cut) 7 in total 5 Red lose
? (cut) 7.5 in total 3 Red win
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 0.5 each (2.5 in total) 2 Black lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 1 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3 in total) 27 Red lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 1 = 1, 20 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3.5 in total) 26 Black win (180.80)
Can you figure out what Priyanka is doing in the above games? Which principles discussed herein are being applied - if any?
Priyanka has another video featuring Parrondos Paradox? We should maybe skip to analysing this one first? :wink:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RWS1Ar_YM (link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RWS1Ar_YM)
One thing that baffles me in Priyanka's first video: why play those 0.05 Reds at all - why not just wait for virtual spins? After all, the real wagers are being placed on the numbers. The only explanation I can think of is that Bet Voyager doesn't allow virtual spins?
QuoteLet me explain one crude example which you might be able to relate to. Whether that example works or not is questionable, but it will help you understand the PP principles. One stream of play (Game A) is observing spins. Second stream of play is starting to bet(Game B).
Observing spins is no different to virtual spins, right? This is what TurboGenius says is pointless over at the "basics" topic. How can we even class 0.05 Reds or virtual spin as a Game A? Surely, Game B is the only valid game. Apparently, PP is meant to use a Game A and alternate between 2 different B games?
The PP video features a very similar style of play to the opening video:
Bet Amount Result
virtual 11 Black
virtual 7 Red
Low 5 24 Black lose
Dozen 1-12 5 16 Red lose
Double Street 7-12 5 9 Red win
Red 0.05 29 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
High 5 19 Red win
High 5 11 Black lose
Dozen 25-36 5 14 Red lose
Double Street 25-30 5 5 Red lose
Double Street 25-30 5 28 Black win
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
High 5 21 Red win
Dozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 22 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 26 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
High 5 18 Red lose
Dozen 25-36 5 12 Red lose
Double Street 31-36 5 13 Black lose
Double Street 31-36 5 19 Red lose
Double Street 31-36, Dozen 13-24, High 5 each (15 in total) 15 Black win
Low 5 9 Red win
Low 10 13 Black win
Low 5 7 Red win
Low 5 20 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 5 18 Red win
Red 0.05 8 Black lose
Red 0.05 6 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Low 5 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 3 Red win
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Low 5 6 Black win
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
Red 0.05 7 Red win
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 27 Red win
High 5 23 Red win
High 5 17 Black lose
Dozen 25-36, Low 5 each (10 in total 15 Black broke even
Low 5 3 Red win
Low 10 13 Black win
Red 0.05 20 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red (accidentally missed a spin!? - but no spin was virtual) 0.05 17 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 5 36 Red lose
Double Street 19-24 5 30 Red lose
Double Street 19-24 5 24 Black win
Red 0.05 24 Black lose
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Low 5 5 Red win
Low? (cut) 5 27 Red lose
Dozen 13-24 5 5 Low lose
Double Street 13-18, Low 5 each (10 in total) 16 Red win
It looks to me like the virtual spins (at the beginning), the 0.05 on the reds and the 0.05 on the Dozens have no real purpose except to observe the spins - so perhaps those 0.05 bet selections are simply a deception.
The PP video reminds me of a "lockdown" in fighting games, i.e. how warrior used to try to "corner" the Double streets: :twisted: O0 :thumbsup:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=jD0yXb17aAI (link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=jD0yXb17aAI)
QuoteTranslating Birthday paradox to play in roulette, translating them to my favourite betting position the double streets, in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%. Surprising, but that is the truth. So chances of getting 134, 156, etc where all double streets are different are better than chances of getting 121, 555, 556, 322 etc. Can that be used to our advantage during the play where some steps are random and some steps are non-random. Yes definitely.
Is Priyanka applying this principle to her PP game? Could this be her Game B2 "finishing move" as per the "mist trap" in the video game link? >:D
QuoteLow 5 24 Black lose
Dozen 1-12 5 16 Red lose
Double Street 7-12 5 9 Red win
DS 19-24
DS 13-18
DS 7-12
All different!
QuoteHigh 5 11 Black lose
Dozen 25-36 5 14 Red lose
Double Street 25-30 5 5 Red lose
DS 7-12
DS 13-16
DS 25-30
All different!
QuoteHigh 5 18 Red lose
Dozen 25-36 5 12 Red lose
Double Street 31-36 5 13 Black lose
DS 13-18
DS 7-12
DS 31-36
All different!
QuoteRed (accidentally missed a spin!? - but no spin was virtual) 0.05 17 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 5 36 Red lose
Double Street 19-24 5 30 Red lose
DS 13-17
DS 31-36
DS 19-24
All different!
QuoteLow? (cut) 5 27 Red lose
Dozen 13-24 5 5 Low lose
Double Street 13-18, Low 5 each (10 in total) 16 Red win
DS 25-30
DS 1-6
DS 13-18
All different!
So that's good support for my hypothesis.
I am trying to reverse engineer the first rule for moving from the tracking stage and beginning the "lockdown" proper with a high or low attack:
*When a Double Street repeats attack it's high or low position.
That's the best I can do right now.
Quotevirtual 11 Black
virtual 7 Red
Low 5 24 Black lose
DS repeated immediately and is low, so attack low.
QuoteRed 0.05 29 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
High 5 19 Red win
DS repeated immediately and is high, so bet on high.
QuoteRed 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
High 5 21 Red win
DS repeated on the 3rd spin and is high.
QuoteDozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 22 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 26 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
High 5 18 Red lose
A high DS repeated on the 4th spin:
*DS 6 > DS 4 > DS 5 > DS 6
QuoteRed 0.05 8 Black lose
Red 0.05 6 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Low 5 17 Black lose
*DS 1 > DS 4 > DS 3 > DS 6 > DS 5 > DS 3 (Double Street 13-18 has repeated = low)
QuoteRed 0.05 3 Red win
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Low 5 6 Black win
DS 1 repeated immediately = low
QuoteRed 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
Red 0.05 7 Red win
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 27 Red win
High 5 23 Red win
DS repeat on spin 5 (high)
*DS 6 > DS 5 > DS 2 > DS 4 > DS 5
QuoteRed 0.05 20 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red (accidentally missed a spin!? - but no spin was virtual) 0.05 17 Black lose
Was meant to bet low since DS 4 repeated immediately.
QuoteRed 0.05 24 Black lose
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Low 5 5 Red win
DS repeated on spin 3 (low).
All good so far... 8)
duplicate post - delete
Priyanka's Parrondo's Paradox system (PPP)Stage 1: When a Double Street repeats attack it's high or low position.
Stage 2: During first bet against it's high or low position if the same DS repeats again then take the winnings and go back to the tracking stage. If any of the other 5 Double Streets hit then move to the next stage/rule and continue the onslaught - regardless of whether you win or lose on the EC bet.
Stage 3: if you won on the EC High/Low bet (winning number must lie on a different Double Street to the trigger) then bet the same EC again; if you lose then proceed to betting the Dozen that contains the trigger DC, but in one situation the opposite EC to the previous stage was also brought in alongside the Dozen (haven't figured out why yet; we can address that situation separately).
Stage 4: if you win the Dozen bet and the winning number falls within the trigger DS then stop and go back to the tracking stage. If you win and the winning number of the Dozen bet is outside the trigger DS then no data exists to confirm what to do, but I imagine it's similar to rule 2: move onto the next stage regardless of win/lose.
Stage 5: Bet the trigger DS and if win then return to the tracking stage, but in one situation the same EC from stage 2 was brought in alongside the DS (to be addressed separate). If lose then continue to next stage.
Stage 6: Since we lost stage 5 bet the same DS for a 2nd time. If win go back to tracking stage. If lose then move onto next stage.
Stage 3: Dozen + opposite EC conditions?QuoteRed 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 26 Black lose
Red 0.05 7 Red win
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 27 Red win
High 5 23 Red win
High 5 17 Black lose
Dozen 25-36, Low 5 each (10 in total 15 Black broke even
Why was additional cover need here? Is it always the opposite EC?
Stage 5: Double Street + same EC conditions?QuoteRed 0.05 24 Black lose
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Low 5 5 Red win
Low? (cut) 5 27 Red lose
Dozen 13-24 5 5 Low lose
Double Street 13-18, Low 5 each (10 in total) 16 Red win
Why was additional cover need here? Is it always the same EC?
Stage 7: Losing 2 Double Street bets in a rowQuoteDozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 22 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 26 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 0.05 35 Black lose
High 5 18 Red lose
Dozen 25-36 5 12 Red lose
Double Street 31-36 5 13 Black lose
Double Street 31-36 5 19 Red lose
Double Street 31-36, Dozen 13-24, High 5 each (15 in total) 15 Black win
Low 5 9 Red win
Low 10 13 Black win
Low 5 7 Red win
Low 5 20 Black lose
Dozen 13-24 5 18 Red win
Only happened once then a Dozen AND an EC was brought in for added cover.
Following the combination bet, does the return to just EC bets indicate a new game based on tracking the previous spins when the Double Street 31-36 bet was in action? Or since it took 3 attempts to hit the DS does the system require us to return to ECs to try and compensate for losses?
Priyanka's Parrondo's Paradox system (PPP) - Overview
- One interpretation of this system is that we are always trying to get a DS to repeat 2 times and can try to reap in other profits along the way before we corner it.
Another interpretation might be as follows...
- We are waiting for a DS to repeat which is a rarer event compared to landing any other DS.
- We attack the High or Low position of the DS because we want to force a unique DS to appear, but if the same DS repeats a 2nd time then we still finish on a new high. If the unique DS is one of the other 2 (out of 3 DSs in total) within the EC range then we can exploit the additional profit and try to force another unique DS.
- We then hone in on the Dozen that contains only 2 DSs, including the trigger one. We end on a new high if the trigger dozen repeats, or we can exploit additional profit if landing on the other DS without ending the game.
- Finally, after having at least 2 unique DSs in a row, we aim to close the game by landing a repeat of the original DS that was our trigger, but different to the previous two.
I'm siding more with the first interpretation..?
Falklor
I think you are doing it wrong. So much effort for not much in the end. Just guessing what Priyanka is doing will lead you to nowhere I am afraid.
The whole point of Priyankas explanations are to figure out the principle and especially MATH under the surface. We must understand why is (s)he placing the bets in a way (s)he does. And when we figure it out, we can play at any other position we want . Looking at things as you are doing it now, I don't see how that is possible. You are trying to crack mechanical way of placing bets, but if you can't explain yourself why are you doing it like that, you are still nowhere.
What have I done to deserve such a negative and condescending response...? Don't you think your comments are a bit unfair, Drazen? A response like that contributes nothing to this topic, so if anyone is going "nowhere" then it's you. I've formulated 1 rule using 5 examples and identified one mathematical principle using 9 examples - and everything so far fits my hypothesis. It just sounds like you are envious that I have come such a long way, even though some things still remain to be resolved. Anyhow, I don't appreciate being spoken down to - if you've got nothing useful to say anymore then please don't respond to my posts. From now on, Drazen, if I want your advice then I will ask for it!
Oh Falklor I didn't know it sounded it to you like that... I am trying to be realistic, and some can interpret that as putting them down. Hmm. My intention wasnt that for sure. All I was trying to say that you are curve fitting results. Why so much Priyankas explanations if we could simply decode all that from just few spins of play.
Cheers
This table should hopefully make things more clearer:
3 (DS 1)
4 (DS 1)
| 19 (DS 4)
35 (DS 6)
19 (DS 4)
| 8 (DS 2)
6 (DS 1)
19 (DS 4)
14 (DS 3)
33 (DS 6)
26 (DS 5)
17 (DS 3)
| 33 (DS 6)
26 (DS 5)
7 (DS 2)
18 (DS 3)
27 (DS 5)
| 11 (DS 2)
7 (DS 2)
| 20 (DS 4)
19 (DS 4)
| 29 (DS 5)
26 (DS 5)
| 24 (DS 4)
18 (DS 3)
14 (DS 3)
| 35 (DS 6)
22 (DS 4)
26 (DS 5)
35 (DS 6)
| | Low, 5u, 6 (DS 1) win | High, 5u, 21 (DS 4) win | Low, 5u, 17 (DS 3) win | High, 5u, 23 (DS 4) win
High, 5u, 17 (DS 3) lose
| Low, 5u, 24 (DS 4) lose | High, 5u, 17 (DS 3) lose | High, 5u, 19 (DS 4) win
High, 5u, 11 (DS 2) lose
| Low, 5u, 5 (DS 1) win
Low, 5u, 27 (DS 5) lose
| High, 5u, 18 (DS 3) lose | | | | DZ 25-36 + Low, 5u, 15 (DS 3) even | DZ 1-12, 5u, 16 (DS 3) lose | DZ 13-2, 5u, 36 (DS 5) lose | DZ 25-36, 5u, 14 (DS 3) lose | DZ 13-24, 5u, 5 (DS 1) lose | DZ 25-36, 5u, 12 (DS 2) lose | | | | | DS 7-12, 5u, 9 (DS 2) win | DS 19-24, 5u, 30 (DS 5) lose
DS 19-24, 5u, 24 (DS 4) win
| DS 25-30, 5u, 5 (DS 1) lose
DS 25-30, 5u, 28 (DS 5) win
| DS 13-18 + Low, 5u, 16 (DS 3) win | DS 31-36, 5u, 13 (DS 3) lose
DS 31-36, 5u, 19 (DS 4) lose
DS 31-36 + DZ 13-24 + High, 5u, 15 (DS 3) win
| | | | Low, 5u, 3 (DS 1) win
Low, 10u, 13 (DS 3) win
| | | | | Low, 5u, 9 (DS 2) win
Low, 10u, 13 (DS 3) win
Low, 5u, 7 (DS 2) win
Low, 5u, 20 (DS4) lose
| | | | | | | | | DZ 13-24, 5u, 18 (DS 3) win |
I think the additional cover or variations of bet selection may be due to additional repeats of double streets besides the trigger.
I think the last stages in games 4 and 9 are simply new games, but with tracking taken from the end of the previous losing games, and with 10 units instead of 5 after the first EC win. |
I've now generated some Double Streets data (2 x 1 million spins) to compare the 2 data sets to see if there's any pattern about what double streets are due based on past spins, but I'm doubtful there will be any patterns. I'm about to begin analysis now...
(link:://s4.postimg.org/kwlu2m7lp/image.png)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 09, 07:21 AM 2015
I've now generated some Double Streets data (2 x 1 million spins) to compare the 2 data sets to see if there's any pattern about what double streets are due based on past spins, but I'm doubtful there will be any patterns. I'm about to begin analysis now...
(link:://s4.postimg.org/kwlu2m7lp/image.png)
Ive never been more proud to be named someones internet enemy
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 09, 07:21 AM 2015
I've now generated some Double Streets data (2 x 1 million spins) to compare the 2 data sets to see if there's any pattern about what double streets are due based on past spins, but I'm doubtful there will be any patterns. I'm about to begin analysis now...
(link:://s4.postimg.org/kwlu2m7lp/image.png)
Falkor,
Can you please explain how to read this graph? I am not able to understand it, thanks
Priyanka's system is based around waiting for a double street to repeat then trying to cover the part of the board that contains that double street - for a 2nd repeat. So that's how my data is laid out:
DS 1 > many DSs... > DS 1 (again) > many DS.... > DS 1 (final). I checked if certain combinations trigger the likelihood that a certain dozen (or area of the board) is due, but unfortunately, there was no pattern from 1 million spins to the next million spins. Therefore, I think Priyanka is a charlatan! She completely ignored 2 of my emails for no good reason, so this "random thoughts" topic must be fuelled by her inner demons. On the surface she appears reputable in public, but you need to look beneath the veneer to see this topic is nothing but a vanity piece waged through psychological warfare. I guess she must have rehearsed those BV videos several times before she got +50 or +100 profit - but the deception is that these represent a typical playing session of hers!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 09, 04:34 PM 2015
this topic is nothing but a vanity piece waged through psychological warfare
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: O0
Now that looks like a graph that I can understand! Thanks for taking the time to build that. It puts it in a very simple perspective.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Here's a breakdown of the opening video:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvAeaHzKVY (link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvAeaHzKVY)
Can you figure out what Priyanka is doing in the above games? Which principles discussed herein are being applied - if any?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Bet Amount Result
Red 0.05 2 Black lose (107.95)
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 7 Red win
Red 0.05 12 Red win
Red 0.05 14 Red win
Red 0.05 15 Black lose
Red 0.05 31 Black lose
High 9 29 Black win
1,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,35,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 21 Red win
Haven't figured this out, but what i observe with some certainty, at least on this bet, is some similarity to an EC bet Priyanka mentioned and demonstrated in a video posted in this reply last September 11:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322)
In that video, an EC bet is selected by spinning the wheel enough times to observe 18/19 unique numbers to show up. Then, the 17 number EC bet is selected from all the unhit numbers left.
In this video, the observation window is shorter, but notice none of the unique numbers that did show up in the first nine spins are included in the 17 number EC bet.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 18 Red win
Red 0.05 11 Black lose
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
1,3,5,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 19 Red win
1,3,5,6,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36 0.5 each (8.5 in total) 27 Red win
In this series, you can clearly see that the 17 number EC bet is constructed on a "rolling" basis. For example, the 19 hits. So it is not included in the makeup of the next 17 number EC bet, replaced by a 6, a number which has not yet shown up at all.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Red 0.05 35 Black lose
Red 0.05 16 Red win
Red 0.05 5 Red win
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 13 Black lose
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
20,22,23,24,25,26,28,30,32,34,36 0.5 each (5.5 in total) 36 Black win
Now here is an 11 number bet, which i would interpret as a play on a dozen, made up, like the EC bet, on a rolling basis, consisting of sleepy sleepers.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Red 0.05 4 Black lose
Red 0.05 22 Black lose
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 30 Red win
20,23,24,25,26,28,32,34 0.5 each (4 in total) 35 Black lose
Same as above but 1.0 units on 20 20 = 1; rest are 0.5 (4.5 in total) 32 Red win
Here is an 8 number bet that i would interpret as some kind of quad play, made up, again, of sleepers on a rolling basis. The 20 has never hit, and gets an extra boost when it comes time to include some kind of progression.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
Red 0.05 34 Red win
Red 0.05 24 Black lose
Red 0.05 5 Red win
Red 0.05 28 Black lose
Red 0.05 22 Black lose
Red 0.05 23 Red win
Red 0.05 19 Red win
Red 0.05 17 Black lose
Red 0.05 36 Red win
Red 0.05 33 Black lose
Red 0.05 9 Red win
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31 1,2,3,6,7,8,10,20,25,26 = 1; rest are 0.5 (14 in total) 9 Red lose
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31 1 = 1.5; rest = same as before (14.5 in total) 18 Red win
Here we are back to an EC bet, this time made up of 18 numbers, ten of which get a boost according to some progression scheme. The second bet gives an extra .5 to number 1 after a loss, indicating an up-after-a-loss progression of sorts.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 02, 01:02 PM 2015
? (cut) 6.5 in total 12 Red lose
? (cut) 7 in total 5 Red lose
? (cut) 7.5 in total 3 Red win
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 0.5 each (2.5 in total) 2 Black lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 1 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3 in total) 27 Red lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26 1 = 1, 20 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3.5 in total) 26 Black win (180.80)
Now down to a 5 number bet, constructed the same way as the others, probably representing some custom made line bet. You can see how chips are added after a loss.
So what i suppose, at least in this scenario, is that there are at least four games (EC, dozens, quads, lines) going on with inside numbers (custom constructed with rolling sleepers), besides the .05 (minimum) red EC game going on for whenever there are no bets to be taken on any of the other four games.
It's not clear the logic that switches between the games, but it MIGHT have something to do with Priyanka's VdW scheme where the betting goes back to the .05 red whenever there are "dead runs" or nothing to bet on in any of the other games.
Below find a breakdown of the rolling number EC game demonstrated in the video link posted above:
17 0.05 l 17
3 0.05 w 3
16 0.05 w 16
16 0.05 w
11 0.05 l 11
9 0.05 w 9
6 0.05 l 6
27 0.05 w 27
23 0.05 w 23
2 0.05 l 2
31 0.05 l 31
12 0.05 w 12
3 0.05 w
25 0.05 w 25
18 0.05 w 18
6 0.05 l
19 0.05 19
13 0.05 13
35 0.05 35
11 0.05 l
12 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
11 0.05 l
9 0.05 w
17 0.05 l
27 0.05 w
5 0.05 w 5
28 0.05 l 28
24 0.05 l 24 (19 unique numbers showed, now time to construct a 17 number bet from sleepers)
5 8.5 l 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
33 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
22 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
36 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
15 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
24 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
36 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
25 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
11 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
21 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
13 8.5 l 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 w 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
10 8.5 w blank (not shown on video)
21 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 l blank (not shown on video)
33 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
34 0.05 w
25 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26 29,30,31,32,35
26 8.5 w 1,2,4,6,7,8,12,14,16,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
8 17 w 1,2,4,6,7,12,14,16,18,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
2 8.5 w
13 8.5 l
20 8.5 w
34 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
25 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
35 0.05 l
12 8.5 w 1,4,5,6,7,9,12,14,16,19,23,27,28,29,30,31,32
In my humble opinion, approach for trying to decode the riddle here just from Priyankas videos on youtube might not be the best. Simply because its purpose is not for that. Priyankas passion for the game and knowledge is incredible and so widely applicable and his guidelines should be taken for understanding the principles here upon which one might develop his own play at some point. It is not easy and not straightforward that might be possible to figure everything out just from few spins of play.
I am glad to see that at least someone is still showing some efforts here dough, but will anyone succeed in the end still remains to be seen.
I really wish you best of luck here Still
Cheers
Quote from: Still on Jan 02, 11:38 AM 2016
Haven't figured this out, but what i observe with some certainty, at least on this bet, is some similarity to an EC bet Priyanka mentioned and demonstrated in a video posted in this reply last September 11:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322)
In that video, an EC bet is selected by spinning the wheel enough times to observe 18/19 unique numbers to show up. Then, the 17 number EC bet is selected from all the unhit numbers left.
In this video, the observation window is shorter, but notice none of the unique numbers that did show up in the first nine spins are included in the 17 number EC bet.
In this series, you can clearly see that the 17 number EC bet is constructed on a "rolling" basis. For example, the 19 hits. So it is not included in the makeup of the next 17 number EC bet, replaced by a 6, a number which has not yet shown up at all.
Now here is an 11 number bet, which i would interpret as a play on a dozen, made up, like the EC bet, on a rolling basis, consisting of sleepy sleepers.
Here is an 8 number bet that i would interpret as some kind of quad play, made up, again, of sleepers on a rolling basis. The 20 has never hit, and gets an extra boost when it comes time to include some kind of progression.
Here we are back to an EC bet, this time made up of 18 numbers, ten of which get a boost according to some progression scheme. The second bet gives an extra .5 to number 1 after a loss, indicating an up-after-a-loss progression of sorts.
Now down to a 5 number bet, constructed the same way as the others, probably representing some custom made line bet. You can see how chips are added after a loss.
So what i suppose, at least in this scenario, is that there are at least four games (EC, dozens, quads, lines) going on with inside numbers (custom constructed with rolling sleepers), besides the .05 (minimum) red EC game going on for whenever there are no bets to be taken on any of the other four games.
It's not clear the logic that switches between the games, but it MIGHT have something to do with Priyanka's VdW scheme where the betting goes back to the .05 red whenever there are "dead runs" or nothing to bet on in any of the other games.
Below find a breakdown of the rolling number EC game demonstrated in the video link posted above:
17 0.05 l 17
3 0.05 w 3
16 0.05 w 16
16 0.05 w
11 0.05 l 11
9 0.05 w 9
6 0.05 l 6
27 0.05 w 27
23 0.05 w 23
2 0.05 l 2
31 0.05 l 31
12 0.05 w 12
3 0.05 w
25 0.05 w 25
18 0.05 w 18
6 0.05 l
19 0.05 19
13 0.05 13
35 0.05 35
11 0.05 l
12 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
11 0.05 l
9 0.05 w
17 0.05 l
27 0.05 w
5 0.05 w 5
28 0.05 l 28
24 0.05 l 24 (19 unique numbers showed, now time to construct a 17 number bet from sleepers)
5 8.5 l 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
33 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
22 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
36 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
15 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
24 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
36 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
25 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
11 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
21 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
13 8.5 l 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 w 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
10 8.5 w blank (not shown on video)
21 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 l blank (not shown on video)
33 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
34 0.05 w
25 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26 29,30,31,32,35
26 8.5 w 1,2,4,6,7,8,12,14,16,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
8 17 w 1,2,4,6,7,12,14,16,18,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
2 8.5 w
13 8.5 l
20 8.5 w
34 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
25 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
35 0.05 l
12 8.5 w 1,4,5,6,7,9,12,14,16,19,23,27,28,29,30,31,32
Still the above spun numbers 9 bets +£49.00 stop at £50/60, as a £1.00 short i'd stop and reset.
Simple method play the numbers left on the carpet after 10 spins using +1/-1
Still
This is why one stops as near to £50/60, like in Gut jump, reset.
After being +49 in 9 bets, we get 7 repeats then the win, +1/-1, 8 units,
But carry on, Keep the Faith.
At the 24th bet, # 15 hits, £1677 out, £1728 return +£51. So for all that extra betting only £2.00 better off.
So soon as £50/60 or as near to the £50.00 pack up, reset
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
You are so right there. Unless you dissect the game into simple parts irrespective of bet placement and odd, you are not going to understand game.
Yes Drazen there are 27 combinations possible and you cannot use 18 and leave the other 9 around. Simply because that is the reality. You cannot play a waiting game waiting for your favourable event to occur. What you have stated as answers are straightforward yes or no answers. I would like you to look beyond the surface for these questions to get answers which will help you not to repeat the same way you are playing currently.
Looking at your examples and combinations, lets see whether we can convert into an alternate way of play. I will give you some detailed initial pointers and set the direction, but the rest you will have to figure out yourselves.
The first and foremost thought process should be how can I make it finite rather than making it a game of chance. In other words, how can i reduce the non-predictability aspect of the game and move closer to predictability. Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances.
I said there are 27 different combinations. Don’t have to know maths. Dont have to be a scientist. Dont have to be a complex programmer. Any person sitting with a pen and paper can in the highstreet williamhill shop can write all of them down. (Not that programmers, mathematicians and scienitist do not go to the billhill)
111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333
Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat. Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always. That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen.
A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.
Second sample 111 131 111 122
111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.
Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win. Now here I pause. One can play every session until a win happens or until the combinations repeat. For those who want a win to happen can stop playing here this set and start fresh with a new set. For those who will want a combination to repeat will go for the next spin. For the combination to repeat the next dozen has to be 2. Play 2 and lose. Two combinations are available for us to replicate. All dozens to be different and only one dozen to repeat.
223 â€" We cannot play after the first spin here. We will not be able to make a decision after the first spin as for one combination to repeat the second spin can be any of 1,2 or 3. So we play only on the third spin. As we have seen 2 and 2, we know that this is not all dozens different. So we play for two dozens in three spins. So our choice for next spin is 1 and 3 and we win.
Fourth sample 132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.
So what did we do. We did not leave our destiny to the hands of chance. We are playing for something that we know will definitely happen. You are building a game based on limits to the randomness of roulette or the non-random aspect of it.
Now you can think about statistics and progression in that sequence. Not before and not in a different sequence of progression and then statistics. Typically we tend to focus on these two subjects first, leaving ourselves buried deep into the big hole.
Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is like drawing a ball from a bag of 3 red balls, 6 green balls and 18 blue balls, then putting it back in and repeating this whole process. Your chances of drawing a blue ball is higher. There is an irregularity and the statistically speaking the 12 spins (4 sets of 3 spins), there is a higher probability of 2 dozens in 3 spins to come through. One way of using this statistic is to bias towards one set when a conflict occurs for your bet selection. Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is left to your imagination, your mood of the day or a mechanical way that you prefer.
Thinking about progression now. Depending on how you chose to play, you can see the irregularities here and you can focus on tuning your progression to maximize your wins. Key is low drawdowns and achieving those low drawdowns using elements that are fixed and finite.
Hope this helps clear some questions that you have posed and help you in the thought process of defining an alternate game.
hmmmm
this looks eerily familiar
where have i seen something like THIS before
Quote from: Drazen on Jan 02, 12:21 PM 2016
In my humble opinion, approach for trying to decode the riddle here just from Priyankas videos on youtube might not be the best. Simply because its purpose is not for that.
Hi Drazen, how are things over there in Tesla land?
In my initial effort here i am just working to dissect or identify something(s) in the first video that i feel certain about before changing to speculative language such as "i suppose" and "MIGHT". I do want to avoid misrepresenting what was actually being done in the video, so as not to run off on wild goose chases like some people we know. The video, btw, did end up with a significant positive balance, implying that even though Priyanka may have multiple other ways, maybe even better ways of playing, at least this way, whatever way it actually is, would make money on it's own, just as Priyanka has stated s/he has a way of making just Red and Black work. But Priyanka has also stated that some demo's explicitly won't work AS IS. My impression is that the first video was for "boasting" a bit, implying that yes, whatever is going on, does work.
So it's only a guess that the switching is done exclusively by some application of Priyanka's "VdW" scheme. Could also be one of the other "non-random" schemes outlined, but as outlined, don't make money AS IS.
So while i'm interested in solving the puzzle, my approach is that i don't need to solve it, that is, i assume i don't need an EDGE. I can wait as long as Priyanka can to add additional light. But word is that the current information is enough to get some edge, if some imagination were brought to the basic concepts, especially in regards to "stitching" bets together to create the dependence needed that satisfies the Parondo math. To that extent it is somewhat interesting to dissect the videos in hopes that a light bulb might go off.
Oh, so getting to the certainties, would you agree that the prime bets in the first video resemble Priyanka's afformentioned *rolling EC* bet demonstrated in the "Extreme" video, enough that we are certain they (whether EC, dozen, quad or line) are custom made up of sleeping inside numbers on a rolling basis?
Quote from: Drazen on Jan 02, 12:21 PM 2016
Priyankas passion for the game and knowledge is incredible and so widely applicable and his guidelines should be taken for understanding the principles here upon which one might develop his own play at some point. It is not easy and not straightforward that might be possible to figure everything out just from few spins of play.
I started my research by reading everything Priyanka has written since joining. I've observed an apparent learning curve at the beginning, someone learning unusually fast. What i'd like to know is if Priyanka is also "Grandpa" (not sure i spelled that right). Anyways, the Priyanka that went to New Zealand to bungie jump seems a different Priyanka that came back this fall, two years later.
Quote from: Drazen on Jan 02, 12:21 PM 2016
I am glad to see that at least someone is still showing some efforts here dough, but will anyone succeed in the end still remains to be seen.
I really wish you best of luck here Still
Cheers
Thanks. If i have anything else that might help i'll add it. However, i'm wondering if even that is what Priyanka wants. For example, suppose i did solve this puzzle and proved it to myself. Does Priyanka want anyone to disclose it outright? Anyways, it would be nice to know whether an observation, such as the one i posted, is representative or not.
Still
Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 02, 12:51 PM 2016
Still the above spun numbers 9 bets +£49.00 stop at £50/60, as a £1.00 short i'd stop and reset.
Simple method play the numbers left on the carpet after 10 spins using +1/-1
Thanks nottophammer, is this method related to something Priyanka has posted. If not that's ok too, but can i figure out what you are doing from the picture posted, and would you say it's a method that "works" (whatever that means)? Is this related to something in GUT (of which you are very familiar) or maybe "Keel's Original Recipe?" Where is the full breakdown on what you've so generously shown?
Thanks,
Still
Still, that in the videos also obviously works, but this way of doing it requires tracker which is by default out of my reach of making it, some spins are left out, and we have incomplete MM and that way I think it is practically impossible to crack it just from the video.
Priyankas understanding of the game is astonishing and he can make winning way out of everything on the table, so that's why I was torn where to actually start out of so many options and possibilities. So I decided best would be to start with basic principles and understand part by part. For me it is all about proofs, so I want to understand why it works. Every single principle and action. I also got some slightly additional guidelines over PM from Pri which I don't want to tell, so I hope I have enough on my plate to make something out of it eventually. Will or when it will be, I really don't know. ::)
Priyanka is member here for a long time now, and he likes challenges so I think that is the reason he is using multiple identities over years to tell his story and scatters knowledge all around in smaller parts. It is for anyone on its own will it be able to follow and pick all that up, understand it, so in the end being able to make winning way out of it.
I know at least 3 other Priyankas alias (I still search are there some others maybe) and some of them have significant connection with this. Others don't have too much and he deals with different types of ideas but again they are so precisely developed what again shows wide range of knowledge and big commitment. His way of writing is very pleasant to read and one just must enjoy it. One of his aliases Great Grandpa, which you mentioned here, become one of the most popular members on forum in very short period of time. It tells enough.
Things he mentions here and under some other aliases are especially unique and all together is very unique type of knowledge which I haven't found anywhere else.
You asked does Priyanka want anyone to disclose it outright if it finds? I think he doesn't care much, and with great power comes great responsibility so anyone would be stupid in my opinion to do that. I wouldn't show that even to my own mother to be honest :)
Anyway I am glad the riddle continues and remains to be seen what and when will Priyanka add more to this.
Quote from: Drazen on Nov 30, 10:47 AM 2015
So playing two losing strategies at the same time should somehow turn our overall outcome into positive . Let me give the most simple example everyone can understand and test.
We have 2 games observed at the same time:
In Game A, you simply lose $1 every time you play.
In Game B, you count how much money you have left. If it is an even number, you win $3. Otherwise you lose $5.
Say you begin with $100 in your pocket. If you start playing Game A exclusively, you will obviously lose all your money in 100 rounds. Similarly, if you decide to play Game B exclusively, you will also lose all your money in 100 rounds.
However, consider playing the games alternatively, starting with Game B, followed by A, then by B, and so on (BABABA...). It should be easy to see that you will steadily earn a total of $2 for every two games. Right?
Drazen, I understand you are just giving an easy example but you are already determining that you are going to win every B game in 100 rounds. None of us can guarantee that we are going to win every first hand out of two playing roulette. I think people are putting the cart before the horse with this paradox. Find a way to win at roulette first and then see if you can improve it with stuff like this rather than the other way around or I don't see how you can make it work.
cheers
Quote from: ddarko on Oct 24, 09:17 PM 2015
@ Drazen
I got a different sentence from wikipedia.
"There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately."
O0
I posted this on page 7 but nobody showed any interest. Who knows maybe it will make somebody look at the game
slightly differently this time......
O0
Quote from: wiggy on Jan 03, 04:41 PM 2016
Drazen, I understand you are just giving an easy example but you are already determining that you are going to win every B game in 100 rounds. None of us can guarantee that we are going to win every first hand out of two playing roulette. I think people are putting the cart before the horse with this paradox. Find a way to win at roulette first and then see if you can improve it with stuff like this rather than the other way around or I don't see how you can make it work.
Wiggy I see what troubles you. And that is very logical by itself. There must be a positive expectation game for Parrondo to apply and then by alternating between 2 losing games and a winning game, overall we are winning. But of course as we know unfortunately there is no positive expectation game in roulette. If we had one we wouldn't need Parrondo at all, right? It would be perfectly enough just to play our positive expectation game, and we would be winning.
I must say that I think I don't have the answer which would satisfy the masses, so maybe Priyanka can explain this.
Or maybe there is a way of getting positive expectation somehow, just that we are not aware of >:D
Now that i have some time sitting at home with a terrible flu, I tried re-reading this thread and amazed by the contribution that has gone in from a number of members. I am also reading that Falkor and a few others have tried re-engineering what I have shown in videos. While I have told, that is not exactly how i play and it is only to demonstrate some facts.
However, it is interesting in the interest that this has triggered and I would like to keep that going. Eventhough I play many ways, I have decided to post one of the ways i play, exactly i play in a video or a couple of videos. It is based on Iron steel and Turner's quads, but taking non-random into consideration. Hopefully aim to get a couple of videos tonight. Till then, cheers.... And that will be showing exactly how I play in one of my ways of playing.
Quote from: ddarko on Jan 03, 05:03 PM 2016
I posted this on page 7 but nobody showed any interest. Who knows maybe it will make somebody look at the game
slightly differently this time......
O0
Darko - I notice it now and it is nicely written. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 21, 12:42 PM 2016
It is based on Iron steel and Turner's quads
Blast from the past. Those were the days. Incessant posting and getting upset with everyone.
Will watch with interest.
Quote from: Turner on Jan 21, 01:40 PM 2016
Those were the days.
Absolutely! One should read this forum posts from the early part of this decade..... Phenomenal discussions!! I owe my interest, knowledge and passion for roulette to a number of members from those days...
Finally managed to take a video and uploaded as below. To make things clear, firstly as there was lot of discussion about 0.05 bet, the 0.05 bet is used to place a bet to complete the non-random sequence when we cannot play. Secondly, as i mentioned already, the only position used are quads(group of 9 numbers). I will try to upload a couple of more videos, but it will not be any different from a playing perspective - a mechanical method of playing. You can reverse engineer to figure out the method as it puts together all the concepts i have explained.
To avoid any confusions, this is one of the games i play and i normally play a number of parallel games in a session. However, this one game in itself gives an edge over the game slightly higher than 9% which should defeat the house edge of american roulette.
link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI)
Hmmm
No offense my friend, but.....
Im not sure about your MO. I dont mean the play, I mean the posting.
why not just post the method rules?. Why the video and "work it out for yourself"
People have to sit there decoding what has been "given" to them....and then endless questions of "is this correct" and you do your Roy Walker impression with "its good, but its not right"
Its a bit esoteric and defiantly a situation where you keep the control.
Im not sure what "exercise" you are giving us.
(you were waiting for me to say this wernt you)
Iron steel turns up nothing in a site search,is it a method / system etc ? Could someone enlighten me please.
Huh Turner
Trust me as much as I would like to, still in any way I can't understand your doubts here. Maybe just a bit more patience is what would resolved them.
First folklor burst, now it seems you too :ooh:
The riddle is not easy by any mean, but 9% of reward is what gives it right to be, don't you think so?
GG will agree I like to (try) keep him honest now and again.
He will just kinda swerve me and leave me for dead...like he usually does lol :thumbsup:
Too clever for me.
Quote from: klw on Jan 21, 04:45 PM 2016
Iron steel turns up nothing in a site search,is it a method / system etc ? Could someone enlighten me please.
Here you go klw.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8713.0
Wait, first a moment of silence for David Bowie and a masterful performance in The Prestige as Nikola Tesla !
link:s://youtu.be/PF76qlwWM8s
This is my second video. You would notice it is not plain sailing as the first one, but the play is exactly the same.
link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjvj4FQVuU
Well Turner, am not ignoring you, but trying to find a clever answer :) How can I not agree with you!
Let me make one thing clear before I answer you, I am not going to entertain any questions on the video. It is a means for people whose primary skill is not able to understand the concepts and put to practice but re-engineer steps of play to figure out whats going on. TBH, am amazed by what falkor has done to the videos and I dont want to fail that section. Also, for some people seeing is believing, so it is better for them to see what is being played rather than a bunch of concepts.
Now, coming back to your question, hmm, on seeing my post, it does sound a bit a bloviation. I could do away with that 9% sentence eventhough it is true. However, this is the closest I will get to explaining the method, and am not going to explain step by step what i do. All I can do is post a few more videos as and when i play, but I myself is planning to take these videos down over the weekend. Neither do I want control, nor do I want to bloviate, but at the same time I dont want it to land on the hands of anyone so easily. One has to work hard to earn it and it is up to the reader am not forcing anyone.
One more
link:://youtu.be/5VUUfwkFilI
nice one..i got question i do not know if you checked it or not but do you know how percentage wager amount and profit goes...does it grow as you make more bets or stands constant...for ex. in your video you done 3000 of wager to 300 profit so that is 10%...thanks
Priyanka
Thanks for the reply.
It always worries me that a set of numbers could be given for your whole video that meant you didnt win once...or didnt win enough and that set of numbers have the same odds of showing as the ones that happened.
There are knowns and unknowns in these videos to the observer. It doesnt help I cant see red in the marque and have to keep stopping the video to see the number. Yes Im whinging
Quote from: wiggy on Jan 21, 07:18 PM 2016
Here you go klw.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8713.0
Many thanks Wiggy,much appreciated.
Quote from: maestro on Jan 22, 01:29 AM 2016
nice one..i got question i do not know if you checked it or not but do you know how percentage wager amount and profit goes...does it grow as you make more bets or stands constant...for ex. in your video you done 3000 of wager to 300 profit so that is 10%...thanks
For this play it averages around 9%
The master of reverse-engineering has arrived.... :wink: How to emulate Priyanka this time around? :question: Since she is not open to any questions relating to the videos and is using a "non-random" element then that makes it all the tougher to figure out what is going on; possibly the 3 videos start out waiting for 2 highs or 2 lows to occur in a row before betting on the opposite EC together with some streets that might take in numbers that have yet to show. However, that pattern seems to change quite quickly, and I'm reluctant to pursue this... hey Priyanka, how about another video on your PP system instead? :girl_to: That was a lot more fun! :wink:
I had a look at the second video and think I have a bit of an idea what's going on. So I will share my findings. I know Priyanka said that she wasn't going to discuss the details but will maybe change her mind if she can see that people are interested.
I will list out the spins, Priyanka's bet, the result W/L, how many numbers were played, the quad the result belonged to and also my thoughts.
1. 17 B, RED, L, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 2.
2. 25 R, RED, W, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 3.
3. 9 R, RED, W, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 1.
4. 28 B, RED, L, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 4.
5. 22 B, RED, L, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 3.
6. 18 R, 1-18, 28-30, 31-33, 34-36. W, *27 NUMBERS* QUAD 2. (comments....this looked like it was the first bet after playing the default RED bet. The quads were alternating up to now..2,3,1,4,3. So I am assuming Priyanka left out the last quad which was 3 and played the 1,2 and 4 quads.)
7. 35 B, RED, L, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 4.
8. 33 B, 19-36, 10-12, 13-18. W, *27 NUMBERS* QUAD 4. (comments....The 2,3 and 4 quads were played here. Not 100% sure why, although the 1 quad is the only quad to have one hit so far. All the rest (2,3,4 quads) have at least 2 hits.)
9. 14 R, 1-18, 19-24, 25-27, W, *27 NUMBERS* QUAD 2. (comments....One thing that I noticed is that Priyanka leaves out the last quad to appear in a lot of the bets and especially if there was a previous double like the 4 quad in this instance.)
10. 3 R, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, W, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 1. (comments....The 1,3,4 quads were played here leaving out the last one which was 2.)
11. 34 R, RED, W, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 4.
12. 6 B, 1-18, 19-24, 25-27. W, *27 NUMBERS* QUAD 1. (comments....The 1,2,3 quads were played here leaving out the last one which was 4.)
13. 35 B, 13-24, 10-12, 25-27, L, *18 NUMBERS* QUAD 4. (comments....now here in my opinion is a kind of 'switch bet' that Priyanka uses. Instead of now leaving out the last quad, the last two to appear (the 1 and 4) are bet.)
14. 9 R, 1-18, 19-24, 25-27, W, *27 NUMBERS* QUAD 1. (comments....and now 'switching' back to leaving out the last quad which was the 4 quad and the 1,2,3 quads are played.)
That's the first 14 spins out of the 68 from video 2. I have it all marked out like above. So I will see if I get a response from Priyanka. If nothing else, it might give others a bit of an insight into what is going on. On the other hand, I could be way of track. :D
cheers.
In these films you can see that in large part a situation where the quads repeated one after the other we play against this formation, but not always.
Ozon....But always NOT betting something
The bet low/high could have the selected quad in and you wouldnt know. Any win is 30. No advantage to the selected quad hitting
Wheres this deciphering taking place GCHQ :xd:
Yes Turner, it's hard to determine what causes the selected formations of bets, maybe he looks for the last 3 or 5 spins, and this determines decisions.
There's thousands of possibilities incorrect bets.
Pri how do you threat the zero if that is such table?
Quote from: Turner on Jan 22, 02:10 AM 2016
It always worries me that a set of numbers could be given for your whole video that meant you didnt win once...or didnt win enough and that set of numbers have the same odds of showing as the ones that happened.
Turner - You are right. There is no need to worry. There will always be a set of numbers that could be given for the whole video which will mean that we dont win or dont win enough. However the other part is not right, as this is not really based on numbers, it is based on combinations and number cycles.
It is like this - the odds of 2 blacks out of 3 spins is different from the odds of black happening only in the first and third spin. It is based on combinations and as I have been saying from the start of the thread, roulette is not necessarily random. It does have a limit. Some of the plays in this game are based on non-random occurances and we are covering every combination possible. When you are covering every combination possible and you are getting a positive result, irrespective of whether you lose 1 or 2 or 3 or for that matter 100 sessions, eventually the edge will prevail. Just like the casino prevail on the house edge.
During the next couple of days when i am recording my session for video, if there is a negative session that happens, I dont mind posting it. To give this claim a little bit of credence, I have downloaded casino hohensyburg spins from RX and ran it for the first two days of this month. Following are the results. The results should give a fair idea of how this behaves and also to a certain extent answer the question that you have asked. Its all rosy, but at the same time, its not gloomy. When you have a few games likes this and you stitch them together you have what is a killer method.
20150101_0107 - +19 units
20150101_0108 - +35 units
20150101_0221 - +31 units
20150101_0222 - -1 unit
20150101_0223 - +63 units
20150101_0224 - +71 units
20150101_0225 - +9 units
20150101_0226 - +103 units
20150102_0107 - +82 units
20150102_0108 - +37 units
20150102_0221 - -11 units
20150102_0222 - +3 units
20150102_0223 - +34 units
20150102_0224 - +31 units
20150102_0225 - +51 units
20150102_0226 - +51 units
20150102_0227 - +2 units
20150102_0228 - +26 units
20150102_0229 - +20 units
20150102_0230 - +35 units
20150103_0107 - +39 units
20150103_0108 - +6 units
20150103_0221 - +37 units
20150103_0222 - -7 units
20150103_0223 - +20 units
20150103_0224 - +38 units
20150103_0225 - +38 units
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 25, 08:16 AM 2016
It is like this - the odds of 2 blacks out of 3 spins is different from the odds of black happening only in the first and third spin. It is based on combinations and as I have been saying from the start of the thread, roulette is not necessarily random. It does have a limit.
:thumbsup:
Thanks mate
This is a bit ike spending hours trying to clinb a wall then some one tells you theres a set of stairs a few yards away.
You mentioned iron steel in quad cycle in BS
Vics sites still freezing al the time. Its why I left years ago
Getting there though with your ideas
Yes Turmer
Like Laurel and Hardy with the piano,use the road
Vic`s BetSel is freezing up more than ever. No fun posting or just visiting there.What`s wrong with that server?
Very annoying to put it mildly.
The results of these sessions from the live casino, are amazing, the first time I see Betselection, which has such a large edge.
Ok Friends, I am going to take some blame and entertain some aspects of play and as Turner rightly said keep some control ïŠ But what am going to explain should help you see how this will span out.
Everythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.
For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.
19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2
19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1
18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.
I am publishing a video that explains how to use this dozen cycle and similar concept is used for quads as well.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=T4KgiscwgRU&feature=youtu.be
I did explain this to a couple of members and hope they will be of some help and come forward in decoding further. This will be my last post here and am not returning after this.
Yours truly
This idea is not new, i tried it myself today,(before your post) and didn't mention it because it fails badly. One should believe that a repeat is a "rare event" and bet against it (after a repeat, when it stopped, begin to bet against it until a new repeat, then stop) and so on..
I won ~900u, flatbet, (playing with 25u bets) but then the chart dropped 900u back to zero. And a system that drops 900u is not a good system imo. That's why i didn't mentioned it....
Quote from: ignatus on Jan 25, 01:46 PM 2016
This idea is not new, i tried it myself today,(before your post) and didn't mention it because it fails badly. One should believe that a repeat is a "rare event" and bet against it (after a repeat, when it stopped, begin to bet against it until a new repeat, then stop) and so on..
I won ~900u, flatbet, (playing with 25u bets) but then the chart dropped 900u back to zero. And a system that drops 900u is not a good system imo. That's why i didn't mentioned it....
It won't be the same. He's using non random combinations.
You won't be
In the first film, when there is a first repeat, next bet is against this quad, but next bet is on a quad That repeat and quad That hit in the spin no.3, I think that we play against cycles of 1, 2.3 in first spin when it appears. That's what said Priyanka.
Mayby we play like this, in the first place we play against cycles of 1, if you do not have cycles of 1 we are looking for the cycle of 2 and we dont have the cycle 2 is looking for Cycle 3
A difficult task, when I think I'm a little closer, the next set of spins and I'm at the starting point.
I have written out the first video. Maybe together we can find the bet selection.
First col is the number spin.
Second is the quad
Third is the Result
Fourth is the total quad bets
Fifth is the quad bet
Sixth is the quad not bet
29 4
3 1
9 1 3 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
26 3 W 3 Bet 1 - 3 No bet 2 - 4
27 3 W 2 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
4 1 W 2 Bet 1 - 3 No bet 2 - 4
27 3 W 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
32 4 W 2 Bet 3 - 4 No bet 1 - 2
18 2 L No bet
1 1 No bet
7 1 3 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
28 4 W No bet
27 3 No bet
24 2 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
5 1 W No bet
7 1 3 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
28 4 W 2 Bet 1 - 4 No bet 2 - 3
2 1 W 3 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
15 2 W 2 Bet 1 - 2 No bet 3 - 4
31 4 L No bet
30 4 No bet
14 2 No bet
29 4 Bet 1 - 2 - 3 No bet 4
31 4 L No bet
36 4 No bet
35 4 No bet
5 1 No bet
11 2 No bet
20 3 No bet
23 3 No bet
23 3 No bet
1 1 No bet
9 1 No bet
27 3 2 Bet 1 - 3 No bet 2 - 4
19 3 W 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
7 1 W 2 Bet 1 - 3 No bet 2 - 4
15 2 L No bet
10 2 Bet 1 - 3 - 4 No bet 2
16 2 L No bet
12 2 No bet
10 2 No bet
4 1 No bet
26 4 No bet
16 2 No bet
15 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 No bet
9 1 2 Bet 2 - 4 No bet 1 - 3
11 2 W 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 3 No bet 4
23 3 W 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
25 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 No bet 2 - 3
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 No bet 4
5 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
29 4 W Bet 2 - 3 No bet 1 - 4
20 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 No bet 3
2 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 No bet 1
24 3 W Bet 2 - 4 No bet 1 - 3
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 No bet 4
12 2 W END
Priyanka lost all the money in that last vid!? :girl_to: I was thinking about cycles the other day as it happens - based on when a number repeats - but how to translate that into a winning system is anyone's guess.
OK I am going to look at the latest video regarding dozen cycles - obviously engineered to deliberately lose.
It seems Priyanka places a varying number of 0.05 bets before proceeding to bet big on the dozens - but I think this precursor is a distraction. It seems she can begin the attack at any moment a dozen hits, so let's just concentrate on only 1 spin before the attack:
Cycle 1
21 2 1+3
7 1 1+2
10 1 2+3
11 1
Cycle 2
16 2 1+2
29 3
Cycle 3
24 2 1+3
20 2
Cycle 4
4 1 1+2
32 3
Cycle 5
24 2 1+3
36 3
Cycle 6
24 2 1+3
4 1
Cycle 7
12 1 2+3
19 2
Cycle 8
24 2 1+3
14 2
Cycle 9
6 1 1+2
32 3
Cycle 10
23 2 2+3
3 1
Cycle 11
36 3 1+2
1 1 1+3
6 1 2+3
6 1
Cycle 12
19 2 2+3
29 3 1+2
35 3
Cycle 13
1 1 1+3
16 2
Tell a lie... I can't see a pattern there, so perhaps the precursor does count and is not a distraction (or a complete distraction) after all. I will fill in the gaps to see if that helps.
OK, here it is in full: (first number of cycle 1 may or may not count)
Cycle 1
(15) (2)
32 3
21 2 1+3
7 1 1+2
10 1 2+3
11 1
Cycle 2
16 2 1+2
29 3
Cycle 3
3 1
23 2
24 2 1+3
20 2
Cycle 4
4 1 1+2
32 3
Cycle 5
32 3
7 1
14 2
24 2 1+3
36 3
Cycle 6
9 1
24 2 1+3
4 1
Cycle 7
12 1 2+3
19 2
Cycle 8
24 2 1+3
14 2
Cycle 9
23 2
7 1
22 2
21 2
16 2
28 3
21 2
6 1 1+2
32 3
Cycle 10
2 1
26 2
23 2 2+3
3 1
Cycle 11
22 2
28 3
36 3 1+2
1 1 1+3
6 1 2+3
6 1
Cycle 12
28 3
15 2
35 3
34 3
13 2
36 3
19 2 2+3
29 3 1+2
35 3
Cycle 13
1 1 1+3
16 2
Here we go
I don't see any pattern there whatsoever. I can't see any relation to dozen cycles either! :question:
Turner said that he uses non random combinations.
I think the film with dozens of shows just how these combinations are working.
In the film No.1 in the beginning we see this combination,
we look forward to repeat cycle 1 or 2 and then play against the quad That repeat,
in another spin we play on Quads which fell out, and against whom, we played on the next spin,
if last 2 spins quads repeat the cycle 1 play again against and the next spin on the quad who fell out and the quad we played against.
In the next spin we have a cycle of 2, and play against. later again play on 2 quads that have fallen.
I think that Priyanka has several such combinations depending on the situation.
Almost always, the combination begins when we have repeat next to each other in a cycle of 1
Did you ever hear about the teenager who peddled a fantasy for years only to murder his parents upon being exposed as a fraud?
link:://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4633339.stm
"Blackwell's personality disorder meant he fantasised about unlimited success, power and brilliance.
He falsely claimed he was a professional tennis player and applied for 13 credit cards in his father's name to fund his fantasies."
I hope Priyanka will anwser some question i have regarding the first video.
The start of the video i think i have figured out but on the end the betselection suddenly changes and i dont see why.
Also i would like to know if you used some virtual wins before betting again.
I will try to explain what i think is happening using the quad number 1 2 3 4
4
1
1 <- our first quad repeats after two unique (This was explained on page 7 till 9 i believe.
We now bet all quads but 1.
3 hits. its a win. Now we bet quad 1 and 3.
3 again. another win. Also a new repeat. This time after 1 unique. So bet everything but 3.
1 win. Now we again bet quad 1 and 3.
ect.
This part i think i understand. You seem to be alternating between two bets. On a win you switch to 2 quads. Maybe smart to use a parlay here to maximize wins?
Later we have this:
2 this was a loss on the duo bet.
1
1 here a repeat again. So we bet all but 1.
4 It's a win. Now because we lost the last duo bet we now play it virtual. So we would bet 1-4 but we dont.
3 its a virtual loss. no bets wait for repeat?
3 repeat. bet all but 3
1 win. last time was a loss so again a virtual bet.
1 virtual win and a repeat. bet all but 1
4 win. because of the virtual win we now can bet the duo again.
1 win. alternate bet to 3.
2 win. bet duo 1 and 2
4 loss.
ect.
Now the game continu's but their a lot of virtual losses.
2
4
4 L
4
4
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
3
3 W
1 W
2 L
2
2 L
2
2
1
4
2
2
3
4
3
2 <- here i have some questions. Suddenly we are betting 2 and 4. I have no idea why.
2 Win. The 2 repeat but we bet the 2. why? We dont bet the 4. Makes no sense if you look at the start of the session.
3 its a win. No we dont bet 3. Why? I thought we alternate between two bet selection. If we did we would have won.
3 loss. no bet
2 Now we bet 1-4. Again why? I don't see any 1 or 4...
1
1
4
3
1
3
2
2
Priyanka could you please tell me i'm one the right track?
Hi All,
in reading English texts my understanding is much better than writing, so sorry for mistakes.
May somebody can help me: What does in the following text of Priyanke mean: "RX" ?
To download "Permanenzen" (spins) from the web is no problem for me.
Thanks in advance
Herby
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 25, 08:16 AM 2016
I have downloaded casino hohensyburg spins from RX
link:://:.uxsoftware.com/pages/index.html
Herby
Roulette xtreme
Its software where you can download real spins and test ideas...place bets on carpet.
All Ignatus graphs are RX
The casinos are german..Hohensyburg
Is one of them
in german thinking I would have dowloaded "with RX" and not "from .." :question: :question: ...
Thank you nextyear and Turner for the informations
Did anyone made some progress here?
I have a thought that maybe this may help, at least in understanding why Priyanka is preaching about non random combinations.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=xpXoluxBYw0&feature=youtu.be
Enjoy
Drazen
I thought you were the closest follower....!
Thanks for video, as Ken says: "Anything, that could be related,..."
To be honest I think am one of the closest followers. As since I joined this party the whole atmosphere here just overwhelmed me. All other ideas and things that are happening on forum lately are not very interesting anyway.
Besides, from all what I have learned and experienced about this game by now, this looks the brightest direction of all.
Point is that if we look at roulette as game with limited number of combinations, it can be beaten, similar as the games explained in the video i posted. I think that summaries what Priyanka is trying to show.
Of course it still needs enough efforts to utilize this way in practice with perfection, so in the end being able to create an edge.
I really regret that Priyanka is gone so we are left on our own from what we have here. Is it realistically enough or all this is just a unsolvable booby trap? I really cant tell, but I know what I am going for...
Cheers
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 25, 12:38 PM 2016
I did explain this to a couple of members and hope they will be of some help and come forward in decoding further
Is there anyone willing to speak to whom Priyanka explained this a bit more? You can shoot a PM if you like it to be confident.
Cheers
I have a feeling that I am speaking lately only with myself about this, but to hell with that :lol:
In case anyone didn't noticed, Pri has published 2 new videos on channel there. I don't know if this is connected to the same riddle we have here so maybe that might be the missing key for some in case if previous videos didn't gave any result in decoding, or it is something completely new...
Enjoy watching
Hope his helps
Drazen
I tried to figure it out. I posted it in this topic...
No one ever replied on it. Too bad...
Maybe you can share what you're thinking?
RayManZ
I think every video is made with a reason, although some people think it is just for boasting, and some even think it is not credible at all. It is a sort of a lesson on its own if you ask me, because this approach is made of more layers, or several concepts as Pri says. That way no one can watch the video and exactly figure out what that man is doing there. I think that is wrong and it should be done step by step. Priyanka has a lot of videos on his chanel, so maybe each tells part of the story. Have you thought about that?
Cheers
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 09, 08:43 AM 2016
In case anyone didn't noticed, Pri has published 2 new videos on channel there.
Hi Drazen,
thanks for this info.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 25, 12:38 PM 2016
This will be my last post here and am not returning after this.
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Lets see whether this sparks some interest to take it forward further. While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.
500 cycles Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%
1000 cycles Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%
2000 cycles Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.
Does it give you any pointers or advantages? Do you see any link to the videos. Oh yeah, I like playing puzzles. Those who want to ignore can ignore. Bye until I get the next urge to post.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 25, 12:38 PM 2016
Everythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.
For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.
19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2
19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1
18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Hi Priyanka,
after lots of analyzing (all, thanks Drazen) your videos, testing and programming just two days ago I got a first idea, today i found an very interestig refinement.
My time is short, but after easter i do a new programming from scratch for not to get trapped in a stupid failure as it happend to me in earlier times.
Thank you very much for telling us your ideas.
Have a nice easter time
Herby
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious.
Well take a good look around here. No one is interested in the slightest........
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "The Magician" :wink:
Its Rice, Beef, Carrots and Peas. Its fantastic
Add the rice to the Beef then add the Carrots then add the Peas. O0
Hmmm...made me sick after 5 meals
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "Top Dog" :thumbsup:
Its Beef, Carrots, Peas and Rice. Its fantastic :xd: :xd:
Add the Peas to the Beef then add the Rice then add the Carrots.
Ive not been sick yet :twisted:
Hmmm...made me sick after 11 meals :'( :'( :'(
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "Blind Alley" :wink: O0
Its Rice, Peas, Spam, Spam, egg and Spam >:D :xd: :smile: :girl_to:
Quote from: Turner on Mar 24, 03:15 PM 2016
Well take a good look around here. No one is interested in the slightest........
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "The Magician" :wink:
Its Rice, Beef, Carrots and Peas. Its fantastic
Add the rice to the Beef then add the Carrots then add the Peas. O0
Hmmm...made me sick after 5 meals
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "Top Dog" :thumbsup:
Its Beef, Carrots, Peas and Rice. Its fantastic :xd: :xd:
Add the Peas to the Beef then add the Rice then add the Carrots.
Ive not been sick yet :twisted:
Hmmm...made me sick after 11 meals :'( :'( :'(
Hey....Ive got a new meal. Ive called it "Blind Alley" :wink: O0
Its Rice, Peas, Spam, Spam, egg and Spam >:D :xd: :smile: :girl_to:
Bitterness.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 24, 03:25 PM 2016
Bitterness.
No, it was quite savory. Less Rice, more spam me thinks
*Rimshot*
Had much spam in hawaii
Anyways...sorry Priyanka...Im bored
Back to the real world
Can you explain 'defines' and explain in the context you use it
Thanks
Thats your 4 posts for today then
Quote from: nottophammer on Mar 24, 05:34 PM 2016
Thats your 4 posts for today then
Yes I am interested :thumbsup:
5 actually
I appreciate your keen observation. Banter is what I need
Thanks for posting again Priyanka! :thumbsup:
It may seem that no one is interested, but believe me, I'm thinking about the things you've written day and night. Although I had to take a few months off, and could not concentrate on roulette at the beginning of this year.
I think that before I try to fully understand your thought process I need to read and re-read thousands of posts on various forums to learn from the brightest minds, and it takes a lot of time.
@priyanka...so whats better to bet acording to your cycles samples...38% ones or 62% ones...thanks..because i got feelings that 38% would be better
Quote from: Turner on Mar 24, 04:15 PM 2016
Im bored
I notice! Calm buddha has swapped places for a rocky guitar. Pressures of moderatorship, joy of grandparentship....
"Defined" - The dozen which caused the cycle or the dozen that repeated.
20
31
20 - the cycle was defined by the dozen 2
1
31
22 - The cycle was defined by dozen 2 again.
1
8 - cycle was defined by dozen 1
22
18 - cycle was defined by a different dozen - dozen 2.
Quote from: maestro on Mar 25, 09:41 AM 2016
@priyanka...so whats better to bet acording to your cycles samples...38% ones or 62% ones...thanks..because i got feelings that 38% would be better
Maestro - It is not that straightforward. I wish it was. This is one of the statistics that need to be used for getting that advanatage.
Quote from: ati on Mar 24, 07:16 PM 2016
Thanks for posting again Priyanka! :thumbsup:
It may seem that no one is interested, but believe me, I'm thinking about the things you've written day and night. Although I had to take a few months off, and could not concentrate on roulette at the beginning of this year.
I think that before I try to fully understand your thought process I need to read and re-read thousands of posts on various forums to learn from the brightest minds, and it takes a lot of time.
Thanks ati. Wish you all he best in your endeavours.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 25, 01:03 PM 2016
I notice! Calm buddha has swapped places for a rocky guitar. Pressures of moderatorship, joy of grandparentship....
Its not a rocky guitar, its a picture of my own guitar.
Thanks for the explanation. I get it
This is my attempt to play as Pri has explained. So what we are doing is playing one dozen to be the definer as in the previous cycle. We are playing only one dozen.
20
36
19 cycle defined by dozen 2
35 bet next cycle do be defined by previous dozen so bet dozen 2
2 L -1
14 w +2, cycle ends, being defined by dozen 2
9 bet dozen 2 for the next cycle to be defined as like previous one
18 +2, bet dozen 2 to be defined by dozen 2
27 L -1, cycle ends, now being defined by dozen 3
22 start betting for this cycle to be defined by dozen 3 so bet dozen 3
28 +2, bet dozen 3
5 L -1now cycle defined by dozen 1
20 start betting dozen 1
13 L -1, cycle ends, now cycle being defined by dozen 2
13 start betting to be defined by dozen 2
11 L-1
21 W+2, cycle ends, defined by dozen 2
22 betting dozen 2
26 -1
15 w +2, defined by dozen 2
23 bet dozen 2
23 w+2 cycle ends, defined by dozen 2
15 bet dozen 2
8 L -1
9 L -1, cycle ends being defined by dozen 1
13 start betting dozen 1
29 L-1
36 L-1 cycle ends, being defined by dozen 3
3 start betting dozen 3
1 L-1 cyle being defined by dozen 1
26 bet dozen 1
16 L-1
33 L -1 cycle defined by dozen 3
13 bet dozen 3
31 w+2
6 L-1 cycle defined by dozen 1
28 bet dozen 1
17 L -1
25 L-1 cycle defined by dozen 3
30 bet dozen 3
28 w+2
27 bet dozen 3
30 w+2
22 bet dozen 3
7 L-1
8 L -1 cycle defined by dozen 1
3 bet dozen 1
27 L1, bet dozen 1
5 w+2
15
Cheers
The NEXT spin where the ball drops brings us back to reality. Past spins are just history
Whichever part of the table I analyzed, I am seeing certain strong ratios between cycles. And they are pretty much constant.
So does ti mean deviations are weaker and we are more safe to apply some progression and MM maybe, although still without an edge? Not sure.
The example I gave is just an effort to be in the line what is explained here recently. Of course as we see in videos Pri is not playing this way, and she is using 2 dozens.
Even the losing video seems to have the same principle of targeting bets, so I wouldnt say it is made to deliberately lose as it may seem at first. It probably has its own story.
Cheers
drazen --I attempted something along the same lines as you did
Quote from: Tamino on Mar 26, 10:24 AM 2016
The NEXT spin where the ball drops brings us back to reality. Past spins are just history
From history at least one can learn , in other words one can learn from past events and know what
would expect next time when similar events happen. Yes ...i know ...No session will be like other but always
is some similarity there/patterns . Some will say *patterns= ilussion* but for me is not ilussion, is a good friend.
The most important event is *the repeat * , no matter if is about number(s)
or group of numbers ( my favorite). We( that ones who use past spins) don t know exactly when that event
will occur but can try to *guess* based on past similar events also based on probabilities and statistics.
Also the dealer is involved in* the repeat* stuff....anyway with or without dealer the groups of numbers
will repeat.
cheers
It is what it is a blue print of history is an assumption that events will repeat but the next spin is reality .
Hey Drazen
question in red
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 26, 10:08 AM 2016
20
36
19 cycle defined by dozen 2
35 bet next cycle do be defined by previous dozen so bet dozen 2
2 L -1
14 w +2, cycle ends, being defined by dozen 2
9 bet dozen 2 for the next cycle to be defined as like previous one
18 +2, bet dozen 2 to be defined by dozen 2
27 L -1, cycle ends, now being defined by dozen 3 why does cycle end here?
22 start betting for this cycle to be defined by dozen 3 so bet dozen 3
28 +2, bet dozen 3
Ah yes, the sharpest eye on forum.
That is my mistake. I overviewed that cycle. Sorry.
So corrected it should be:
20
36
19 cycle defined by dozen 2
35 bet next cycle do be defined by previous dozen so bet dozen 2
2 L -1
14 w +2, cycle ends, being defined by dozen 2
9 bet dozen 2 for the next cycle to be defined as like previous one
18 +2 cycle ends being defined by dozen 2
27 bet dozen 2 for this cycle to be defined by dozen 2
22 w+2, bet dozen 2 again to close the cycle
28 L -1, cycle ends, now being defined by dozen 3
Thanks Turner
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 26, 03:48 PM 2016
Ah yes, the sharpest eye on forum.
That is my mistake. I overviewed that cycle. Sorry.
So corrected it should be:
20
36
19 cycle defined by dozen 2
35 bet next cycle do be defined by previous dozen so bet dozen 2
2 L -1
14 w +2, cycle ends, being defined by dozen 2
9 bet dozen 2 for the next cycle to be defined as like previous one
18 +2 cycle ends being defined by dozen 2
27 bet dozen 2 for this cycle to be defined by dozen 2
22 w+2, bet dozen 2 again to close the cycle
28 L -1, cycle ends, now being defined by dozen 3
Thanks Turner
LOL...and I get accused of commenting when I havnt read it.
I read everything.
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 26, 10:36 AM 2016
Whichever part of the table I analyzed, I am seeing certain strong ratios between cycles. And they are pretty much constant.
Apart from the ratio that I have highlighted, are there any other ratios that you are able to see. Do you think we will be able to use VdW theorem with which I started the thread in some form or other to bring a statistical concept and a non-random concept together.
Quote from: Tamino on Mar 26, 03:16 PM 2016
It is what it is a blue print of history is an assumption that events will repeat but the next spin is reality .
Tamino - Good quote. But there is more to roulette than next spin. JP used to famously say 2 out of 3 games and 3 out of 4 games, never next spin. So unless one sees a set of spins as a set of spins and not look at just the next spin, one might as well leave the game as it will never get them anywhere. Mathematically, there is only one way to beat the roulette and that is through seeing the game with a non-random lens.
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 15, 10:02 PM 2015
Now look at the following 8 spins.
BRRBBRRB
If we play based on the theorem, what will we play for the 9th spin? Black or Red? Leaving you with these thoughts.
Does the clash here appears because we have a possibility of betting both black and red. What if we tie our hands that we cannot bet black and we can bet only red. Does this clash happen. Does this handicap situation of betting only one colour makes this theorem more workable from a VdW perspective. Does this handicap really a handicap or is it a boon in some form making us lose less?
Quote from: Kattila on Mar 26, 12:40 PM 2016
Some will say *patterns= ilussion* but for me is not ilussion, is a good friend.
The most important event is *the repeat * , no matter if is about number(s)
or group of numbers ( my favorite).
Kattila, very well said. The most difficult thing here is the when/why/what thing that need to be solved. Once you solve that it will no longer be an illusion and one will clearly be able to see through it.
Pryanka: To be blunt No bet contemplated. Does not meet criteria to bet .Why hurry.
Quote from: Tamino on Mar 26, 05:14 PM 2016Pryanka: To be blunt No bet contemplated. Does not meet criteria to bet either.Why hurry.
Sorry, didnt understand what you were trying to convey. Do you want to explain this again?
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 26, 04:43 PM 2016
Tamino - Good quote. But there is more to roulette than next spin. JP used to famously say 2 out of 3 games and 3 out of 4 games, never next spin. So unless one sees a set of spins as a set of spins and not look at just the next spin, one might as well leave the game as it will never get them anywhere. Mathematically, there is only one way to beat the roulette and that is through seeing the game with a non-random lens.
+1 :thumbsup:
I'm surprised I don't see this more often.
How many methods has Ignatus used where he can win 3/4 games.........not necessarily an HG, but surely an odd stroke of "luck".
With larger numbers the variance basically disappears........so why not use a progression of games instead of spins? :question:
I would refer to this as a investment strategy to win over time (1000s of spins)........along with diversifying your portfolio with multiple methods at once.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 26, 05:18 PM 2016
Sorry, didnt understand what you were trying to convey. Do you want to explain this again?
Priyanka ,,
Simple explanation that none of my EC methods calls for an action at this point in time .
Tamino aka Nathan Detroit
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 26, 05:36 PM 2016
+1 :thumbsup:
I would refer to this as a investment strategy to win over time (1000s of spins)........along with diversifying your portfolio with multiple methods at once.
There was a member called amk who once suggested a similar strategy. There are hundreds of games here in the forum. Everyday you pick up a random method which has been performing ok according to comments in the forum and play. May be amk will come forward to say whether it worked or not and how did it fare.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 26, 04:41 PM 2016
Apart from the ratio that I have highlighted, are there any other ratios that you are able to see. Do you think we will be able to use VdW theorem with which I started the thread in some form or other to bring a statistical concept and a non-random concept together.
Few more questions. There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited?
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 26, 05:00 PM 2016
Does the clash here appears because we have a possibility of betting both black and red. What if we tie our hands that we cannot bet black and we can bet only red. Does this clash happen. Does this handicap situation of betting only one colour makes this theorem more workable from a VdW perspective. Does this handicap really a handicap or is it a boon in some form making us lose less?
I would bet the colour that won the last series as I am assuming for the moment without any analysis that the 62/38 split is valid for even chances as well as dozens ?
my guess is having ratio 66/34 or something will not give any edge reason being is in order
to have 66% you will have 24 numbers to bet versus 12 numbers so every time you need to get hit within 2
spins or so to get in profit flat bet.. :question:
or maybe you are able to find 12 numbers hiting 40% or above if so well done
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 26, 04:41 PM 2016
Apart from the ratio that I have highlighted, are there any other ratios that you are able to see. Do you think we will be able to use VdW theorem with which I started the thread in some form or other to bring a statistical concept and a non-random concept together.
Thank you for the questions. Back to the drawing board again.
In some point you mentioned that it is a must thing to use parallel bet in order for non random to work. And in your videos you are betting same location all the time. So is it possible for that parallel bet (which seems only virtual) to be with different odds then the one you are betting?
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 29, 06:28 AM 2016
There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited?
I am working on this. I have to do all this manually but hopefully soon I ll make some progress :)
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins.
Can someone please explain how the VdW theorem can be used on double dozens?
I understand it on EC's and single dozens, but can it be applied to double dozens, when a double dozen bet can be 12, 23, or 13?
E.g. if the last number was 14, you cannot say it was the dz 12, it also could be dz 23.
Interesting question ati. Maybe we do the same as with the even chances , unless there is a clear choice to complete the series then we accept it as a loss as priyanka does as I can't see how you could bet all 3 dozens if there where 2 qualifying 2 dozens.
What number are you using to finalize the vdw series for 2 dozens ( 24 numbers ) ? I am guessing 6 so that would give us 123 234 345 456 135 246 ?
Quote from: maestro on Mar 29, 10:54 AM 2016
my guess is having ratio 66/34 or something will not give any edge reason being is in order
to have 66% you will have 24 numbers to bet versus 12 numbers so every time you need to get hit within 2
spins or so to get in profit flat bet.. :question:
Few friends here have asked me how to play with cycles. I think enough of mystery here didnt attracted the rest to join (maybe even better? ;) )…
So I ll try to give one variation of the game which I consider to be the most simplest example of how to bet on cycles. So for the now lets put asside WdW and other things needed to gain an edge in the end.
I hope you understand what cycles are and how to get them. Priyanka explained this several times here. If not, you can ask again.
So the ones who understood the cycles and started to observe them, spotted that all cycles are coming in certain amount of hits which seems not to deviate much for every single session. What that means? It means that we can be pretty sure that number of cycles will be coming in certain ratio and that ratio is pretty constant. Lets take dozens for simplicity. It means that we will be sure that one of the cycles will be showing most times, one the minimum times and the last somewhere between first two.
So I ll show you how that number looks in a few 250 spins sessions:
Session 1: Cycle 1: 39 times
Cycle 2: 56 times
Cycle 3: 31 times
Session 2:Cycle 1: 42 times
Cycle 2: 60 times
Cycle 3: 30 times
Session 3:Cycle 1: 45 times
Cycle 2: 60 times
Cycle 3: 28 times
Session 4:Cycle 1: 45 times
Cycle 2: 55 times
Cycle 3: 30 times
Session 5:Cycle 1: 41 times
Cycle 2: 60 times
Cycle 3: 29 times
And so on and on...
So do you see the first ratio Priyanka was talking about? It is very nice and constant isn't it?
Of course construction and the payout for getting each cycle are different. To get cycles 1 you need to bet one dozen every time, for cycles of 2 you need to bet two dozens for two attempts, and cycles 3 require betting first two dozens and then one dozen. I hope this is clear. If not, be free to ask. I ll answer with an example.
So here we are having the most simple bet which is using the fact that we know how certain distance will not vary much in the end of an average length session. If we look this through the flat bet scenario we will see that this isn't giving us edge of course, but it doesn't lose much also.
Lets take cycle 1 and we will be attacking only that cycle through the whole session. It means betting one dozen ,which will give us payout 2:1 for having each cycle 1. So for the first session we will win all cycles 1 and earn 39X2 making it 78 units and lose on all cycles 2 and 3 by 1 unit, making it 56+31=87 units lost flat bet.
(Or for example you prefer double dozen bet and you can aim only distances 2. Its up to you.)
Sessions 2 and 5 will also lose a bit while sessions 3 and 4 will be slight ahead. When everything is added up it will be right on the expectation for the odds plus green, well you know... But as you see, no big deviations :-\
So the question is: is it possible that such bet selection is making the game more tamed? Can we add standard deviation into this?
Is there any progression and money management which we could apply and not to be in fear of getting stretched too much?
Or this is the same as any other dozen bet?
What do you think?
Drazen
i think best try to somehow stick them and make it to even chance bet since ratios are so strict make sure either site is 50% and go for labby might work...this will ensure you not gona get les than 0.42% of hits and control labby
ok Drazen have a look on attached xls sheet,random injection>hackin terms< :twisted:,i just have few drinks and feel creative...inside sheet you will see a1 to a500 random numbers,b2 to b500 generated numbers with strog bias so what you can try to do is do 2 spins at roulette and start betting according to biased sequence....if you have 0 to 18 in biased sequence you bet low,and if you get 19 to 36 on biased sequence you bet high....see what it does....cheers...nice whiskey igot... :thumbsup:
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 04:04 PM 2016
.if you have 0 to 18 in biased sequence you bet low,and if you get 19 to 36 on biased sequence you bet high....see what it does....cheers...nice whiskey igot... :thumbsup:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
hope formulas are ok Pryianka because i do not touch computer when drinking,...but hey hooooo..cheers
Quote from: ati on Apr 02, 03:51 PM 2016
Can someone please explain how the VdW theorem can be used on double dozens?
I understand it on EC's and single dozens, but can it be applied to double dozens, when a double dozen bet can be 12, 23, or 13?
E.g. if the last number was 14, you cannot say it was the dz 12, it also could be dz 23.
Ati - there are many ways. I will explain one possible way.
12 - outcome A
23 - outcome B
31 - outcome c
For ease of explanation (only for ease of explanation!!!) wait for two independent dozen to form. Let's say they are dozen 1 and 2.
Consider the following spins.
3,15, 23, 2, 31, 21, 16, 34, 32, 23, 1, 15, 19.
3- dozen one
15 - dozen 2
Th double dozen is 12. So anything different from this we will mark it as different. Anything same as this we will mark as same.
23 - Same
2 - same. Possibility of ap in next spin. Play dd 12
31- different
21 - different. Possibility of ap in next spin.
16 - same
34 - same. Ap in next
32 - same.
Remember this is just one way.
Now the comment that ati you highlighted is different from playing double dozens. It is for an AP for 2 dozens in 3 spins. This will typically have one single dozen bet and one double dozen bet.
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 04:15 PM 2016
hope formulas are ok Pryianka because i do not touch computer when drinking,...but hey hooooo..cheers
I am more drunk in Dubai on a nice night with pals. Bars here are open longer than when I visited them last time.
So can't validate yet. But the idea is great. :).
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 04:15 PM 2016
hope formulas are ok Pryianka because i do not touch computer when drinking,...but hey hooooo..cheers
Thank you maestro! I ll do it and report.
I am very glad to see such cheer here 8)
Enjoy!
Drunk in dubai? Dont leave tourist area.....
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 04:04 PM 2016
ok Drazen have a look on attached xls sheet,random injection>hackin terms< :twisted:,i just have few drinks and feel creative...inside sheet you will see a1 to a500 random numbers,b2 to b500 generated numbers with strog bias so what you can try to do is do 2 spins at roulette and start betting according to biased sequence....if you have 0 to 18 in biased sequence you bet low,and if you get 19 to 36 on biased sequence you bet high....see what it does....cheers...nice whiskey igot... :thumbsup:
Your formula is incorrect in G
=IF(AND(B10>=13,B10<=36,A11>=19),"W","L")
should be =IF(AND(B10>=1
9,B10<=36,A11>=19),"W","L")
thanks turner you are right i just have seen it .....this one should be ok
sorry thats why i do not touch computer when drinking :'( :-\
Turner can you scrap first file as it is fkked....thanks
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 05:42 PM 2016
sorry thats why i do not touch computer when drinking :'( :-\
Me either
Quote from: maestro on Apr 03, 05:44 PM 2016
Turner can you scrap first file as it is fkked....thanks
You program XL like I do. Totally long way round. no VB look ups and all that malarkey lol.
Its my BASIC programming background
things have to be kept simple but not that simple.....and no drinks :xd:
Can someone please confirm that the spin to end/define a cycle is included as the first spin of the next cycle ( A ) or is a fresh new/next spin the first for the next cycle ( B ) as the stats for both are totally different.
Cheers.
Quote from: klw on Apr 06, 06:03 AM 2016
Can someone please confirm that the spin to end/define a cycle is included as the first spin of the next cycle ( A ) or is a fresh new/next spin the first for the next cycle ( B ) as the stats for both are totally different.
Cheers.
(A) is the right approach
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 29, 06:28 AM 2016
What if we remove cycles of length 1
[reveal]
divisor target unit units bet zp bet adj target bet result (L/W) bet win zp win new target win target Profit
6 4 1 2 0 6 L 0 0 6 4 -2
6 6 1 2 0 8 L 0 0 8 4 -4
7 8 2 4 0 12 L 0 0 12 4 -8
7 12 2 4 0 16 L 0 0 16 4 -12
8 16 2 4 0 20 W 6 0 14 4 -10
7 14 2 4 0 18 L 0 0 18 4 -14
7 18 3 6 0 24 L 0 0 24 4 -20
8 24 3 6 0 30 W 9 0 21 4 -17
7 21 3 6 0 27 L 0 0 27 4 -23
7 27 4 8 0 35 L 0 0 35 4 -31
8 35 5 10 0 45 W 15 0 30 4 -26
7 30 5 10 0 40 W 15 0 25 4 -21
6 25 5 10 0 35 W 15 0 20 4 -16
5 20 4 8 0 28 W 12 0 16 4 -12
4 16 4 8 0 24 W 12 0 12 4 -8
3 12 4 8 0 20 L 0 0 20 4 -16
3 20 7 14 0 34 W 21 0 13 4 -9
8 15 2 4 0 19 L 0 0 19 6 -13
8 19 3 6 0 25 W 9 0 16 6 -10
7 16 3 6 0 22 W 9 0 13 6 -7
6 13 3 6 0 19 W 9 0 10 6 -4
5 10 2 4 0 14 L 0 0 14 6 -8
5 14 3 6 0 20 W 9 0 11 6 -5
4 11 3 6 0 17 L 0 0 17 6 -11
4 17 5 10 0 27 W 15 12 6 -6
3 12 4 8 0 20 W 12 8 6 -2
8 10 2 4 0 14 W 6 8 8 0
6 4 1 2 0 6 L 0 6 4 -2
6 6 1 2 0 8 L 0 8 4 -4
7 8 2 4 0 12 L 0 12 4 -8
7 12 2 4 0 16 W 6 10 4 -6
6 10 2 4 0 14 L 0 14 4 -10
6 14 3 6 0 20 L 0 20 4 -16
7 20 3 6 0 26 W 9 17 4 -13
6 17 3 6 0 23 W 9 14 4 -10
5 14 3 6 0 20 W 9 11 4 -7
4 11 3 6 0 17 L 0 17 4 -13
4 17 5 10 0 27 W 15 12 4 -8
3 12 4 8 0 20 L 0 20 4 -16
3 20 7 14 0 34 W 21 13 4 -9
8 15 2 4 0 19 W 6 13 6 -7
7 13 2 4 0 17 W 6 11 6 -5
6 11 2 4 0 15 W 6 9 6 -3
5 9 2 4 0 13 W 6 7 6 -1
4 7 2 4 0 11 W 6 5 6 1
6 4 1 2 0 6 0 6 4
[/reveal]
Another effort to do this as simple as it can be.
This time avoiding cycles 1, betting only cycles 2. Double dozen bet, showing only the results combined with Lanky six point divisor.
Just another idea
Anyone tried?
Maybe it is better to learn how to walk before you try to run?
Cheers
Having spent so many hours and weeks analyzing the play in the videos, I'm still not able to see the most important element, the non randomness.
I can see the cycles, and some obvious bet selections that are based on statistics, but cannot see the non random sequences.
It looks like some betting opportunities were missed, but as far as I know Priyanka does not believe in virtual wins or losses, so when there is no bet for 10 spins, it must be for a reason.
As Priyanka said "simple thing if some one tells you, but hard if you dont know" Well, this is proven to be true. :)
The interesting thing is that the second bet is different in all three of the quads videos, so I'm already lost at the beginning.
Let's have a look at the first and third video, because those started off in a similar way.
First Vid
The first bet should be obvious to anyone who read the posts, watched the videos and cared to understand them. The second bet is where things get interesting. In this case there is a bet on the last quad, and on the quad that defined the last cycle.
Nr Quad Bet
29 Q4 no bet
3 Q1 no bet
9 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
26 Q3 Q1 Q3
Third Vid
Here the first bet is also obvious, but the second bet is the opposite what we see in the first video. Why? ??? If we disregard the first number, it is the same as the situation above.
Nr Quad Bet
23 Q3 no bet
28 Q4 no bet
17 Q2 no bet
16 Q2 Q1 Q3 Q4
24 Q3 Q1 Q4
Is only the non randomness I'm missing here, or are there other things?
I would be most grateful if Priyanka or someone who worked it out could point me to a direction either here or in PM.
cheers :thumbsup:
I've downloaded 50 numbers from random.org, and decided to do this. What is your opinion Priyanka?
Is it just an illusion that looks like magic? Or am I a wizard? :)
nr bet
3
26
24
15
12
18
24
16
31 Q2 Q4
32
20 Q3 Q4
23
8 Q1 Q3
7
31 Q1 Q4
24
1
20 Q1 Q3
26
23
30 Q3 Q4
16
34
2 Q1 Q4
9
31 Q1 Q4
16
4
5
35 Q1 Q4
30
14 Q2 Q4
32
28
25 Q3 Q4
35
27 Q3 Q4
2
30
12 Q2 Q4
22
10
16
34
35
9 Q1 Q4
14
32
17 Q2 Q4
9
Quote from: ati on Apr 12, 04:40 PM 2016
Is it just an illusion that looks like magic? Or am I a wizard? :)
ati - only you can answer that question. ::)
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 05:26 PM 2016
ati - only you can answer that question. ::)
oooh...too close?
Quote from: ati on Apr 10, 12:21 PM 2016
Having spent so many hours and weeks analyzing the play in the videos, I'm still not able to see the most important element, the non randomness.
I can see the cycles, and some obvious bet selections that are based on statistics, but cannot see the non random sequences.
Having read most of this interesting thread I don't think the non randomness implied by Priyanka is what you're thinking it is. All random outcomes have some sequences which appear to be "non random". Paradoxically, if the outcomes don't have some non random sequences, then they're not random!. ;)
The non-randomness, as Priyanka has defined it, means circumstances in which some event
has to happen. E.g. there must be at least one repeat of a dozen in 4 spins (the pigeonhole principle).
At least, I
think that's what s/he means.
ATI
As I see it but see my red
Quote from: ati on Apr 12, 04:40 PM 2016
I've downloaded 50 numbers from random.org, and decided to do this. What is your opinion Priyanka?
Is it just an illusion that looks like magic? Or am I a wizard? :)
nr bet
3
26
24
15
12
18
24
16
31 Q2 Q4
32
20 Q3 Q4
23
8 Q1 Q3
7
31 Q1 Q4
24
1
20 Q1 Q3
26
23
30 Q3 Q4 <<<<< NO !
16
34
2 Q1 Q4
9
31 Q1 Q4
16
4
5
35 Q1 Q4
30
14 Q2 Q4
32
28
25 Q3 Q4
35
27 Q3 Q4
2
30
12 Q2 Q4
22
10
16
34 <<<<<< Q1 Q4
35
9 Q1 Q4
14
32
17 Q2 Q4
9
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 05:26 PM 2016
ati - only you can answer that question. ::)
Ati are you attempts around figuring this out based only on effort to decode the videos? I see most of people lost their interest here and I can't blame them. Only few of us are still fighting with this puzzle...
I still strongly believe that one can't get enough information for decoding just from watching the videos. As Pri said:
The most difficult thing here is the when/why/what thing that need to be solved This means being able to explain every step of every principle used here. And some of them can't be used straight, they have to be twisted in a way.
Priyanka has raised many questions after giving hints. Are you able to answer them all? I think that must be so if we want to get it. No other way around I am afraid.
So for understanding all this, you must know and understand each layer of this puzzle by heart. There is so much hard work beyond this... And who knows if something is still maybe missing, which will never be even mentioned. And my money is on that to be true... Don't get me wrong please, the point of this is not discourage, but to say what I think.
Cheers
Drazen.....On reflection....enigma was more simple once they knew the first line was the crossover setting
Before that it was considered impossible.
To play the game of coding /decoding was simple for the german operators
It was no enigma to them
There is interest in this thread for sure but its hard to comment if you have nothing to contribute to the possible solution
Quote from: ati on Apr 10, 12:21 PM 2016
Is only the non randomness I'm missing here, or are there other things?
ati - There are a few fundamental things I am trying to communicate from this thread.
1. One is exactly what Bliss is describing that you will be able to find out non-random
events that has to happen in any random stream of objects. In roulette it is the random stream of numbers from 0 or 00 to 36.
2. Second is the
constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
3. Can you bring 2 or 3 such constants together to
create a biased game, just like biased wheel readers who is constantly keeping on the look out for bias and look for the entry point. May be!
4. Can you
increase the span of that biased game, by making the limit of that cycle larger that you will always find a bias and the law of large numbers will never come into picture. May be!
5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by
stringing together your bets. May be!
These are all things you can do and this is all things you need to know. There is nothing else.
Thanks for posting again!
The new information about the cycles if very helpfull. Do you also have some statistics for the quads? It seems you are using those and thats why the bet suddenly changes to a other quad.
I understand the cycles. The part the confuses me is the bet switching. The most logical way is you start off with betting what has a high % of happening to a cycle.
You also said it seems like it is all clusterd. So on a loss. You switch your bet to the other option. Depending on the % it changes on one loss or maybe two or three losses.
Now we have combined two factors?
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 13, 02:19 PM 2016
It seems you are using those and thats why the bet suddenly changes to a other quad.
My typical betting method is ECs with usage of straights to complement them. I see fun in using quads and lines.
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 13, 02:19 PM 2016
I understand the cycles. The part the confuses me is the bet switching.
Dont get confused with my videos. Videos are there to highlight specific things and cannot be reengineered in isolation to figure out a way of play. I dont switch bets and there is no need to. The key is taking advantage of certain things which are non-random. However, yes, as Drazen rightly said, there has to be a when/where/what that can be defined for every entry point and exit point and that will be based on these non-random concepts.
Thanks Priyanka . . .
"But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainty."
Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.
You now can test yourself to see which Cycle hits more often than the others.
I did a 10,000 spin test and the results are in the sheet which show that Cycle 1 hits at a greater rate
than Cycle 2 & Cycle 3 combined.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Apr 13, 02:40 PM 2016
Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.
Nick - I was refering to reply number#237.
Also, there seems to be something not right in the cycle length data that you have provided. I am not able to figure out what, but something doesnt seem right. If we take the counts that you have got, it says
159, 72 and 36 for cycle 1,2 and 3. Converting this to units, 159*2 - 72 -36 will win all the time, whereas it should not be the case. It should even out which means cycle of length 2 will be higher than cycle of length 1 and 3.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Apr 13, 02:40 PM 2016
Thanks Priyanka . . .
"But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainty."
Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.
You now can test yourself to see which Cycle hits more often than the others.
I did a 10,000 spin test and the results are in the sheet which show that Cycle 1 hits at a greater rate
than Cycle 2 & Cycle 3 combined.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Great sheet, Nick. Do you have something similar for 9#s?
Kindly hold off on that Excel Sheet.
I am working with Priyanka to see where the error in coding occurs.
When corrected, I will repost.
Thanks
nick
Thank you for the replies everyone! :thumbsup: I will keep on studying!
problem could be that Nick has it as cycle doz1-doz1 is cycle of one and then if doz1 hits count goes for one more cycle of 1 so in 3 spins of doz1 you got count of 2 cycles of one i think should be doz1-doz1 this is one cycle of one and if next we get doz1-doz1 then we get one more cycle of one
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 02:38 PM 2016
My typical betting method is ECs with usage of straights to complement them. I see fun in using quads and lines.
Dont get confused with my videos. Videos are there to highlight specific things and cannot be reengineered in isolation to figure out a way of play. I dont switch bets and there is no need to. The key is taking advantage of certain things which are non-random. However, yes, as Drazen rightly said, there has to be a when/where/what that can be defined for every entry point and exit point and that will be based on these non-random concepts.
Could you tell me what a good next step is once one understands how the cycles work?
Could you maybe explain more about your opening post? And how this could work with your quads. That whole theory is very hard to understand for someone who doesn't have english as first language.
Thinking out loud here. If anybody got some pointer please tell!
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 01:11 PM 2016
ati - There are a few fundamental things I am trying to communicate from this thread.
1. One is exactly what Bliss is describing that you will be able to find out non-random events that has to happen in any random stream of objects. In roulette it is the random stream of numbers from 0 or 00 to 36.
An event that has to happen: A dozen need to repeat in 4 spins. Because there are only 3 dozens.
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 01:11 PM 2016
2. Second is the constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
From the statistics you gave we know that the dozen that completes the cycle in 60% of the time the same as the dozen in the previous cycle.
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 01:11 PM 2016
3. Can you bring 2 or 3 such constants together to create a biased game, just like biased wheel readers who is constantly keeping on the look out for bias and look for the entry point. May be!
So now we have two constants? A cycle is never more than 4 spins and most of the time the dozen to complete the cycle is the same as the previous?
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 01:11 PM 2016
4. Can you increase the span of that biased game, by making the limit of that cycle larger that you will always find a bias and the law of large numbers will never come into picture. May be!
5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by stringing together your bets. May be!
These are all things you can do and this is all things you need to know. There is nothing else.
The other points i do not understand...
I also think we need more constants to gain any edge.
Anybody got any ideas or is it just me who's is trying to understand this and sharing it?
Ray,
There is a reason why no straight answers are given, and there is a reason why no one so far has claimed to have full understanding of these fundamentals. It simply cannot be understood in a short time. As it looks, it's better to read again again and again, than asking too many questions.
I'm sure many of us have a language barrier, so it's not just you. :) I often have to use a dictionary especially when mathematical terms are used, but you can overcome this if you read something many times. I personally have spent probably 50+ hours reading the posts in this thread, and many more looking at the example plays.
I know Priyanka does not give any straight anwser. That's okay, but that does not mean in any way that you don't have to. You're also trying to solve this puzzle. So am I. So why not share what you think is going on.
Maybe that will also lead to more people joining this puzzle. With more people we have more brainpower to come to solutions. That what i like about forums.
You don't have to show your complete hands but some insight would be nice. I try to do the same and share what i think. It would also be nice if Priyanka would keep me on the right track. Am i looking in the right direction with things or am i doing something whats really stupid.
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 14, 11:24 AM 2016
So now we have two constants? A cycle is never more than 4 spins and most of the time the dozen to complete the cycle is the same as the previous?
I didnt say these are the two constants. I mentioned you can bring in 2 or 3 constants together. What those constants that has to be brought together is your work. May be these two will work, but i dont know.
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 14, 11:24 AM 2016
I also think we need more constants to gain any edge.
You dont need to bring in more constants to gain edge. Even one constant is sufficient. To get a playeable method in a casino environment you might need to look at more opportunities.
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 14, 11:24 AM 2016
4. Can you increase the span of that biased game, by making the limit of that cycle larger that you will always find a bias and the law of large numbers will never come into picture. May be!
Why do house edge catch up with you. Because of the law of large numbers. Simply put, lets say you constantly bet on red. If it is 10 spins, you might win, you might lose. If it 10,000 spins, then most of the times you will be losing. 100,000 spins, you will definitely be in negative as the variance decreases with a larger sample size. This is because the cycle limits of even chances is only 3 spins excluding zero. However imagine you have defined a cycle with a very large limit. Then you can play such that the law of large numbers will take longer to catch you, and hence you will always have variance to take advantage on.
Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 14, 11:24 AM 2016
5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by stringing together your bets. May be!
Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change. But the number of times you hit a winner will increase if you are not just targeting zero but pockets around 0 as well. Thats increasing the accuracy. If you follow a betting plan such that this increased hit rate is giving you a higher edge, why not.
Rayman- have sent you some stats in a file over email. If you can make any sense and device something pls let us know. Will be glad to hear and answer. English need not come between what is written to be understood. We can work on it.
Going to need some time to proces all the information you did send me. Thanks!
I'm still trying to understand your first three videos:
Part 1: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI
Part 2: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjvj4FQVuU
Part 3: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5VUUfwkFilI
I understanding more and more about them and the cycles you use and with the stats and i also hope to understand why. On the first look i don't see how it would get you an edge but maybe it's because other a win you place another bet with the winnings of the first bet. My math skills are not good enough to understand that.
If i understand what you're doing it and why i will have an edge on any roulette wheel?
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
Fourth sample 132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.
So I've been thinking about the above example. It appears to me, that if we are trying to use statistics in this non random sequence, it would not be a bad move to bet 1 and 2 after 123 112 12
Is that right? Since there is always a higher probability of a repeat happening in 3 spins.
And one random question that's been bugging me for some time. Do I get the same randomness if I generate numbers from 1 to 36 then convert them to dozens, or if I just generate numbers from 1 to 3?
Could one do well looking only for clusters of "Same"? Just a thought.
I think it is looking for clusters---Ive been working on this for 3 days and am getting a headache LOL--Ive been on the roulette table that steve provided with Priyanka a couple of times and its a pleasure to watch her chips go up--Im trying to get into the cycle groove here
Quote from: Tomla021 on Apr 20, 05:13 PM 2016
I think it is looking for clusters---Ive been working on this for 3 days and am getting a headache LOL--Ive been on the roulette table that steve provided with Priyanka a couple of times and its a pleasure to watch her chips go up--Im trying to get into the cycle groove here
Thanks for sharing. I understand the headache!!
time for a martini---some medicinal pot, 2-3 pieces of peyote and all will be clear ..................
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Lets see whether this sparks some interest to take it forward further. While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.
500 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%
1000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%
2000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.
Does it give you any pointers or advantages? Do you see any link to the videos. Oh yeah, I like playing puzzles. Those who want to ignore can ignore. Bye until I get the next urge to post.
Hi Priyanka. I'm a long time lurker but new to the forum, and was very interested in your post. Just wondering where the 62% statistic is coming from. Is this the actual math, or based on your own testing? So, if the 1st dozen appears twice out of three spins, are you saying that the first dozen has a 62% chance of appearing twice in the next three spins?
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 26, 06:59 PM 2016
Is this the actual math, or based on your own testing?
Sorry, i dont have the math. This is based on testing.
Hi Priyanka - I have only just discovered this thread (2 days ago) and have spent most of today reading and thinking about what you say. As I am retired now I have the time - lucky me! ;)
What you say about the non-random aspects is like a light turning on - of course! I get it. Although, developing a smooth and confident play is a whole other story - even when one understands well. But that is just practice really. However, the puzzle you present here is not about the atomic components is it? It is about combining a bunch of things to engineer a complete method. This would include the VdW non-random component along with the stats in certain circumstances, plus some MM and so on and that is the task you have set for us. I see you have also included some other bits and bobs such as parachuting a little bit here and there and these seem to be appearing as and when you feel like it - a matter of personal taste if you like. Makes it interesting yes? But it is the fundamental non-random component that is vital to the success and so is the core of the whole thing.
All this resonates strongly for me. I am one of those who do believe the maths but also believe that systematic approaches might be possible - and I further believe that this is not a contradiction. In fact, I am a bit of a maths person (I emphasise the "bit of") and so the stats aspect doesn't faze me at all. I was wondering - obviously you may choose not to answer - am I right in my thinking in the paragraph below?
You refer to combining the stats. And I recall that it is the - what did you call it? - the "dead runs" that stops the simple non-random component giving an edge by itself straight out of the box if you know what I mean, and so these have to be dealt with in some way. A sort of PP has been discussed but as I see it what you are suggesting is just a similarity - it is not a true PP per se but rather just a similar thing where a complimentary strategy is combined to mitigate the situation where the dead run turns up. But could this also be handled, where appropriate, by the use of suitable stats? For example, in the early dozen example where Turner rightly pointed out that the win wasn't really a win - just the probability asserting itself - to which you wholeheartedly agreed - then as the next dozens appeared we could change our attack from length 1 to length 2 when the opportunity presented itself because, and here is the stat, length 2 is statistically more prevalent that length 1 and so is the better choice when a dead run possibility appears, or even when you have both on review waiting for an opportunity. Right? There are only 3 length ones, 3 length threes, and 12 length twos. So it is better to swap your game to the 2's if that opportunity appears rather than hang out for the completion of a 1.
Am I heading in the right direction?
All the best - and I have to say that this is the most exciting thread I have seen in years!
Rog
Quote from: RMore on Apr 27, 05:51 AM 2016
Hi Priyanka - I have only just discovered this thread (2 days ago) and have spent most of today reading and thinking about what you say. As I am retired now I have the time - lucky me! ;)
What you say about the non-random aspects is like a light turning on - of course! I get it. Although, developing a smooth and confident play is a whole other story - even when one understands well. But that is just practice really. However, the puzzle you present here is not about the atomic components is it? It is about combining a bunch of things to engineer a complete method. This would include the VdW non-random component along with the stats in certain circumstances, plus some MM and so on and that is the task you have set for us. I see you have also included some other bits and bobs such as parachuting a little bit here and there and these seem to be appearing as and when you feel like it - a matter of personal taste if you like. Makes it interesting yes? But it is the fundamental non-random component that is vital to the success and so is the core of the whole thing.
All this resonates strongly for me. I am one of those who do believe the maths but also believe that systematic approaches might be possible - and I further believe that this is not a contradiction. In fact, I am a bit of a maths person (I emphasise the "bit of") and so the stats aspect doesn't faze me at all. I was wondering - obviously you may choose not to answer - am I right in my thinking in the paragraph below?
You refer to combining the stats. And I recall that it is the - what did you call it? - the "dead runs" that stops the simple non-random component giving an edge by itself straight out of the box if you know what I mean, and so these have to be dealt with in some way. A sort of PP has been discussed but as I see it what you are suggesting is just a similarity - it is not a true PP per se but rather just a similar thing where a complimentary strategy is combined to mitigate the situation where the dead run turns up. But could this also be handled, where appropriate, by the use of suitable stats? For example, in the early dozen example where Turner rightly pointed out that the win wasn't really a win - just the probability asserting itself - to which you wholeheartedly agreed - then as the next dozens appeared we could change our attack from length 1 to length 2 when the opportunity presented itself because, and here is the stat, length 2 is statistically more prevalent that length 1 and so is the better choice when a dead run possibility appears, or even when you have both on review waiting for an opportunity. Right? There are only 3 length ones, 3 length threes, and 12 length twos. So it is better to swap your game to the 2's if that opportunity appears rather than hang out for the completion of a 1.
Am I heading in the right direction?
All the best - and I have to say that this is the most exciting thread I have seen in years!
Rog
It's official, my head just imploded.
Nice post, Rog.
Priyanka
Maths not my best subject as i have said before, was not at the school enough, great at the time, but not for this topic.
Just asking can you work out the next bet say within 45 seconds, place unit/units in Mr J's real B+M.
These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?
Quoteverythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.
For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.
19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2
19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1
18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.
QuoteQuote from: klw on April 06, 2016, 10:03:57 AM
Can someone please confirm that the spin to end/define a cycle is included as the first spin of the next cycle ( A ) or is a fresh new/next spin the first for the next cycle ( B ) as the stats for both are totally different.
Cheers.
(A) is the right approach
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 27, 11:03 AM 2016
These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?
I dont think so
First quote defines a cycle 121 or 22 or 1321
Second quote asks if the next cycle is started with the last or is it the next.
121133 is 2 cycles defined by 1 and a cycle defined by 3 not 1 cycle defined by 1 and 1 cycle defined by 3 with a stray 1 in the middle.
as I see it
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 27, 11:03 AM 2016
These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?
121 would be a cycle of 3
11 would be a cycle of 2
Yes, the last is included as the start of a new cycle.
This:
121
11
... Is really only 4 spins.
Make sense?
If the last number of the previous cycle is used as the first number of the next cycle then it's always the same dozen that is defining each cycle? In other words: the only way to have different cycles defined by different dozens is to have a virtual spin in-between cycles? That's where I saw a contradiction in the above quotes.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 27, 11:51 AM 2016
If the last number of the previous cycle is used as the first number of the next cycle then it's always the same dozen that is defining each cycle? In other words: the only way to have different cycles defined by different dozens is to have a virtual spin in-between cycles? That's where I saw a contradiction in the above quotes.
If you had 121
1 (using last) 323, now the defining cycle is 3. This would be 'different' since the 1 did not repeat.
Quote from: 3Nine on Apr 27, 11:58 AM 2016
If you had 121
1 (using last) 323, now the defining cycle is 3. This would be 'different' since the 1 did not repeat.
OK I get you! :thumbsup: Let me ponder that one then...
Has anyone figured out the importance of cycles yet? Isn't it just another set of random numbers?
I took 30 spins and made 9 games of red/black
from looking at the result BBB and RRR happen maybe once or twice in 9 spins and sometimes 0.. also when it does happen the play was not playable because it could have been either/or
Seems like RBB RBR BRR BRB would be a better pattern they happen more often.
Priyanka, were you just trying to make a point? I dont see how we can really utilize it atleast with even chances.
I am very interested in understanding and i see a few other members that would like to see what it is you are trying to teach us....
MoneyT101, Most of the questions (even mines) were answered before they were asked. I strongly recommend to read every post at least 10 times. But not on the same day. :) Let it slowly sink in. It might take months!
Priyanka wrote that the arithmetic progression is just one example of non randomness, and it doesn't give any edge in itself. You need to use the correct statistics to create a biased game, so when you should bet both black and red, you can make a decision that is based on something, and not a random selection.
You also need to play more than one games at a time, alternate your bets between the games, and find which combination of bets are profitable, and for how long. There is variance so you cannot just place the same bets for 100 spins.
If someone thinks I'm wrong, please correct me. I understand only a part of what is written by Priyanka, so I'm not in the position to tell what to do, just trying to help a bit. ^-^
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Lets see whether this sparks some interest to take it forward further. While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.
500 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%
1000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%
2000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.
Does it give you any pointers or advantages? Do you see any link to the videos. Oh yeah, I like playing puzzles. Those who want to ignore can ignore. Bye until I get the next urge to post.
I may be understanding this wrong. But still trying to see where the 62% came from. I took data from 185 actual spins and converted all the numbers to what dozen they belong to, and wrote down all the cycles in order. Looks something like this:
2131
323
122
22
3213.....etc. Ended up being 62 cycles
Anyways, the number of times out of 62 cycles the dominant dozen from the previous cycle was the dominant in the next cycle was 21 out of 62 cycles, which is around 33%.
priyanka
you have shown consistency on the multi player game
whatever you are doing/teaching is working well
Scarface - quick question about your analysis - did you process the cycles such that the last dozen in the previous cycle was the first dozen in the new cycle? I was not surprised by your results because, as you clearly know, anything relating to dozens will always be close enough to the good old 67/33 ratio right?
But in this case Pri has said that the answer was A - remembering that A is the option where the last dozen in the previous group/cycle becomes the first in the next group. This will have a distorting affect on the results because you will be starting the next dozen with a built-in bias - there is a 1/3 chance that the last dozen WAS the defining dozen which will cause the next group to have an increased chance of a match. But that is the wrong way around isn't it? You would expect maybe 69% instead of 62% right? BUT - what if the previous dozen grouping was completed after only 2 dozens showed? This has a 2/3 chance. So the result Pri is showing is going to be distorted in all sorts of ways because of the way in which he set up the analysis.
However, it is always good to check what people say and I applaud you for doing so. I would be interested in the results of a re-do of your study. Let's see if we can match Pri's results. We can't really be sure we understand even this small bit if we can't match his results, and we should really get this right if we can.
TBH I was a little surprised that Pri said he plays using the principle of A. Normally one would expect that a new cycle begins with a new spin right? And that including the last spin result as the starter for a new series seems to "double up" somehow and just seems wrong - it's like double-dipping if you know what I mean. However on reflection it doesn't seem so bad. Here's what I think. Firstly, one of the objectives is to get your procedure done and dusted quickly - so as to attempt to beat variance having a chance to catch up with you. And secondly, the VdW Theorem reads "in ANY series of 9" (in the case of EC's), so why shouldn't the last one be the starter for the new series? If the theorem is correct then it is perfectly valid.
Really enjoying this discussion. I hope Pri weighs in at some point - I'd love an answer to my questions posed above.
cheers
Rog
Quote from: RMore on Apr 27, 07:41 PM 2016
Scarface - quick question about your analysis - did you process the cycles such that the last dozen in the previous cycle was the first dozen in the new cycle? I was not surprised by your results because, as you clearly know, anything relating to dozens will always be close enough to the good old 67/33 ratio right?
But in this case Pri has said that the answer was A - remembering that A is the option where the last dozen in the previous group/cycle becomes the first in the next group. This will have a distorting affect on the results because you will be starting the next dozen with a built-in bias - there is a 1/3 chance that the last dozen WAS the defining dozen which will cause the next group to have an increased chance of a match. But that is the wrong way around isn't it? You would expect maybe 69% instead of 62% right? BUT - what if the previous dozen grouping was completed after only 2 dozens showed? This has a 2/3 chance. So the result Pri is showing is going to be distorted in all sorts of ways because of the way in which he set up the analysis.
However, it is always good to check what people say and I applaud you for doing so. I would be interested in the results of a re-do of your study. Let's see if we can match Pri's results. We can't really be sure we understand even this small bit if we can't match his results, and we should really get this right if we can.
TBH I was a little surprised that Pri said he plays using the principle of A. Normally one would expect that a new cycle begins with a new spin right? And that including the last spin result as the starter for a new series seems to "double up" somehow and just seems wrong - it's like double-dipping if you know what I mean. However on reflection it doesn't seem so bad. Here's what I think. Firstly, one of the objectives is to get your procedure done and dusted quickly - so as to attempt to beat variance having a chance to catch up with you. And secondly, the VdW Theorem reads "in ANY series of 9" (in the case of EC's), so why shouldn't the last one be the starter for the new series? If the theorem is correct then it is perfectly valid.
Really enjoying this discussion. I hope Pri weighs in at some point - I'd love an answer to my questions posed above.
cheers
Rog
Betting on the last dominant dozen is basically betting on the last dozen that repeated. And, testing is showing no statistical edge in doing this. Counting the same dozen twice on paper may change the stats, but its artificial so if it shows any edge, it will be artificial too. Hopefully Pri can help us out on this :)
I wonder if we take it a step further, could we find some sort of edge. Maybe, always bet the last 2 dominant, or repeating dozens. But only play the most recent hit 3 streets from each one (total of 6 streets). Seems like a good way to catch hot sections being hit. May test this later with the same data
Not looking for an edge here Scarface - simply trying to get to the same stats as Pri got. Your report was 66% - his is 62%. Can we get the same? That's all I was saying.
I'll play around with the results, and see how to get to 62%. Pri's results seem to be pretty consistent over 1000s of cycles.
Quote from: RMore on Apr 27, 07:41 PM 2016
Scarface - quick question about your analysis - did you process the cycles such that the last dozen in the previous cycle was the first dozen in the new cycle? I was not surprised by your results because, as you clearly know, anything relating to dozens will always be close enough to the good old 67/33 ratio right?
But in this case Pri has said that the answer was A - remembering that A is the option where the last dozen in the previous group/cycle becomes the first in the next group. This will have a distorting affect on the results because you will be starting the next dozen with a built-in bias - there is a 1/3 chance that the last dozen WAS the defining dozen which will cause the next group to have an increased chance of a match. But that is the wrong way around isn't it? You would expect maybe 69% instead of 62% right? BUT - what if the previous dozen grouping was completed after only 2 dozens showed? This has a 2/3 chance. So the result Pri is showing is going to be distorted in all sorts of ways because of the way in which he set up the analysis.
However, it is always good to check what people say and I applaud you for doing so. I would be interested in the results of a re-do of your study. Let's see if we can match Pri's results. We can't really be sure we understand even this small bit if we can't match his results, and we should really get this right if we can.
TBH I was a little surprised that Pri said he plays using the principle of A. Normally one would expect that a new cycle begins with a new spin right? And that including the last spin result as the starter for a new series seems to "double up" somehow and just seems wrong - it's like double-dipping if you know what I mean. However on reflection it doesn't seem so bad. Here's what I think. Firstly, one of the objectives is to get your procedure done and dusted quickly - so as to attempt to beat variance having a chance to catch up with you. And secondly, the VdW Theorem reads "in ANY series of 9" (in the case of EC's), so why shouldn't the last one be the starter for the new series? If the theorem is correct then it is perfectly valid.
Really enjoying this discussion. I hope Pri weighs in at some point - I'd love an answer to my questions posed above.
cheers
Rog
Ok, I redid the testing. This time I started each new cycle with the last dozen from the previous cycle as described. I used the same data of 181 numbers from the last test. This resulted in a change from 62 cycles to a total of 97 cycles.
The results were more in line with Pri's results. The dominant dozen from the previous cycle was dominant in the next cycle 60 out of 97 times which is 61.85%.
The actual hits were 60 out of 181, which is 33%. So, no advantage overall. Any ideas?
Thanks for doing that. This shows a couple of things. 1. That our understanding of what Pri was doing in that study is now correct. And 2, it lends credence to Pri - that his results are reproducible. But the fact that there is no edge being demonstrated here is no surprise. That is not what Pri was trying to say - I believe anyway. He has never said that the stats would provide any sort of advantage, in fact quite the opposite - only that in certain circumstances they could be used as part of an overall strategy.
I'm about to go back and re-read the entire thread and make notes this time. And then I intend to study the videos - but only after I have written down the facts he has presented. I do believe that there is a gem hidden away in all this. I only have a basic idea as to what he is doing in totality. Something like this I think - he has collected a couple of favourite non-random sequences and then combined these with useful stats and appropriate MM to create a synthesised approach that leaves room for subjective play that does not disturb the basic facts.
So the stats play no part in the basic strategy - only to assist decision-making when multiple options turn up. But I don't think that is all. I think there is another component that has to be added. Possibly another non-random sequence? One with a lower strike rate because of a smaller coverage perhaps? Consider what he hinted at with High/Low combined with dozens or perhaps six-lines. Or perhaps the quads (9 numbers as I understand it - personally I've always thought quads were 4 numbers, corners basically, but whatever) are the basic and the High/Low is used when a bet is ambiguous - the dead run situation. I see no reason why, when a dead run situation presents itself, that you can't, at that time, look back and create a sequence starting point that gives you a bet on this spin. After all, the VdW theorem says ANY 9 number sequence so why not create them on the fly as and when needed as the "other" bet?
Anyway, lots to do. Wish Pri would come back! We really need some guidance here. How about the rest of you guys who have been in from the start? Any words of wisdom to add?
regards to all
Rog
Read this post (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138725#msg138725) also from another thread.
According to Priyanka, the information on the first 6 pages of this thread is enough to create an edge.
Quote from: RMore on Apr 30, 12:46 AM 2016
I think - he has collected a couple of favourite non-random sequences events and then combined these with useful stats and appropriate MM betting plan to create a synthesised approach that leaves room for subjective play that does not disturb the basic facts.
Some very good discussion. My humble request is Let it continue.
Thanks ati - read it. And Pri - nice to see you lurking here. I see your corrections - noted.
I need 24 hours to go back and analyse the first 6 pages and then the vids. The only thing that gives me pause is the veiled references to Parrondo's Paradox. I understand that well, and have tested it to the death. The actual mathematical phenomenon involved can not be applied to gambling systems - the odds will not allow it as there is no positive advantage bet. There are odds-on bets but they are still not positive advantage which PP requires for one of the B bets. Others have tried too and all have failed. PP itself is of no value to us.
So -where does that leave us? Well, I can only assume that the references to PP are only done as similes - not for actual use. That you use 2 non-random events and that you alternate them in some fashion that is for us to discover. Actually, we also have to discover the 2nd non-random event don't we? I know it is probably on the 6-lines but it can't be VdW because this would be far too complex - even the dozens have a sequence length of 27 and nobody is able to accurately find all the AP's in that on the fly. Does anybody have any idea what the 2nd non-random event might be?
Oh well, let the head scratching begin! There is way too much so far undiscovered for us to be able to derive anything useful.
Rog
Why not correct the he/she? At least clear the air there, please.
I'm sorry - what do you mean?
Quote from: RMore on Apr 30, 09:02 AM 2016
I'm sorry - what do you mean?
I was referring to Priyanka being called a he or she by everyone on the board. The profile states female but in 'her' corrections above the 'he' was not corrected. So, clear the air at least on that while we all chase our tails on this thread.
Why does that matter? Totally irrelevant.
If you really care, read the three biggest roulette forums, and you will find the answer.
Quote from: ati on Apr 30, 10:18 AM 2016
Why does that matter? Totally irrelevant.
If you really care, read the three biggest roulette forums, and you will find the answer.
No, thanks. I'm not interested in the game within the game.
Quote from: RMore on Apr 30, 05:52 AM 2016
Thanks ati - read it. And Pri - nice to see you lurking here. I see your corrections - noted.
I need 24 hours to go back and analyse the first 6 pages and then the vids. The only thing that gives me pause is the veiled references to Parrondo's Paradox. I understand that well, and have tested it to the death. The actual mathematical phenomenon involved can not be applied to gambling systems - the odds will not allow it as there is no positive advantage bet. There are odds-on bets but they are still not positive advantage which PP requires for one of the B bets. Others have tried too and all have failed. PP itself is of no value to us.
So -where does that leave us? Well, I can only assume that the references to PP are only done as similes - not for actual use. That you use 2 non-random events and that you alternate them in some fashion that is for us to discover. Actually, we also have to discover the 2nd non-random event don't we? I know it is probably on the 6-lines but it can't be VdW because this would be far too complex - even the dozens have a sequence length of 27 and nobody is able to accurately find all the AP's in that on the fly. Does anybody have any idea what the 2nd non-random event might be?
Oh well, let the head scratching begin! There is way too much so far undiscovered for us to be able to derive anything useful.
Rog
This may help. Based on the 97 cycles I tested:
1. 38 ended on the first spin
2. 43 ended in 2 spins
3. 16 ended in 3 spins
4. Based on this, 39% hit on the first spin. If playing last 2 dozens on the second spin, I would've got a 73% rate.
Stats show better than expected returns. Not sure if it's due to varience or edge until further testing
I forgot to mention that 15 out of 16 cycles that ended with 3 spins were would've been won betting the last 2 dozen hit within that cycle. :)
Ran anot her test of 177 numbers which made up 87 cycles.
1. 47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%
2. Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%
3. Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%
4. Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%
So, not that great. Actually under the statistical rate. But on a brighter note, looking at the numbers in cycles like this has me looking at betting in a whole new way. Working on an idea now to see how it works out 8)
Im diving in
I got a cold belgian trappist
Im determined to learn from you
I NEED to know how you play cycles
New Yorkers are NEEDY!
Quote from: Tomla021 on Apr 30, 04:25 PM 2016
New Yorkers are NEEDY!
(link:s://media0.giphy.com/media/iRjB2mfESqgec/200w.gif)
Quote from: Turner on Apr 30, 04:43 PM 2016
Chimay?
Orval trappist and after I have Troubadour magma belgian triple IPA
I like my brew made by the hands of monks
edit: in a st. bernardus beer glass
i have an obsession with belgian lately
my beer store has beer from every country
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 30, 04:47 PM 2016
Orval trappist and after I have Troubadour magma belgian triple IPA
I like my brew made by the hands of monks
edit: in a st. bernardus beer glass
i have an obsession with belgian lately
my beer store has beer from every country
You are destroying my vision of the American Joe crackin open a Bud
3nine - It is clear to me that Priyanka is a man, is a senior, and resides in the UK. All this can be gleaned quite clearly (to me at least) from this thread alone. I mean no disrespect to you my friend - but it really is irrelevant. Just make your choice and write accordingly. Do not allow trivialities to distract you from what is really important.
Scarface - while I applaud your efforts I do not think you are on the right track with your research into the stats. While these are useful to know, and perhaps important later on, I really feel that the important things we need to focus on right now are, firstly, the second non-random event (assuming the VdW on the EC's is the first) and the way in which these 2 events are put together in the betting plan. Note the word EVENT. I believe that we need to think of the VdW theorem that Pri gave us as an example of an event to be also a good example of the meaning of the word EVENT in this context. We need to find another such event that fits with either the groupings of 9 numbers (which Pri calls a quad) or perhaps 6-lines, maybe even dozens although I personally don't think it is this.
all the best
Rog
Quote from: Turner on Apr 30, 04:56 PM 2016
You are destroying my vision of the American Joe crackin open a Bud
LOL
i hate standard beer...budweiser is shit
IPA, or craft only for me...this trappist stuff is new to me but i love it
Quote from: 3Nine on Apr 30, 04:54 PM 2016
I read that as, "The-rapist" for $500, Alex!
;D
sorry...I deleted that with my fat fingers. RG quoted it.
Quote from: RMore on Apr 30, 04:57 PM 2016
3nine - It is clear to me that Priyanka is a man,
well
the ONLY thing that came to mind for me here is this:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=PNzrem4U298
priyanka your success continues on the multiplayer game
I am a whole hearted believer that you have beat this game
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 08, 07:42 PM 2015
Hopefully that short break has helped in pondering over what is written a couple of times. Before I move my thought process into an interesting concept of Parallel universes, I would like to explore another aspect of non-randomness.
Parallel universes
:ooh:
got my attention there
Quote from: Nickmsi on Oct 09, 12:25 PM 2015
Hello . . .
I have coded a system that uses a 4 spin cycle. Excel Tracker attached.
1st Spin you bet the last Dozen(FTL). If it wins, then No Bet the next 3 spins.
2nd Spin you bet the last 2 Dozens, win or lose No Bet the next 2 spins.
Also attached is a resulting graph for 20,000 spins.
The progression used was a mild to aggressive one. There is a separate progression for the Single Dozen Bet (spin #1) and another progression for the Double Dozen Bet (spin #2).
You can adjust the Progression Divisors. For a more conservative progression, set them for 1,000 which would be Flat Betting.
Enjoy
Nick
interesting
Quote from: Drazen on Oct 15, 06:16 AM 2015
Hello Pri
I am very carefully watching this thread on daily basis and trying to figure out what you are trying to show here.
Also downloaded all your videos of play in hope it will be useful in better understanding. Your bank demand and DD is impressively low and I think it is not coincidence.
Although my favorites are EC-s here I am showing something about dozens and hoping to get your thought and input.
It is about number of combinations and It is what I call betting against perfect state.
Okay we would have 6 perfect states:
123
132
213
231
312
321
And twelve other states:
122
121
232
233
311
313
211
212
322
323
131
133
So if we betting two different dozens in a row not to become 3, we are winning on 12 patterns and losing on 6. Or we can reverse and have odds of 3/1 but winning on 6 possible combinations.
Cheers
Drazen
drazen,
i proposed this many times this particular concept and i was only attacked
is that only because RG posted it?
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
You are so right there. Unless you dissect the game into simple parts irrespective of bet placement and odd, you are not going to understand game.
Yes Drazen there are 27 combinations possible and you cannot use 18 and leave the other 9 around. Simply because that is the reality. You cannot play a waiting game waiting for your favourable event to occur. What you have stated as answers are straightforward yes or no answers. I would like you to look beyond the surface for these questions to get answers which will help you not to repeat the same way you are playing currently.
Looking at your examples and combinations, lets see whether we can convert into an alternate way of play. I will give you some detailed initial pointers and set the direction, but the rest you will have to figure out yourselves.
The first and foremost thought process should be how can I make it finite rather than making it a game of chance. In other words, how can i reduce the non-predictability aspect of the game and move closer to predictability. Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances.
I said there are 27 different combinations. Don’t have to know maths. Dont have to be a scientist. Dont have to be a complex programmer. Any person sitting with a pen and paper can in the highstreet williamhill shop can write all of them down. (Not that programmers, mathematicians and scienitist do not go to the billhill)
111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333
Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat. Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always. That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen.
A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.
Second sample 111 131 111 122
111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.
Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win. Now here I pause. One can play every session until a win happens or until the combinations repeat. For those who want a win to happen can stop playing here this set and start fresh with a new set. For those who will want a combination to repeat will go for the next spin. For the combination to repeat the next dozen has to be 2. Play 2 and lose. Two combinations are available for us to replicate. All dozens to be different and only one dozen to repeat.
223 â€" We cannot play after the first spin here. We will not be able to make a decision after the first spin as for one combination to repeat the second spin can be any of 1,2 or 3. So we play only on the third spin. As we have seen 2 and 2, we know that this is not all dozens different. So we play for two dozens in three spins. So our choice for next spin is 1 and 3 and we win.
Fourth sample 132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.
So what did we do. We did not leave our destiny to the hands of chance. We are playing for something that we know will definitely happen. You are building a game based on limits to the randomness of roulette or the non-random aspect of it.
Now you can think about statistics and progression in that sequence. Not before and not in a different sequence of progression and then statistics. Typically we tend to focus on these two subjects first, leaving ourselves buried deep into the big hole.
Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is like drawing a ball from a bag of 3 red balls, 6 green balls and 18 blue balls, then putting it back in and repeating this whole process. Your chances of drawing a blue ball is higher. There is an irregularity and the statistically speaking the 12 spins (4 sets of 3 spins), there is a higher probability of 2 dozens in 3 spins to come through. One way of using this statistic is to bias towards one set when a conflict occurs for your bet selection. Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is left to your imagination, your mood of the day or a mechanical way that you prefer.
Thinking about progression now. Depending on how you chose to play, you can see the irregularities here and you can focus on tuning your progression to maximize your wins. Key is low drawdowns and achieving those low drawdowns using elements that are fixed and finite.
Hope this helps clear some questions that you have posed and help you in the thought process of defining an alternate game.
um
YES!
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat. Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always. That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen.
this is EXACTLY what I have been trying to exploit 100%
Priyanka
can you confirm to me if this is something you are doing?
when the last 3 results were all different, example: 132 bet for the sequence to repeat
also when last 3 are the same 222, bet for that to repeat
please confirm
edit: also, if the last 2 results were different, such as dozen 1 and dozen 3, bet those 2 dozens for 3 spins as they are destined to repeat? trying hard to grasp
thanks
Quote from: RMore on Apr 30, 04:57 PM 2016
3nine - It is clear to me that Priyanka is a man, is a senior, and resides in the UK. All this can be gleaned quite clearly (to me at least) from this thread alone. I mean no disrespect to you my friend - but it really is irrelevant. Just make your choice and write accordingly. Do not allow trivialities to distract you from what is really important.
Scarface - while I applaud your efforts I do not think you are on the right track with your research into the stats. While these are useful to know, and perhaps important later on, I really feel that the important things we need to focus on right now are, firstly, the second non-random event (assuming the VdW on the EC's is the first) and the way in which these 2 events are put together in the betting plan. Note the word EVENT. I believe that we need to think of the VdW theorem that Pri gave us as an example of an event to be also a good example of the meaning of the word EVENT in this context. We need to find another such event that fits with either the groupings of 9 numbers (which Pri calls a quad) or perhaps 6-lines, maybe even dozens although I personally don't think it is this.
all the best
Rog
Ok, then integrity becomes an issue, doesn't it?
I know what's important, thanks, and it has nothing to do with this thread.
Good luck chasing 2 rabbits.
Fine. I wasn't trying to be insulting - shame you have to interpret my reply that way. I'm not understanding why you are posting here at all if this is unimportant to you. Look - people post with anonymous handles all the time - says nothing about integrity at all - just a desire for privacy. I can't fault that, and in fact I applaud it. We should defend our privacy rights as a part of the rights of all free people. THAT'S what is important. Anyway, troll away my friend - I will say no more to you until and unless you suffer an attitude change.
Folks - need some help here. I'm not understanding what Pri said here in post #7.
QuoteThe above example of 9 spin finite cycle non-random behaviour can be done for any set of numbers. For example for a dozen, this limit is 27. We cannot not have an A.P of length 3 of same dozens in a set of 27 spins. It is debatable whether to call it non-random or limits of random. You can device a way to play even chances or dozens using these. The lower the number, the higher the complexity and difficulty to track and play. Try playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.
Look at the bolded statement. "The LOWER the number .." What number? And any number I choose I find it LESS complex if the number is lower. For example, EC's with 2 chances versus dozens with 3. The EC's is a lower number but the complexity is LESS. What other number could he be referring to? The length of the series? But again, larger number (27) MORE complexity (than 9 for example). So help me understand - what number gives higher complexity when it is lower?
thanks
Rog
Quote from: RMore on May 01, 12:04 AM 2016
Fine. I wasn't trying to be insulting - shame you have to interpret my reply that way. I'm not understanding why you are posting here at all if this is unimportant to you. Look - people post with anonymous handles all the time - says nothing about integrity at all - just a desire for privacy. I can't fault that, and in fact I applaud it. We should defend our privacy rights as a part of the rights of all free people. THAT'S what is important. Anyway, troll away my friend - I will say no more to you until and unless you suffer an attitude change.
Ok, cool - you're right. Love you buddy - let's get back to the program.
Quote from: RMore on May 01, 06:18 AM 2016
Folks - need some help here. I'm not understanding what Pri said here in post #7.
Look at the bolded statement. "The LOWER the number .." What number? And any number I choose I find it LESS complex if the number is lower. For example, EC's with 2 chances versus dozens with 3. The EC's is a lower number but the complexity is LESS. What other number could he be referring to? The length of the series? But again, larger number (27) MORE complexity (than 9 for example). So help me understand - what number gives higher complexity when it is lower?
thanks
Rog
EC is the HIGHER of the 2. 18 #s vs 12. Is that helpful?
Sweet - 3Nine and I are friends again! Long may it continue - I wish to be friends with everyone.
OK - next question for all you dudes and dudesses. As I said yesterday I am now reviewing the first 6 pages in detail. See above question - hope somebody can help out with that. But next up - what about this quote.
QuoteW â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
Look at it from an "each play" point of view.
On the first opportunity we have 256 chances of a W and that means 256 chances of a loss. Play the predicted or the opposite - no difference. If we don't play and it would have won then nothing ventured, nothing gained, just start again.
If it does lose then what's next? If I am reading this right then we have a W chance 104 times leaving 152 potential losses. But 48 times there is no other opportunity. So again it is 50/50 - 104 potential wins versus 104 potential losses.
If we lose then what? Next up - W 36 times, lose 36 times, no opportunity 32.
Finally we are left with 10 wins, or 10 losses, 16 no opportunity's.
Net result - no benefit in switching, i.e. play as predicted or switch to the opposite - no benefit accrues, so I am struggling to understand why, when Falkor suggesting switching on the first bet, that Pri said "why only the first bet?". I see no benefit in switching at all, for any bet - according to the stats that is, and we know that Pri uses the stats and therefore believes in their truth - so why would he bend an elbow towards switching?
Oh - so you think that the number being referred to is the number of numbers (so to speak) involved in the bet? Mm - hadn't thought of it that way - obviously. You may be right. Will try and expand my brain to encompass that concept. Thanks.
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.
If you're looking for 1 dozen to repeat here, why isn't 3 a play after the first spin? Thanks.
Hi 3Nine . . .
133 is called a Set of 3 that has a dozen that repeats, ie the #3 Dozen is repeated. So this set is called a Repeating Dozen.
There are 3 Types of Sets:
1. Repeating Dozens (133, 221, 112, etc) one of the dozens in the set repeats, there are 18 of this type
2. Same Dozens (111,222,333) all dozens in the set are the same. there are 3 of this type
3. Different Dozens (123, 321, 213 etc) all dozens in set are different. There are 6 of this type.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 01, 09:20 AM 2016
Hi 3Nine . . .
133 is called a Set of 3 that has a dozen that repeats, ie the #3 Dozen is repeated. So this set is called a Repeating Dozen.
There are 3 Types of Sets:
1. Repeating Dozens (133, 221, 112, etc) one of the dozens in the set repeats, there are 18 of this type
2. Same Dozens (111,222,333) all dozens in the set are the same. there are 3 of this type
3. Different Dozens (123, 321, 213 etc) all dozens in set are different. There are 6 of this type.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Thanks, but in the example the actual dozen that repeated is irrelevant. So, the first 3 of the 2nd set could have repeated there and would have fit with the 'repeating dozen' of the last set, correct?
133 323
The first set of 133 is a "Repeating Dozen" set.
We are playing that the second set is also a "Repeating Dozen"
The first number of the second set is "3".
We do not know if the first Dozen of the 2nd set (3) will be the repeating dozen or the second Dozen of the 2nd set (2) will be the repeating dozen so we wait until both numbers are spun.
Now we bet that either the 3 or 2 will form a "Repeating Dozen"
Yes you could bet for the 3 to repeat after the first spin and if wrong you would have to make a 2nd bet.
More efficient to make only 1 bet.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 01, 10:25 AM 2016
133 323
The first set of 133 is a "Repeating Dozen" set.
We are playing that the second set is also a "Repeating Dozen"
The first number of the second set is "3".
We do not know if the first Dozen of the 2nd set (3) will be the repeating dozen or the second Dozen of the 2nd set (2) will be the repeating dozen so we wait until both numbers are spun.
Now we bet that either the 3 or 2 will form a "Repeating Dozen"
Yes you could bet for the 3 to repeat after the first spin and if wrong you would have to make a 2nd bet.
More efficient to make only 1 bet.
Hope this helps.
Nick
It does, thanks - so, then the question becomes what if it did repeat on spin 2? 33X. Now you need to wait and see without a bet, correct?
First spin a 3, then
If 2nd spin is 3 then you would play 1 and 2 to complete a Repeating Dozen Set.(332,331)
If 2nd spin is a 2 then you would play 2 and 3 to complete a Repeating Dozen set.(323, 322)
If 2nd spin is a 1 then you would play 1 and 3 to complete a Repeating Dozen set.(313, 311)
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 01, 11:07 AM 2016
First spin a 3, then
If 2nd spin is 3 then you would play 1 and 2 to complete a Repeating Dozen Set.(332,331)
If 2nd spin is a 2 then you would play 2 and 3 to complete a Repeating Dozen set.(323, 322)
If 2nd spin is a 1 then you would play 1 and 3 to complete a Repeating Dozen set.(313, 311)
Nick
I just went back and caught that. Thanks for clarifying, Nick!
113*
333
231
322*
212*
122*
331*
213
323*
133*
131*
221*
132
312
122*
211*
322*
332*
322*
331*
121*
312
333
122*
233*
221*
27 combos
* = combo with one repeat dozen once (18 out of the 27)
Someone show me how you would have played those - thx. :)
A.
Hi Atlantis . . .
The attached Tracker shows one way to play your numbers.
Each person can use the information in this thread to create their own method of playing.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 01, 11:35 AM 2016
Hi Atlantis . . .
The attached Tracker shows one way to play your numbers.
Each person can use the information in this thread to create their own method of playing.
Cheers
Nick
Do you have a sheet for quads? Thanks!
3Nine
Only have sheets for Van de Waerden and Dozens so far.
Will eventually get lines and quads but won't be for a while.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 01, 11:51 AM 2016
3Nine
Only have sheets for Van de Waerden and Dozens so far.
Will eventually get lines and quads but won't be for a while.
Cheers
Nick
Ok, cool. Thanks. No rush, there are many ways to win.
Not sure what advantage it is to bet for the previous cycle to repeat. I understand at least 1 in 4 cycles has to repeat, but if it gives no advantage, then why bet it?
Sample cycles:
132 222 322 121
132 - 3 different dozens
222- 1 dozen
322 - 2 dozen
121 - in this cycle, something has to repeat. Bet double dozen 12 after the 2 here. A cycle containing 2 dozens will hit 18 out of 27 times. So this is a winning bet
Basically, if you see the last 2 cycles are different, and one of them contain 2 dozens, then bet for the 2 dozen to repeat after the second spin of the 3rd cycle
We know that there are 27 different combinations for dozen cycles. 3 will be 1 dozen. 6 will be 3 dozen. And 18 will contain 2 dozen.
I'm wondering what would be the statistics on winning cycles. Obviously, 2 dozen cycles will win most of the time. But how can we use this to gain an advantage? Maybe wait till the first 2 dozen cycle appears, then bet on it repeating?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 30, 05:38 PM 2016
drazen,
i proposed this many times this particular concept and i was only attacked
is that only because RG posted it?
Of course not :o
What Priyanka showed with this is not playing concept. It is just starting point for better understanding of it. There are still few things which must be involved here before we can figure it out.
Priyanka is also not applying heavy progressions like you were, and I think that would be the main objection from what you advocated. Your betselection in particular is not worse then any other with such odds but applying martingale on it is what shouldnt be done.
Quote from: Scarface on May 01, 01:27 PM 2016
We know that there are 27 different combinations for dozen cycles. 3 will be 1 dozen. 6 will be 3 dozen. And 18 will contain 2 dozen.
I'm wondering what would be the statistics on winning cycles. Obviously, 2 dozen cycles will win most of the time. But how can we use this to gain an advantage? Maybe wait till the first 2 dozen cycle appears, then bet on it repeating?
Hi Scarface,
If it such a STABLE bet then maybe can use something like PA's variance principles... wait until conditions are in our favour over the 27 triplet cycle to capitalise on the 2 doz combos?
A.
The state of a triplet can be:
same eg. 222 or 111 or 333
repeat eg. 122 or 331 or 121 etc...
different eg. 213 or 312 or 123 etc..
Idea: wait for 2 consecutive lines consisting of of "same" and/or "different" then play for next line to be a "repeat" line but only after the first 2 results.
For example if first 2 results are 1-2 then play d1+d2
For example if first 2 results are 2-2 then play d1+d3
If lose play as above for "repeat" on next line...
113 (repeat)
333 (same)
231 (different) trigger
322 (repeat) after the 32 bet d3+d2. result=2. won+1
212 (repeat)
122 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
213 (different)
323 (repeat)
133 (repeat)
131 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
132 (different)
312 (different) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
211 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
332 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
121 (repeat)
312 (different)
333 (same) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
233 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
A.
Quote from: atlantis on May 01, 05:26 PM 2016
The state of a triplet can be:
same eg. 222 or 111 or 333
repeat eg. 122 or 331 or 121 etc...
different eg. 213 or 312 or 123 etc..
Idea: wait for 2 consecutive lines consisting of of "same" and/or "different" then play for next line to be a "repeat" line but only after the first 2 results.
For example if first 2 results are 1-2 then play d1+d2
For example if first 2 results are 2-2 then play d1+d3
If lose play as above for "repeat" on next line...
113 (repeat)
333 (same)
231 (different) trigger
322 (repeat) after the 32 bet d3+d2. result=2. won+1
212 (repeat)
122 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
213 (different)
323 (repeat)
133 (repeat)
131 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
132 (different)
312 (different) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
211 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
332 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
121 (repeat)
312 (different)
333 (same) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
233 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
A.
The issue with this, for me, is playing too many numbers.
Quote from: atlantis on May 01, 05:26 PM 2016
The state of a triplet can be:
same eg. 222 or 111 or 333
repeat eg. 122 or 331 or 121 etc...
different eg. 213 or 312 or 123 etc..
Idea: wait for 2 consecutive lines consisting of of "same" and/or "different" then play for next line to be a "repeat" line but only after the first 2 results.
For example if first 2 results are 1-2 then play d1+d2
For example if first 2 results are 2-2 then play d1+d3
If lose play as above for "repeat" on next line...
113 (repeat)
333 (same)
231 (different) trigger
322 (repeat) after the 32 bet d3+d2. result=2. won+1
212 (repeat)
122 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
213 (different)
323 (repeat)
133 (repeat)
131 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
132 (different)
312 (different) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
211 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
332 (repeat)
322 (repeat)
331 (repeat)
121 (repeat)
312 (different)
333 (same) trigger
122 (repeat) after the 12 bet d1+d2. result=2. won+1
233 (repeat)
221 (repeat)
A.
Sounds good! Have you tried this bet before? Just wondering if it would be better to flat bet, or progression. What if there is a loss on the bet, would you recommend betting again for the repeat?
Hi Scarface,
Yes - I would play on after a loser.
I would probably use a mild progression +1/-1 eg:
1-1
2-2
3-3
etc...
Also - just did a quick test and there loads of "repeats" happening - so maybe decide to play also after 2 out of 3 groups as well as 2 consecutive groups of the other types: "same" or "different" eg:
123*
112
333* trigger: 2 out of 3 groups without "repeat" dozen.
Also - did anyone look at columns too?
Other progressions could be used: GLAT for 2doz; some of GLC's progs etc..
However Scarface, you could still play once only and if LOSS then use progression on next time qualifier. I did not try that.
A.
IMHO, if you need a negative progression you're barking up the wrong tree.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 02, 09:15 AM 2016
IMHO, if you need a negative progression you're barking up the wrong tree.
Hi 3nine,
Yes I think you are right - the way i suggested (just an idea, btw) cannot be the way forward. Need to get our "thinking caps" on...
:)
A.
Hello .
I did test Atlantis suggestion of waiting for 2 consecutive "D" or "S" to occur and then betting for a Repeater set.
Attached is the result for a 50,000 spins Flat Bet and a 50,000 spins with negative progression.
I think we can improve this by combining with another non random event like the VW theory.
Priyanka said that there was a way to use this with the Van de Waerden theory with the AP forming on 2 dozens in 3 spins.
I could not find where this was explained, does anyone know how to form AP with dozens, if so, I can then test this further using the VW.
Thanks
Nick
beautiful w neg progression Nick but to find the priyanka way wont be easy , pryanka has talked about many things before ... now all we know is that cycles help her determine something .......what always happens within a certain amount of spins?
Hi Tomla
The problem with this method of waiting for 2 "D" or 2 "S" to occur before betting is that there are very few bets. This is not practical to play unless you have a bot. Another test would not be the same.
So we need to combine this with another non random event or some statistic to make it solid and playable.
The VW seems the most logical.
All I need is someone to explain how to make AP (Arithmetic Progressions) out of Dozens, then I can test this with the VW.
Cheers
Nick
Can anyone explain the VW theory?
Nevermind, I got it. Just re-read the first post.
Nick the way i see it is for example in your xls sheet for outcomes you got <same>....<diff>.....and you got <mixed> just looking at it <mixed> have bigger probability to happen so you can combine <same>and<diff> as one outcome and this outcome will come with lower probability than <mixed>....so now you will end up with 2 possible outcomes and looks like biased coin havin better probability to <mixed>...was some where on the web i read about generating random bits from biased coin you can check it might work out and come up with idea ...just my thought ..
Here is an attached 3000 spin test generated by random.org and using a different betting rule.
A.
Hello .
Thanks for the test, Atlantis
Priyanka's message is that we would do better playing Non Random Systems rather than what we have been doing up until now, that is, Random Systems.
Let me show you in no uncertain terms, no ambiguities, and no riddles why we should be jumping all over this thread.
A Random System is what we all have played, such as, FTL (Follow The Last), Bet Black after 4 consecutive Reds, bet that a Pattern will form, etc.
A Non Random System is one based on Math or Statistics, ie, the Van de Waerden theorem, the Pigeon Hole Principle which the 12 spin Dozen cycle is based on.
I have tested a Random System (FTL) verses a Non Random System (12 spin Dozens cycle).
Both were tested with identical 3,170 spins from BVNZ table.
Both were tested Flat Betting of 1 unit each bet.
Both bet every spin until a Profit Target of 1.
See the results below.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 02, 01:08 PM 2016Let me show you in no uncertain terms, no ambiguities, and no riddles why we should be jumping all over this thread.
Thanks for your efforts, Nick.
What were the rules you used here?
What is the 12 spin dozen cycle, and why is it non random?
Quote from: Scarface on May 02, 02:09 PM 2016
What is the 12 spin dozen cycle, and why is it non random?
There are 3 possible combinations so in 4 sets, one has to repeat.
Hi Nick, how could you combine that 12 spin dozen cycle with AP to increase profits? Since AP loses without some mod in place wouldn't it just impact on any profits coming from the 12 spin dozen cycle?
For Dozen AP see page 1&2 - in particular my attachment at the bottom of page 2.
Hi Maestro . . interesting idea of combining "D" &"S" into one group. Not sure I understand but if you have more information or explanations, be glad to hear them.
Hi 3Nine . . .
The rules I used for the 12 Spin Dozen Cycle were as follows:
1st bet was to try and form a "S" set so the bet was the same as the last
2nd bet was to try and form a "D" set so the bet was the opposite of the last
3rd bet was to try and form a "R" set so the bet was the same as the last 2 spins
This is not exactly as Priyanka suggested but it shows the Non Random Systems are quite flexible and can be used in many ways and they all are still better than the Random Systems.
Back to the core issues:
Priyanka suggests this system can be improved by:
1. Statistics
2. Combining with other Non Random, ie Van de Waerden theorem.
This is what we need to be concentrating on.
How can we make the Dozens sets somehow conform to an EC so we can possibly combine this with the Van de Waerden system?
Hi Falkor . . .
I will check out your posts on Page 1 & 2.
Nick
i could not put link but screened Nick so you can see...is called generating uniformly random data
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 02, 01:08 PM 2016
Hello .
Thanks for the test, Atlantis
Priyanka's message is that we would do better playing Non Random Systems rather than what we have been doing up until now, that is, Random Systems.
Let me show you in no uncertain terms, no ambiguities, and no riddles why we should be jumping all over this thread.
A Random System is what we all have played, such as, FTL (Follow The Last), Bet Black after 4 consecutive Reds, bet that a Pattern will form, etc.
A Non Random System is one based on Math or Statistics, ie, the Van de Waerden theorem, the Pigeon Hole Principle which the 12 spin Dozen cycle is based on.
I have tested a Random System (FTL) verses a Non Random System (12 spin Dozens cycle).
Both were tested with identical 3,170 spins from BVNZ table.
Both were tested Flat Betting of 1 unit each bet.
Both bet every spin until a Profit Target of 1.
See the results below.
Cheers
Nick
Would the law of a third qualify as a non random system?
113
333
231
322
212
122
331
213
323
133
131
221
132
312
122 Repeat
211
322 Repeat
332
322 Repeat
331 Repeat
121
312 Repeat
333 Repeat
122 Repeat
233
221 Repeat
Based on these 27 sets, there were 8 sets that repeated. A third of the cycles should repeat out of 27, amiright?
Take a look at the first repeat 122. We're betting only the last spin of each cycle. Looking at the prior spins, there is only 1 set that begins with 12, so bet the same on the last number which is a winner.
There has to be x amount of repeat cycles (8 or 9?). There has to be a way to take advantage of this!
I think one of the keys is knowing when to re-set.
Methods come and methods go. No different than what pops up from time to time. Any BIG winners?
well Nathan Detroit --the creator Priyanka is doing a 3.0 win rate on the game associated with this forum after 800 spins
I did see the 3 % but it is lower now. . No impressed. Another long time roulette player is of the same opinion.
Just another bet selection like so many that pop up daily on the various fora only to fade away.
ND
.
actually its 3.08 now------i dont think they care if they impress you
When I said Big Winners I mean leaving with accumulated winnings after a casino visit.
enjoy you a lot Nathan but Im not following your thoughts here at all....
I've almost figured out how the bets are made in the videos that had been posted. Maybe it could help us understand what Pri is doing and why?
You can see I succesfull bet is made in two part. First a large number bet, then a follow up bet but with less number. It's a kind of parlay. Using the winnings for the first bet to make a second bet.
Pri also uses virtual losses and wins in the video.
You can also see that cycles of 1 are completely ignored.
Number Quad Cycle quad W/L Bet Why?
29 4
3 1
9 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
4 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
32 4 W Bet 3 - 4 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
18 2 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
1 1 No bet
7 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 VL No bet Virtual loss.
24 3 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
5 1 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
7 1 1 VW Bet 2 - 3 - 4 Virtual Win. End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W Bet 1 - 4 We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
15 2 W Bet 1 - 2 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
31 4 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
30 4 4 No bet ??? No ideal why we dont make a bet here…
14 2 VW No bet Virtual win.
29 4 4 VW Bet 1 - 2 - 3 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
31 4 4 L No bet Here we lost our bet. Now we wait for a virtual win.
36 4 4 No bet
35 4 4 No bet
5 1 No bet
11 2 No bet
20 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
1 1 No bet
9 1 1 No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 Bet 1 - 3 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
19 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
7 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
15 2 L No bet Lost
10 2 2 Bet 1 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
16 2 2 L No bet Lost
12 2 2 No bet
10 2 2 No bet
4 1 No bet
26 3 No bet
16 2 2 No bet
15 2 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 3 No bet
9 1 Bet 2 - 4 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
11 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
23 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
25 3 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
5 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 ??? Why bet? We did not have a virtual win here.
29 4 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
20 3 W Bet 1 - 3 - 4 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
24 3 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
12 2 2 W END
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 03:03 AM 2016
I've almost figured out how the bets are made in the videos that had been posted. Maybe it could help us understand what Pri is doing and why?
Didn't Priyanka write early in the thread that her play was not necessarily as per the videos? The way she plays in the videos is detailed in other threads on this and other forums anyway, you just have to look for it.
She is trying to make you think for yourself, not copy a video that gives one way of playing.
I know, but i may help understand what Pri wants us to learn. If you understand the concept. How to use the cycles. How to use a betting plan.
Maybe by posting this someone sees a new light and shares it with us.
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 04:08 AM 2016How to use the cycles. How to use a betting plan.
Well said
Wow,
impressive work. I'm kind of new here and I found this to be a very, very interesting topic (Kudos to Priyanka!)
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 04:08 AM 2016but i may help understand what Pri wants us to learn. If you understand the concept. How to use the cycles. How to use a betting plan.
Maybe by posting this someone sees a
You might want to add the number of unique numbers in the cycles. The betting scheme in the last section of your reversed engineered work then also becomes clear: "suddenly" a new bet is added... and a part of the "earlier" bet (consisting of two parts) also changed "suddenly"
As for the "bets" that make no sense: I did not look at the video (too much detail ;-)) but my guess is that some minor things got lost in translation.
Again impressive work RayManZ!
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 05:14 AM 2016I'm kind of new here and I found this to be a very, very interesting topic (Kudos to Priyanka!)
You are most welcome and a very valuable advice there which am sure no one will ignore. ;)
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 05:14 AM 2016You might want to add the number of unique numbers in the cycles. The betting scheme in the last section of your reversed engineered work then also becomes clear: "suddenly" a new bet is added... and a part of the "earlier" bet (consisting of two parts) also changed "suddenly"
You cannot make this comment without watching the video.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 03, 12:06 PM 2016
You cannot make this comment without watching the video.
3Nine - you might seriously want to take that advice in. Trust me.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 03, 12:13 PM 2016
3Nine - you might seriously want to take that advice in. Trust me.
Clearly. It's just an odd thing to claim when it's technically impossible to note without seeing. Thanks for your reply.
I'm curious, do you use a tracker or do everything in your head?
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 05:14 AM 2016You might want to add the number of unique numbers in the cycles. The betting scheme in the last section of your reversed engineered work then also becomes clear: "suddenly" a new bet is added... and a part of the "earlier" bet (consisting of two parts) also changed "suddenly"
What part are you talking about? I explained almost every bet? I also stated that the bet changes because the previous cycle was 3. Meaning it contains 3 unique quads.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but maybe it's because my understanding of english is not 100% at all times.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 03, 12:36 PM 2016
I'm curious, do you use a tracker or do everything in your head?
Hi 3Nine,
No, I'm not using a tracker. If you know what you are looking for it is easy to see! What was the subject that Priyanka started these posts with??
grts rrbb
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 12:41 PM 2016
What part are you talking about? I explained almost every bet? I also stated that the bet changes because the previous cycle was 3. Meaning it contains 3 unique quads.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but maybe it's because my understanding of english is not 100% at all times.
Hi RayManZ,
Yes indeed you explained it well indeed! Again, my respect!
But did you wonder why she suddenly changed the "betting scheme"? Was it random? Or was there a thought behind it?
You made a very good remark. Something like "notice she does not bet on a repeat on the first spin". This is true, but just write down the number of unique numbers in a cycle, and you will be able to observe 2 other things.
grts rrbb
By the way, I'm not trying to be clever or something. I just wanted to compliment you and make a small contribution. Hard work has to be rewarded!
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 12:41 PM 2016
What part are you talking about? I explained almost every bet? I also stated that the bet changes because the previous cycle was 3. Meaning it contains 3 unique quads.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but maybe it's because my understanding of english is not 100% at all times.
Hi Ray,
It's not only Quads...
Quote from: 3Nine on May 03, 04:58 PM 2016
Hi Ray,
It's not only Quads...
Hi 3Nine and Ray,
Indeed! It is not only quads! The betselection is also based on the first principle priyanka introduced. To answer 3nine's earlier question: in the nice worked out scheme of Ray you can quickly see the number of unique quads in a cycle! As i use cycles a long time, i do not need trackers...
because it makes no sense to bet on 4 unique quads, and because there is no bet on cycles of length 1 (as Ray observed) ...(you fill in the dots).
Is this a winning method? No, i do not think so. But it is an extremely clever showcase of how VdW (there you have it, i spilled the beans) can be applied. And as Ray indicated: it might just open a whole new way of selecting bets etc.
Grts rrbb
Quote from: RayManZ on May 03, 03:03 AM 2016
I've almost figured out how the bets are made in the videos that had been posted. Maybe it could help us understand what Pri is doing and why?
You can see I succesfull bet is made in two part. First a large number bet, then a follow up bet but with less number. It's a kind of parlay. Using the winnings for the first bet to make a second bet.
Pri also uses virtual losses and wins in the video.
You can also see that cycles of 1 are completely ignored.
Number Quad Cycle quad W/L Bet Why?
29 4
3 1
9 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
4 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
32 4 W Bet 3 - 4 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
18 2 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
1 1 No bet
7 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 VL No bet Virtual loss.
24 3 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
5 1 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
7 1 1 VW Bet 2 - 3 - 4 Virtual Win. End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W Bet 1 - 4 We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
15 2 W Bet 1 - 2 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
31 4 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
30 4 4 No bet ??? No ideal why we dont make a bet here…
14 2 VW No bet Virtual win.
29 4 4 VW Bet 1 - 2 - 3 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
31 4 4 L No bet Here we lost our bet. Now we wait for a virtual win.
36 4 4 No bet
35 4 4 No bet
5 1 No bet
11 2 No bet
20 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
1 1 No bet
9 1 1 No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 Bet 1 - 3 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
19 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
7 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
15 2 L No bet Lost
10 2 2 Bet 1 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
16 2 2 L No bet Lost
12 2 2 No bet
10 2 2 No bet
4 1 No bet
26 3 No bet
16 2 2 No bet
15 2 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 3 No bet
9 1 Bet 2 - 4 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
11 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
23 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
25 3 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
5 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 ??? Why bet? We did not have a virtual win here.
29 4 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
20 3 W Bet 1 - 3 - 4 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
24 3 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
12 2 2 W END
How did you manage to figure all that out!? :o Can you explain why she is waiting for virtual wins or losses - what is the trigger for that and how does it seem to work exactly...? Lastly, how is this system betting on non-random? It just looks like she's betting on specific quads based on the result of the previous cycle with an extra "parlay" bet as you put it.
Does this system really have an edge, or just a unique way of betting?
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 12:59 PM 2016But did you wonder why she suddenly changed the "betting scheme"? Was it random? Or was there a thought behind it?
I did wonder about this at first, but i know understand why the bet changed. Maybe we could apply the same principle to Double streets too? Or even 6 sectors based on the wheel layout.
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 12:51 PM 2016
Hi 3Nine,
No, I'm not using a tracker. If you know what you are looking for it is easy to see! What was the subject that Priyanka started these posts with??
grts rrbb
The tracker question was for Priyanka. Thanks though.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 04, 04:33 AM 2016
The tracker question was for Priyanka. Thanks though.
Same here. Initially I needed pen and paper but not anymore. It is quite easy once you have grasped it.
Second Test of 3000 spins from random.org.
Again - the longest losing run is 3. It's doesn't seem too bad for a double dozen idea... :)
A.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 05:16 AM 2016
Same here. Initially I needed pen and paper but not anymore. It is quite easy once you have grasped it.
Ok, cool. The cycles are natural to me now bit VdW, not so much.
27 Quad Cycles:
411
133
313
34211
1433
311
141
1244
424
44
44
44
41233
3311
133
3122
22
22
22
2132
22
2343
3123
33
3211
1431
1322
20 Line Cycles:
5125
55
515
563125
55
54125
51365
535
566
66
61244
44
41254
4232
232
22
21533
346522
245311
1541
30 Dozen Cycles:
311
133
313
33
3211
133
3211
131
1233
323
33
33
33
311
122
22
211
1321
121
121
11
11
1322
22
233
311
1232
211
1321
122
Quote from: 3Nine on May 04, 07:43 AM 2016
27 Quad Cycles:
411
...
1322
Hi 3Nine, not to nitpick: technically a cycle either starts on, and ends before a repeat, or it starts after a repeat and ends on a repeat. That kind of depends on the view.
The essence of these kind of cycles is that they only contain unique numbers!. In your case it starts with a repeat, so the last number can be left out!
Other than that: the cycles seem to be correct!
grts rr
when you get down to it and with my limited understanding Priyanka is banking on repeaters
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 04, 10:14 AM 2016
when you get down to it and with my limited understanding Priyanka is banking on repeaters
Hi Tomla021,
I think that you are both right and wrong (hmm reminds me of Schroedingers cat :) ). What I mean with this is that if for example VdW is used on a two-coloring of numbers (like high low, odd even) you are right.
However, in case VdW is for example used for wins and losses (W, L ==> also a two coloring!) then not...
grts rrbb
Please note: I do not claim to know exactly what Priyanka is doing, but the principles she is talking about are extremely versatile.
Thank you for this thread, Priyanka.
I now look at all games with fresh eyes!
Quote from: 3Nine on May 04, 07:47 AM 2016
30 Dozen Cycles:
311
133
313
33
3211
133
3211
131
1233
323
33
33
33
311
122
22
211
1321
121
121
11
11
1322
22
233
311
1232
211
1321
122
Trying to figure out something on the dozen cycles. What percentage of dozens will complete a cycle in 1 spin vs 2 spin vs 3 spins? I'm assuming about 1 in 3 will complete in the first spin of a new cycle. What about the others? Can someone help out on the math here?
Out of 99 cycles, I'm thinking 33 will complete on the first spin....44 on the second...and 22 on the third. Is this right?
Quote from: Scarface on May 04, 05:09 PM 2016
Trying to figure out something on the dozen cycles. What percentage of dozens will complete a cycle in 1 spin vs 2 spin vs 3 spins? ... spin....44 on the second...and 22 on the third. Is this right?
Hi scarface,
This can best be visualized by a "tree"
You start at the top with the first spin.
You have two possibilities for the next spin:
1. A repeat. Out of 3 possible dozens you can only pick one (the first spin)-> 1/3 this ends our spincycle of length one!
2. No repeat. Out of 3 possibilities you can choose from 2 (no repeat of the first spin)-> 2/3.
For the next spin we again have 2 possibilities
A. A repeat. Now we have 2 possibilities to choose from (2/3). But remember: to reach this point, we first had to choose the second spin to be no repeat!
The total probability of a repeat on the second spin equals 2/3 x 2/3, which equals 4/9.
So yes, your calculation is correct!
In the same fashion you can calculate the probability that a repeat on dozens occurs on the previous "defining" dozen: 17/27 (which is of course Priyanka's 63%)
Sorry the very bad drawing (sorry, i'm not an artist)
Grts rrbb
The idea is, to "travel" from the top (first spin) to the end of a branch, you have to multiply the probabilities.
I think that what Priyanka shared is extremely important:
The probability on any dozen is of course 1/3. But Under the condition of a repeat, the probability is "suddenly" 17/27.
This "phenomena" has a certain name an applications. Bayes could tell you more about this!
The relevance for roulette remains to be seen, but admit: it is fascinating!
Btw: there are many other imbalances. Priyanka showed you some...
Hope this helps a little bit.
Grts rrbb
Some interesting thoughts from rrbb there. :-X
Quote from: Scarface on May 04, 05:09 PM 2016Can someone help out on the math here?
rrbb gave you the mathematical explanation in a very simple manner. For some however data speaks. Attached is what will give you a data view for cycles in dozens, quads and lines.
Quote from: rrbb on May 04, 05:50 PM 2016Btw: there are many other imbalances. Priyanka showed you some..
Completely true.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 06:10 PM 2016Attached is what will give you a data view for cycles in dozens, quads and lines.
Thats a generous give-away
Quote from: Turner on May 04, 06:22 PM 2016
Thats a generous give-away
Hope thats not a tongue-in-cheek :) :thumbsup:
If not there is many more to come.. Already rrbb is giving away a lot.... :)
Quote from: rrbb on May 04, 05:34 PM 2016
Hi scarface,
This can best be visualized by a "tree"
You start at the top with the first spin.
You have two possibilities for the next spin:
1. A repeat. Out of 3 possible dozens you can only pick one (the first spin)-> 1/3 this ends our spincycle of length one!
2. No repeat. Out of 3 possibilities you can choose from 2 (no repeat of the first spin)-> 2/3.
For the next spin we again have 2 possibilities
A. A repeat. Now we have 2 possibilities to choose from (2/3). But remember: to reach this point, we first had to choose the second spin to be no repeat!
The total probability of a repeat on the second spin equals 2/3 x 2/3, which equals 4/9.
So yes, your calculation is correct!
Thank you for making this look so simple! I was wondering where Pri got her statistic of 62% :)
Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 06:25 PM 2016Hope thats not a tongue-in-cheek
Nooo....not tongue in cheek
Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 06:25 PM 2016If not there is many more to come.. Already rrbb is giving away a lot....
More goodies, please :)
Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 06:10 PM 2016
Some interesting thoughts from rrbb there. :-X
rrbb gave you the mathematical explanation in a very simple manner. For some however data speaks. Attached is what will give you a data view for cycles in dozens, quads and lines.
Thank you :)
I've tried to read this before without much understanding.
I'll try to use this new information and read it again and understand something.
See you next year... ;D
Quote from: nextyear on May 05, 02:17 AM 2016
I've tried to read this before without much understanding.
I'll try to use this new information and read it again and understand something.
See you next year... ;D
Hi Nextyear,
Sounds like a good proposal!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: rrbb on May 04, 11:27 AM 2016
Please note: I do not claim to know exactly what Priyanka is doing, but the principles she is talking about are extremely versatile.
Thank you for your extra pushes rrbb. We really appreciate that.
So you are using same principles Priyanka is talking about, but without knowing what exactly Priyanka is doing here, and I presume you are equally successful with those principles?
Did I got this right? :)
Best
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on May 05, 04:43 AM 2016
Thank you for your extra pushes rrbb. We really appreciate that.
So you are using same principles Priyanka is talking about, but without knowing what exactly Priyanka is doing here, and I presume you are equally successful with those principles?
Did I got this right? :)
Best
Drazen
Hi Drazen,
Sorry i will not answer all your questions!
Reason? All of the people on this site have a reason to be here. Some dream of riches, others like the interaction etc. I like to believe that most, if not all, would, in the middle ages, all be searchers for the philosophers stone.
This stone could turn lead into gold (in our case, bits into gold, or plastic into gold).
The search however led to a total transformation of the searcher, hence philosophers stone.
The authority of deciding if it is a futile search or not, lies with one person: you. What are your motives? What do you believe? Why?
The reason for me to start posting (only on this thread) is that i hold Priyanka in high esteem.
The transformational part in this search is to get rid of false hopes, lazyness, unreasonable believes, shady ulterior motives, conformism... That my friend is the only path, and that is exactly what Priyanka is proposing.
Grts rrbb
Maybe minor interest for all:
To test my understanding of the cycles I did a "quick and dirty programming".
Not Excel, other programming language, same data as in Cycles.xls.
Results for Dozens almost the same:
5273 Cycles, 3311 same as previous, 1961 different instead 1962 (sure my fault :question:)
greets
Has Princess Priyanka become defiant against the establishment? I hope she doesn't get assassinated for revealing all this information... look what happened to Prince. The spreadsheet looks quite useful - thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 05:18 AM 2016The authority of deciding if it is a futile search or not, lies with one person: you. What are your motives? What do you believe? Why
I like that one rrbb. On a lighter note. Interesting user name. Why is it named like that? :)
Quote from: Herby on May 05, 06:54 AM 2016Maybe minor interest for all
Not at all. That's the major thing that I have been trying to explain. Whether you do it, I do it or anyone else does it, it is a constant.
In Priyanka's spreadsheet, contrary to the dozens, the lines have a greater chance of repeating the same cycle instead of a different one - but this percentage is below 63% - so why does Priyanka prefer lines over dozens?
Edit: it's actually the QUADS that are better to play the same cycle as previous - but the lines percentage on being different is still lesser than dozens.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 05, 09:08 AM 2016
In Priyanka's spreadsheet, contrary to the dozens, the lines have a greater chance of repeating the same cycle instead of a different one - but this percentage is below 63% - so why does Priyanka prefer lines over dozens?
Edit: it's actually the QUADS that are better to play the same cycle as previous - but the lines percentage on being different is still lesser than dozens.
Hi Falkor2k15,
And what about halves? Etc?
but let's assume that you found the optimal one. How would you benefit from it?
On the first three pages of this thread you and Priyanka had an interesting discussion. Could that be of any relevance?
Grts rrbb
Quote from: Priyanka on May 05, 08:21 AM 2016
I like that one rrbb. On a lighter note. Interesting user name. Why is it named like that? :)
Good question! I totally and utterly detest the color partitioning in roulette, but then again: i tend to repeat myself a lot. ;D
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 09:28 AM 2016
Hi Falkor2k15,
And what about halves? Etc?
but let's assume that you found the optimal one. How would you benefit from it?
On the first three pages of this thread you and Priyanka had an interesting discussion. Could that be of any relevance?
Grts rrbb
Hmm i can be more specific as i just repeat what HM Priyanka was saying:
Let's assume you decide on, say, lines to be optimal for you.
In itself it will not give you any benefit, as Priyanka explained for VdW. Why not? Try to use the same line of reasoning as Priyanka did.
Grts rrbb
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 09:28 AM 2016
Hi Falkor2k15,
And what about halves? Etc?
but let's assume that you found the optimal one. How would you benefit from it?
On the first three pages of this thread you and Priyanka had an interesting discussion. Could that be of any relevance?
Grts rrbb
I'm starting to put different strands together from what Priyanka has written over several pages and demonstrated in her videos and some new information is emerging about her strategy in general, but I don't feel it's worth pointing out at this stage or worth attempting new discussions. Certainly, I haven't figured out how she combines everything to beat the game yet, but again there is some patterns I've noticed (time for a recap?):
*Priyanka uses PP in all her games based on Game A (virtual spins, observation and trigger) and Game B (bet selection) - alternating between those with possibly a 2nd B game to boot. Priyanka never bets every spin.
*Everything is based around cycles.
*She incorporates distribution/probability/"random", i.e. 63% of dozen cycles to be different as opposed to the same as previous.
*She incorporates "non-Random" events like AP or when a dozen has to repeat.
*To avoid "dead heats" where the non-Random events go on a losing streak she has a counteracting "opposite" game, so she not only alternates bets (Game A, Game B) but combines different bet selections into one. The trick is to find 2 negative games that make a positive.
*She plays single games based around multiple predefined bets that have to be stitched together to gain better odds and make them dependent (required for PP) instead of independent events.
The most fundamental thing: everything has to be based on Non-Random, so how do we discover more Non-Random examples - overdue since we only have VdW and a few facts about the dozens?
Quote from: Herby on May 05, 06:54 AM 2016To test my understanding of the cycles I did a "quick and dirty programming".
Not Excel, other programming language, same data as in Cycles.xls.
Results for Dozens almost the same:
5273 Cycles, 3311 same as previous, 1961 different instead 1962
I fooled myself by expecting the Excel sheet static, it calculates random numbers.
So my values are to be ignored, but statistics is ok. :embarrassed:
greets
Test#3 Another 3000 numbers from random.org.
Flatbetting as before. The LLR is now 4. This is my last test using this mechanical dozens formula.
A.
Nicely said.
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 05:18 AM 2016
The reason for me to start posting (only on this thread) is that i hold Priyanka in high esteem.
We could argue who holds Priyanka in higher esteem dough.
QuoteThe search however led to a total transformation of the searcher, hence philosophers stone.
I particularly like this part as I immediately found myself in it. Reading Priyankas teachings through the time, I fell in love with her politeness in communication. So much that I decided to get to the same level. But in my language we don't use same phrases which I liked by Pri, so I decided to translate them exactly as they are used in English. Luckily, they don't sound funny or too weird on Croatian, but only giving one extra polite sense. So I can say on that note, I have changed.
QuoteThe transformational part in this search is to get rid of false hopes, lazyness, unreasonable believes, shady ulterior motives, conformism... That my friend is the only path, and that is exactly what Priyanka is proposing.
How to be sure we have got rid of those? Is the hard work only possible way? This reminds me of slogan which is known for appearing on the entrance of Auschwitz and other death camps. Hard work sets you free... Made from Lorenz Diefenbachin which gamblers and fraudsters find the path to virtue through labor.
I would agree with you that probably all motives for getting the stone are material nature. But we live in a such world, don't we? We can't do almost anything without money today. More or less. But getting the stone one way or another doesn't necessarily mean one would misused it. I mean living licentious life, satisfying only our shallow instincts. Can that be mostly due to way how we are raised and which moral values are set in us, or only the way how we achieved some unlimited financial support in today's world?
Best
Drazen
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 03, 08:12 PM 2015
This table should hopefully make things more clearer:
3 (DS 1)
4 (DS 1)
| 19 (DS 4)
35 (DS 6)
19 (DS 4)
| 8 (DS 2)
6 (DS 1)
19 (DS 4)
14 (DS 3)
33 (DS 6)
26 (DS 5)
17 (DS 3)
| 33 (DS 6)
26 (DS 5)
7 (DS 2)
18 (DS 3)
27 (DS 5)
| 11 (DS 2)
7 (DS 2)
| 20 (DS 4)
19 (DS 4)
| 29 (DS 5)
26 (DS 5)
| 24 (DS 4)
18 (DS 3)
14 (DS 3)
| 35 (DS 6)
22 (DS 4)
26 (DS 5)
35 (DS 6)
| | Low, 5u, 6 (DS 1) win | High, 5u, 21 (DS 4) win | Low, 5u, 17 (DS 3) win | High, 5u, 23 (DS 4) win
High, 5u, 17 (DS 3) lose
| Low, 5u, 24 (DS 4) lose | High, 5u, 17 (DS 3) lose | High, 5u, 19 (DS 4) win
High, 5u, 11 (DS 2) lose
| Low, 5u, 5 (DS 1) win
Low, 5u, 27 (DS 5) lose
| High, 5u, 18 (DS 3) lose | | | | DZ 25-36 + Low, 5u, 15 (DS 3) even | DZ 1-12, 5u, 16 (DS 3) lose | DZ 13-2, 5u, 36 (DS 5) lose | DZ 25-36, 5u, 14 (DS 3) lose | DZ 13-24, 5u, 5 (DS 1) lose | DZ 25-36, 5u, 12 (DS 2) lose | | | | | DS 7-12, 5u, 9 (DS 2) win | DS 19-24, 5u, 30 (DS 5) lose
DS 19-24, 5u, 24 (DS 4) win
| DS 25-30, 5u, 5 (DS 1) lose
DS 25-30, 5u, 28 (DS 5) win
| DS 13-18 + Low, 5u, 16 (DS 3) win | DS 31-36, 5u, 13 (DS 3) lose
DS 31-36, 5u, 19 (DS 4) lose
DS 31-36 + DZ 13-24 + High, 5u, 15 (DS 3) win
| | | | Low, 5u, 3 (DS 1) win
Low, 10u, 13 (DS 3) win
| | | | | Low, 5u, 9 (DS 2) win
Low, 10u, 13 (DS 3) win
Low, 5u, 7 (DS 2) win
Low, 5u, 20 (DS4) lose
| | | | | | | | | DZ 13-24, 5u, 18 (DS 3) win |
I think the additional cover or variations of bet selection may be due to additional repeats of double streets besides the trigger.
I think the last stages in games 4 and 9 are simply new games, but with tracking taken from the end of the previous losing games, and with 10 units instead of 5 after the first EC win. |
In retrospect I've discovered that all the above games ended when a DS/Line cycle ended!
Quote from: atlantis on May 05, 11:04 AM 2016
Test#3 Another 3000 numbers from random.org.
Flatbetting as before. The LLR is now 4. This is my last test using this mechanical dozens formula.
A.
:twisted: i see why its your last test lol
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 16, 02:33 AM 2015
You are so right there. Unless you dissect the game into simple parts irrespective of bet placement and odd, you are not going to understand game.
Yes Drazen there are 27 combinations possible and you cannot use 18 and leave the other 9 around. Simply because that is the reality. You cannot play a waiting game waiting for your favourable event to occur. What you have stated as answers are straightforward yes or no answers. I would like you to look beyond the surface for these questions to get answers which will help you not to repeat the same way you are playing currently.
Looking at your examples and combinations, lets see whether we can convert into an alternate way of play. I will give you some detailed initial pointers and set the direction, but the rest you will have to figure out yourselves.
The first and foremost thought process should be how can I make it finite rather than making it a game of chance. In other words, how can i reduce the non-predictability aspect of the game and move closer to predictability. Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances.
I said there are 27 different combinations. Don’t have to know maths. Dont have to be a scientist. Dont have to be a complex programmer. Any person sitting with a pen and paper can in the highstreet williamhill shop can write all of them down. (Not that programmers, mathematicians and scienitist do not go to the billhill)
111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333
Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat. Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always. That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen.
A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.
Second sample 111 131 111 122
111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.
Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win. Now here I pause. One can play every session until a win happens or until the combinations repeat. For those who want a win to happen can stop playing here this set and start fresh with a new set. For those who will want a combination to repeat will go for the next spin. For the combination to repeat the next dozen has to be 2. Play 2 and lose. Two combinations are available for us to replicate. All dozens to be different and only one dozen to repeat.
223 â€" We cannot play after the first spin here. We will not be able to make a decision after the first spin as for one combination to repeat the second spin can be any of 1,2 or 3. So we play only on the third spin. As we have seen 2 and 2, we know that this is not all dozens different. So we play for two dozens in three spins. So our choice for next spin is 1 and 3 and we win.
Fourth sample 132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.
So what did we do. We did not leave our destiny to the hands of chance. We are playing for something that we know will definitely happen. You are building a game based on limits to the randomness of roulette or the non-random aspect of it.
Now you can think about statistics and progression in that sequence. Not before and not in a different sequence of progression and then statistics. Typically we tend to focus on these two subjects first, leaving ourselves buried deep into the big hole.
Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible, 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is like drawing a ball from a bag of 3 red balls, 6 green balls and 18 blue balls, then putting it back in and repeating this whole process. Your chances of drawing a blue ball is higher. There is an irregularity and the statistically speaking the 12 spins (4 sets of 3 spins), there is a higher probability of 2 dozens in 3 spins to come through. One way of using this statistic is to bias towards one set when a conflict occurs for your bet selection. Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is left to your imagination, your mood of the day or a mechanical way that you prefer.
Thinking about progression now. Depending on how you chose to play, you can see the irregularities here and you can focus on tuning your progression to maximize your wins. Key is low drawdowns and achieving those low drawdowns using elements that are fixed and finite.
Hope this helps clear some questions that you have posed and help you in the thought process of defining an alternate game.
I think this is quite an important quote to re-read in retrospect of the dozens and cycles.
Nobody can win with statistics or semantics.
My way: Plan your play and play your plan .
Losses as well winnings should be accepted with the same grace .
Nathan Detroit
Random: we need to play based on the dozen cycle being the same as the previous cycle?
Non-Random: how can we also play non-Random? What is an example of non-Random based on dozens occurring in cycles?
Edit: the 2nd column got messed up during my copying, pasting and filtering...
(link:://s32.postimg.org/px70zxchx/cycles.png)
Quote from: MoneyT101 on May 05, 12:08 PM 2016
:twisted: i see why its your last test lol
Hi MoneyT101.
It's just my 3 tests either produced a profit or a small loss of between 5-10 units after 3000 spins.
That was simply flatbetting. Utilise a 'mild' progression that can be turned around into a profit... The longest losing run ever in the 9000 spins was 4. That's actually not too bad for a double dozen strategy.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on May 05, 12:45 PM 2016
Hi MoneyT101.
It's just my 3 tests either produced a profit or a small loss of between 5-10 units after 3000 spins.
That was simply flatbetting. Utilise a 'mild' progression that can be turned around into a profit... The longest losing run ever in the 9000 spins was 4. That's actually not too bad for a double dozen strategy.
A.
Winning system in my book, thank you :xd:
Dear Drazen,
Well said and well put!
🙌
Re. Atlantis' testing, I was looking at betting for a repeat after either all 3 the same or all 3 different.
123
22 now bet 1 and 3
Or
222
31 now bet 3 and 1
Retrack after each loss.
Seems to keep the losses in a row down, similar to Atlantis findings
Cheers
BW
Quote from: Tamino on May 05, 12:33 PM 2016
Nobody can win with statistics or semantics.
My way: Plan your play and play your plan .
Losses as well winnings should be accepted with the same grace .
Nathan Detroit
Wise words indeed. However if you do not understand when you are playing a game according to the statistics, you will always be trapped in the loosing propositions. And words do shape our perception of the world. So semantics is not that negative!
But in the end it all boils down to plan the play and play the plan.
Grts rrbb
QuoteNobody can win with statistics or semantics.
My way: Plan your play and play your plan .
Losses as well winnings should be accepted with the same grace .
Wise words. Too many people foolishly waste time trying to side step the probability of the game using statistics.
A better attack plan would be to use the data collection and statistics to exploit the wheel, rather than the game.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 02:57 PM 2016
...
A better attack plan would be to use the data collection and statistics to exploit the wheel, rather than the game.
Hi General,
Interesting insights! How do you know it is better?
To me better implies that you can compare. Enlighten me!
Grts rrbb
There's a great little book out there called, "Beating The Wheel", by Russell Barnhart. You could probably find it online somewhere, or buy a cheap copy for about $3.
It will basically tell you more about it.
In short:
1.Track thousands of spins
2.Calculate the chance of randomness of the sample and/or chi square
3.Perform standard deviation calculations on the numbers to see if the numbers are likely biased or not biased.
I can sense this post going in a very interesting direction. A couple of people whose knowledge I have enjoyed reading in the past are sharing their notes. ;)
The book, "Beating The Wheel" is a book that every player should at some point read. It's cheap or maybe even free by now, and it will provide a foundation that will enable people to think in the correct direction.
But general you haven't answered rrbb' question. A direct answer will be nice.
General is always right dont you dare and try to think anything for yourself or use any other route unless authorized by the General! He wrote every book on roulette and just let other ppl get credit for it.
In the General with trust :thumbsup:
QuoteBut general you haven't answered rrbb' question. A direct answer will be nice.
Since the random game of roulette can't be beaten in the long run, exploiting inefficiencies in the wheel is your only option.
This is based on the following:
1. The history and evolution of the game as documented/recorded in various locations
2. My own personal experience with the game.
3. Other experts experience with the game.
4. The math/physics.
5. Poor assembly and/or wear on the wheels within the casinos and my own wheels.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 04:12 PM 2016
Since the random game of roulette can't be beaten in the long run, exploiting inefficiencies in the wheel is your only option.
This is based on the following:
1. The history and evolution of the game as documented/recorded in various locations
2. My own personal experience with the game.
3. The math/physics.
4. Poor assembly and/or wear on my own wheels and the wheels within the casinos.
What about dealer signiture? Seems like some dealers hit alot of repeats while others don't. Always wondered if this was just random or not
Quote from: The General on May 05, 03:32 PM 2016There's a great little book out there called, "Beating The Wheel", by Russell Barnhart.
Quote from: Turner on May 01, 05:01 AM 2016
All the wikki, Barnhardt and Unicorn castle malarky. Thats sad, because I really want to learn from you but you just repeat the same rhetoric over and over.
Bingo!...what do I win. lol
Quote from: The General on May 05, 03:32 PM 2016
There's a great little book out there called, "Beating The Wheel", by Russell Barnhart. You could probably find it online somewhere, or buy a cheap copy for about $3.
It will basically tell you more about it.
In short:
1.Track thousands of spins
2.Calculate the chance of randomness of the sample and/or chi square
3.Perform standard deviation calculations on the numbers to see if the numbers are likely biased or not biased.
Hi General,
Thanks! Actually i read that book long time ago. Yes, this method has been used succesfully indeed!
The problem is that nowadays the wheels themselves are monitored by the casino's themselves.
Grts, rrbb
Btw: is your name inspired by "The general" with the great Buster Keaton?
What if we bet the last 3 hit lines in the dozen, instead of the whole dozen. If a cycle ends with dozen 2 as dominant, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 2 on the first bet. If dozen 1 hits next, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 1 and 2.
Seems like there is always 1 line in a dozen that stays cold. Thought this might increase the odds of a hit better. May test this out when I get some time
Much of what's been written about DS is urban legend, however it can and does happen in some situations.
Dealer's signature results from:
1. An off level wheel or a warped ball track
2. A dealer that tends to spin short spins
3. A wheel that is limited to just a small range of different speeds.
4. A wheel with favorable ball scatter.
It doesn't require any super human skill. And any dealer that says otherwise and claims that they can do it on ANY wheel is full of sh%t. It's the wheel that makes it possible. Specifically a very strong dominant ball drop zone. Even a new dealer can shoot for sections on the wheel if it has a strong dominant ball drop zone.
Overall dealer's know very little about how or even if it's possible, since they no very little about the physics of the wheel, and since they can't really distinguish between what maybe skill from normal variance.
If you want to see proof of it, then all you have to do is watch it on youtube. Casino risk consultant Steve Forte also has demonstrated it for a live group.
At times things that defy logic at first seems so. It just waits for a proof before it becomes logic. It's like you can pause time just by observing uranium. It never decays when observed. Something like the question between virtual play and personal permanence. It's like Suns atmosphere is hotter than the sun even though sun generates the heat. It just waits for a proof to become logic. Keep an open mind general.
In order to really grasp the physics behind it all, it helps to watch slow motion video of it.
You can easily quantify the results of it in action by simply plotting the difference in yardage by pockets from the targeted number and then graphing the various yardage plots by standard deviation.
QuoteThe problem is that nowadays the wheels themselves are monitored by the casino's themselves.
Grts, rrbb
Btw: is your name inspired by "The general" with the great Buster Keaton?
No Buster Keaton. I just made of the name for the heck of it.
Regarding casinos. Some locations are different than others. In the US you would definitely be giving the casinos way to much credit. They are not as efficient as you may think. They are run more like a city parks and recreations department. A quick red flag that a casino can have some problems with the wheels is that they're moving them around too frequently. Such wheels can easily be followed by just tracking the scratches, wood grain, etc. Many casinos have the data downloads, but rarely utilize them or update them when a wheel is moved. The data downloads are a bit of a sales upgrade gimmick by the manufactures. Casinos are more interested in whether or not a table is making money, not whether it's biased. Contrary to popular believe, such wheels still make money for the casinos, and often times even more.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 05, 04:26 PM 2016It's like Suns atmosphere is hotter than the sun even though sun generates the heat
Photons produced by the Sun (light) wizz around in the sun for 40,000 years before finally escaping.
Thats my input lol...but Ive been to the pub for surf and turf and a few beers....so I win.
QuoteKeep an open mind general.
That's like saying that I should keep an open mind because 1 + 1 may not equal 2.
The "game" of roulette can not be beaten in the long run, and this much is easily proven via math, logic, mathematicians, and recorded history.
There's keeping an open mind, and then there's having your mind trapped within the box that is the gambler's fallacy. If you want out of the box, then you should focus on the wheel, not the game.
"Since the random game of roulette can't be beaten in the long run"
I agree with the General's statement 100%.
He is right, we cannot beat a random game of roulette.
However, we can beat a Non-Random game of roulette which is the point of this Thread.
Cheers
Nick
QuoteHowever, we can beat a Non-Random game of roulette which is the point of this Thread.
Nickmsi,
You are very wise. :)
When the GENERAL speaks every one should listen.
( A paraphrase of E.F. Hutton eons ago)
Nathan Detroit
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 05, 04:52 PM 2016However, we can beat a Non-Random game of roulette which is the point of this Thread.
unless Caleb has studied non randomness?
The point of this thread is currently talking about bias wheels and how to exploit them.
I can tidy the thread up if Priyanka wants. I will even delete my excellent surf and turf post. Im not above the law.
QuoteCaleb has studied non randomness?
Yep.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 04:58 PM 2016
Yep.
I have no doubt...I am a fan believe it or not.
Quote from: Turner on May 05, 04:56 PM 2016
I can tidy the thread up if Priyanka wants.
Can't find a reason why. Creative minds flourish in clutter.
And general you are always entitled your opinion but.....
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 05:23 PM 2016
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Yeah. That says it all. :thumbsup:
Quote from: The General on May 05, 04:47 PM 2016
That's like saying that I should keep an open mind because 1 + 1 may not equal 2.
The "game" of roulette can not be beaten in the long run, and this much is easily proven via math, logic, mathematicians, and recorded history.
There's keeping an open mind, and then there's having your mind trapped within the box that is the gambler's fallacy. If you want out of the box, then you should focus on the wheel, not the game.
Hi general,
Here i beg to differ! I can give you a full mathematical proof why roulette can not be won long term...
However: what people tend to forget is that in ANY mathematical proof there is at least one assumption.
The thing is: if you find this assumption for the proof in roulette, it does open new avenues! And believe it or not: a few ways around this assumption have been introduced in this thread.
Let me illustrate with another real life example of this "identify and do not accept the assumptions". There are many others, but this one is close to my heart. I hope i'm clear in illustrating it with this assumption:
For ages people believed that a straight line was the shortest line between two points (euclidian geometry).
On one fine day one guy decided to drop just one of the assumptions, leading to non-euclidian geometry. A figment of the imagination? No, space-time (Einstein) is non-eucledian: provable! It basically means that two parrallel lines can cross each other!! And that the shortest route between two points can be curved. Would we have sticked to the assumptions of euclid, much of what we now know about our universe could never have been thought of!
Btw: no, i will never state explicitly what the assumption is, and what we can do to not need it. As Priyanka stated (and many others) open your mind!
My journey started when i decided to explicitly proof why roulette can not be beaten...Many people claim it, but i have never ever seen a complete proof! Why not? Because people think it is self evident...
Grts rrbb
I like to keep an open mind, but I don't see how a non-random fact can create any kind of advantage. That's like saying in 3 spins, either a red or black has to hit twice. It still doesn't help predict which one.
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 05:36 PM 2016
However: what people tend to forget is that in ANY mathematical proof there is at least one assumption.
The thing is: if you find this assumption for the proof in roulette, it does open new avenues! And believe it or not: a few ways around this assumption have been introduced in this thread.
(link:://oi67.tinypic.com/apjsaw.jpg)
So i propose a challenge: (I hope Priyanka allows this, it is her thread. if not, our mod can remove this post with my consent)
Formally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.
A formal proof is NOT a list with million numbers and betting results...
A formal proof can be written in words, maths, or even in drawings. Clearly state the steps and the assumptions! I advice you to work together with people you trust (e.g. via PM's)
rrbb
Interesting challenge, I will take the first attempt and expect many others to share what they think.. Following illustration is my proof.
(link:s://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Lawoflargenumbersanimation2.gif)
The only thing missing is the house edge. When you put house edge into the mix, you always lose. Thats my proof and assumption.
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 05:53 PM 2016Formally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.
A formal proof is NOT a list with million numbers and betting results...
A formal proof can be written in words, maths, or even in drawings. Clearly state the steps and the assumptions! I advice you to work together with people you trust (e.g. via PM's)
Yes I dick around...its a personality disorder, but I am a well read guy.
I think there is something we are missing, and that is of Genius. All historically genius people were barracked by the "experts" until it was beyond criticism that their genius had seen things in a way no one else had .
They all had the same info and tools, but only one was a genius. The General and others studied everything, and got no where....deeming it to not be the way.
Caleb, you have to concede that it is totally possible that rather than roulette cant be beat, in your definition, it could be that you just never made that genius move to find it.
Hi Turner,
I actually think you are a little bit to rough towards some people. Everyone who spends a lot of time and effort in trying to master something is a hero in my book.
grts rrbb
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 06:27 PM 2016Hi Turner,
I actually think you are a little bit to rough towards some people. Everyone who spends a lot of time and effort in trying to master something is a hero in my book.
Not intended
My point is...just because you spent a lifetime studying something, and deem it useless doesnt mean that you can tell someone that recons they have the answer that its rubbish based just on your experience.
It may be that you werent good enough to find the answer.
Thats a realistic view point
Not everyone is a genius. Thats a fact
Im not
Quote from: Turner on May 05, 06:31 PM 2016
Not intended
My point is...just because you spent a lifetime studying something, and deem it useless doesnt mean that you can tell someone that recons they have the answer that its rubbish based just on your experience.
It may be that you werent good enough to find the answer.
Thats a realistic view point
+1 :thumbsup:
Basic logic!
QuoteFormally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.
It has already been proven. Go read on the history of game if you'd like to see the proof.
If you'd like further confirmation, and some snickers, then feel free to post that you believe that the game can be beaten on any math/physics forum.
Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.
To help you filter anGud reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.
1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)
Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:
1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.
-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
Note the "Dr." in front of the name. This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable.
Once again, the General is correct. We can't beat roulette with random systems as they will lose in the long run to the house edge, negative expectations, etc etc.
So how do we win.
Caleb and Steve have found a Non Random way to beat roulette using physics, they can get an edge by analyzing the wheel and predicting sectors most likely to hit.
They have found one, are there more Non Random ways to beat roulette??
Do you think that is what this thread is about??
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: The General on May 05, 07:07 PM 2016Note the "Dr." in front of the name. This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable
Hmm.... Assumptions.... How do you know none of us here have a Dr in front of the name.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 07:07 PM 20163. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
This is only an assumption and not a fact. No one has been able to prove yet the strong law of convergence. Only the week law has been proven. This is in direct contradiction to equidistribution theorem which can be proven through Weyl's criterion.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 07:07 PM 2016If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
There is a reason that Dr. has written "almost" certain. This essentially means one cannot definitively say that these outcomes will never occur, but can for most purposes assume this to be true.
Do you still think its a proof?
QuoteHmm.... Assumptions.... How do you know none of us here have a Dr in front of the name.
Reyth/Priyanka,
Because they don't hand out doctoral degrees to people that believe that the random game of roulette can be beaten. Again, feel free to ask anyone on any math/physics forum. (And be ready for some snickers.)
It's foolish to argue the point any further.
You should focus on what can be beaten,
the wheel.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 07:07 PM 2016
Note the "Dr." in front of the name. This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable.
I disagree, IMHO having a PHD just means you spent more of your life studying theory instead of living. I and I am sure many others have come across lots of people with degrees coming out their ears, but they are basically stupid when it comes to life experience.
Did the "Dr" study the wheel for years?, or did he just make assumptions?
Quote from: The General on May 05, 08:10 PM 2016
Priyanka,
Because they don't hand out doctoral degrees to people that believe that the random game of roulette can be beaten. Again, feel free to ask anyone on any math/physics forum. (And be ready for some snickers.)
It's foolish to argue the point any further.
You should focus on what can be beaten, the wheel.
This is the General's standard go-to move........when he has nothing left........he attacks the other party.
Reminds me of what Nate Diaz said about Conor Mcgregor after he submitted him : "As soon as guys start to lose the stand-up........everyone magically becomes a wrestler" :thumbsup:
Some people foolishly believe that it's my argument. Like it or not it's history's. It's fact. It's basic math.
When playing the random game of roulette, the long term expectation is the total amount bet x the house edge. Since the house edge is a negative value, then perhaps someone can tell me what bet amount can be multiplied times a positive amount to produce a positive amount of money. (Again, this has to do with the long term expectation.) Perhaps Pyriyanka has found a way to multiply a negative number times a positive one and produce a positive value, but as for the rest of us living in the real world.... we're stuck with real math.
Look around. All of these various people with degrees and experts in their fields telling you that the random game of roulette can NOT be beaten. Why do you suppose that they're all wrong?
Why is it the less someone knows about mathematics and the history of the game the more certain that everyone else in the know is wrong?
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 05, 07:58 PM 2016They have found one, are there more Non Random ways to beat roulette??
There are almost always many ways of achieving the same result. You dont need to use traditional advantage play. Just something that increases your odds of winning. Remember the difference between odds and payout.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 08:23 PM 2016random game of roulette can NOT be beaten
No one disagreeing that. All am saying is there are more non-random ways rather than just exploit the wheel. The basic assumption people have taken is everything is random in the game of roulette. I am just saying that, that assumption doesn't hold good in certain aspects of roulette outcomes. When that assumption is shaken, all the proof we had so far doesn't hold good. Law of large numbers gets shaken when that assumption is shaken. Proof based on randomness and convergence gets shaken when you shake that assumption.
It is always possible to obtain certain non-random events withing any random stream.
Not all systems are a waste of time.
I'm simply saying that if the gambler is wise, they will focus on systems that increase the accuracy of their predictions and on exploiting the non random nature of the gaming device/wheel.
Systems that may be worthwhile, and that may change the odds are:
1. Predictive methods.
2. Hot number systems on live wheels or machines that could theoretically exploit a defective/biased wheel.
3. Recent number hit related systems on live wheels or machines, again that could be indirectly or directly be exploiting a defective wheel and/or the dealing procedure.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 05, 08:32 PM 2016It is always possible to obtain certain non-random events withing any random stream.
Only always!
Random streams of numbers are just that, random. To claim otherwise is an oxymoron.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 08:10 PM 2016Reyth/Priyanka
Wrong guess. :)
Quote from: The General on May 05, 08:37 PM 2016Not all systems are a waste of time.
I am glad you say that. I think we should politely end the deadlock here and part ways. Often history has proved that things are more complicated than its black-white renditions.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 08:47 PM 2016Random streams of numbers are just that, random. To claim otherwise is an oxymoron.
To me even "scientific proof" is an oxymoron. The core principle of any scientific method is to prove something wrong
I found your use of a specific word to be a bit of a coincidence. "Convergence". Most people refer to the law of large numbers or the law of averages. You used the strong law of convergence instead.
I don't mind if you're Reyth or not. I suspect that you're both fine ladies. :)
All is good. :)
Hey there's a simple way to end this dispute. Use the free software at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/
1. Use a very large database of spins
2. Search for the sequence you think makes the next spin more likely. Like R,R,R then B
If the odds have changed, you made history. If not, it is gamblers fallacy.
If you havent changed the odds, then you have nothing.
There should be no argument about it. Just test over a statistically significant amount of spins.
Or they can take the betting challenge linked below.
$30,000 Betting System Challenge
Eight years and counting without a taker
(started April 2008)
Last update: January 2016
link:://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 08:57 PM 2016
Hey there's a simple way to end this dispute. Use the free software at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/
Steve - no one is using patterns here.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 09:02 PM 2016
Or they can take the betting challenge linked below.
$30,000 Betting System Challenge
Eight years and counting without a taker
(started April 2008)
Last update: January 2016
link:://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html
General - you know that challenge is a joke. Why would any one sane would kill a golden goose in exchange for $30,000
Priyanka, if you arent using patterns, then what are you using? You have said you used cycles. Isnt that patterns?
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 09:16 PM 2016You have said you used cycles. Isnt that patterns?
Other way to look at it is they are repeaters.
Abracadabra!
(Spoiler alert)
link:://:.cinemablend.com/m/new/Prestige-Ending-Explained-Here-What-Actually-Happened-69828.html
The General has an interesting game going here.
All of his posts regarding any precise info about Roulette are actually quotes from someone else. :ooh:
When asked for specifics........he just gives general info about the subject (maybe that's where his name comes from........the general).
Then, when he gets in over his head........he just claims a problem with the argument, or simply attacks the other party.
Glad to see someone carrying the torch while RG is gone.............where would we be without drama. :sad2:
(link:s://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/47886623.jpg)
Ohhhhhhh Sh*******t............what if the General is Reyth/Kav.............now that's clever!!! :thumbsup:
QuoteOhhhhhhh Sh*******t............what if the General is Reyth/Kav.............now that's clever!!! :thumbsup:
YES!!!!
(link:://extraordinaryintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/maleficent-sillouhette.jpg)
Quote from: The General on May 05, 09:30 PM 2016
YES!!!!
(link:://extraordinaryintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/maleficent-sillouhette.jpg)
My hats off to you
Reyth.......well played!!! :thumbsup:
Is it just me, or has the general now adopted Donald Trump as his avatar? Some would say appropriate if so.
QuoteIs it just me, or has the general now adopted Donald Trump as his avatar? Some would say appropriate if so.-Button
A...nope.
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/1DEJwfwdknKZq/giphy.gif)
Now that's cool. That's what it's like to play the wheel for long periods of time.
Quote from: thelaw on May 05, 09:27 PM 2016what if the General is Reyth/Kav
No way Caleb is Kav. And btw Kav (Ionnis Kavouras) is not his real name. He's just a casino promoter with many different sites and he spams links all over the place, not just forums. Thats why he got so pissed when i removed his spam.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 10:35 PM 2016
No way Caleb is Kav. And btw Kav (Ionnis Kavouras) is not his real name. He's just a casino promoter with many different sites and he spams links all over the place, not just forums. Thats why he got so pissed when i removed his spam.
.......but Reyth and Kav are thick as thieves...... :ooh:
Its clear kav has numerous aliases. I have no doubt blue angel was one of many. Reyth is probably another, to make his forum look more popular. I wont go into detail but he's just a very clever casino promoter. Not the person he claims to be. The only reason he gets away with it is because he's careful and a skilled writer.
Quote.......but Reyth and Kav are thick as thieves...... :ooh:
Yes, they're thick.
No I'm not Kav.
And I don't believe that they're thieves. I hope Steve is wrong. Both are just excited by the game, and maybe a bit backward in their thinking at times.
I hope...that Kav is also not Blue Angel.
Quote from: The General on May 05, 11:08 PM 2016Yes, they're thick.
When it comes to understanding basic concepts, I agree. But if you're not careful, maybe he'll write an article calling you a liar too.
QuoteI hope...that Kav is also not Blue Angel.
That one I'm 99.99% sure about. Same area in greece, and barely no-one in greece has flawless english, among other red flags.
fun watching Priyanka stay at 3.0 win rate after 1500 spins. Must be a good guesser
What does a 3.0 win rate mean?
Tomla not everything is what it seems. And see my video which demonstrates even 3.0 win rate after 1500 spins is within normal random results.
Caleb it means they are winning 3 x what they lose. Check pm.
me thinks your wrong on this one......only an opinion but im 90% sure that im right
Likely just a random spike. By the time the spin sample gets to 5k spins, there will be very few people close to a 2.
Well lets see whos right the PHD or the General.....maybe new maths have been discovered maybe not
he he
Tomla,
Why is it that some people choose to completely dismiss and or ignore what very well educated people have written about the random game of roulette?
not dismissing anything written --science and math and stats are moving forward at breakneck speeds
Quotenot dismissing anything written --science and math and stats are moving forward at breakneck speeds
So in short, you believe that science and math will beat the random game of roulette?
Its all really very simple.
The payouts are unfair for the odds. The ONLY way to overcome this is by improving your odds. HOW you do this is the question.
Hi General,
Yes, i have read that great book of mr Thorpe:
Indeed this was a smart guy but:
He never gave a formal proof! It is a sequence of statements (he himself even mentioned a loophole in his "proof". go ahead, read it again!
This is why i stated that i have never seen a formal proof: people always claimed it is sef-evident.
His proof is like:
Everyone knows the earth is flat
When people left to find out, no one returned.
This is logigal because when the earth is flat you will fall of it when you do not respect the edge.
So now i'v proven the earth is flat!
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 05, 07:58 PM 2016
Once again, the General is correct. We can't beat roulette with random systems as they will lose in the long run to the house edge, negative expectations, etc etc.
So how do we win.
Caleb and Steve have found a Non Random way to beat roulette using physics, they can get an edge by analyzing the wheel and predicting sectors most likely to hit.
They have found one, are there more Non Random ways to beat roulette??
Do you think that is what this thread is about??
Cheers
Nick
No Nicksme,
Mr Thorpe and Claude Shannon found this way. Go ahead, google it...
rrbb, if you've ever had experience with visual ballistics, bias analysis, roulette computers or other advantage play, you'd know and see first hand there's no doubt it works. Here's one extreme case below. Carefully watch the video and results.
link:s://:.youtube.com/v/PUqjvSvEnX8
It helps to check the numbers and predictions (European wheel):
(link:://:.roulettephysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/european-vs-american-wheel.jpg)
I can also show you government test results, discussion transcripts with casino staff, recorded phone conversations with casino staff, news articles, tv documentaries etc. There is no shortage of proof. It's all about increasing accuracy of predictions. You dont need to use electronic devices. There are many ways to do it.
With computers the proof is so much easier to see because they can even predict the rotor strike point - where the ball will hit the rotor. So you dont need thousands of spins for proof.
I'm not trying to brag but what Thorp had, compared my computers, is like comparing a Commodore 64 to a modern i7 pc. Its very different technology. His idea was revolutionary yes, but we are talking about a few lines of computer code with a vague assumption that conditions in roulette dont change.
Her's what I mean:
link:s://:.youtube.com/v/jPMq3s3aZNk
Quote from: Steve on May 06, 01:45 AM 2016
rrbb, if you've ever had experience with visual ballistics, bias analysis, roulette computers or other advantage play, you'd know and see first hand there's no doubt it works. Here's one extreme case below. Carefully watch the video and results.
link:s://:.youtube.com/v/PUqjvSvEnX8
I can also show you government test results, discussion transcripts with casino staff, recorded phone conversations with casino staff, news articles, tv documentaries etc. There is no shortage of proof. It's all about increasing accuracy of predictions. You dont need to use electronic devices. There are many ways to do it.
With computers the proof is so much easier to see because they can even predict the rotor strike point - where the ball will hit the rotor. So you dont need thousands of spins for proof.
Hi Steve,
I know it works! Again i did read Thorpe an Shannon and many others. This has be Proven! First with pen an paper, then by these guys themselves. And indeed, the only way out of these assumptions is by covering the wheel, or but making people place their bets before the croupier releases the ball.
I am convinced that physical systems work.
But to claim that it has been proven that roulette can never be beaten is FALSE.
Although i have to admit that Priyanka's attempt and yours could be used (to be honest, i did like yours).
But a proof consists of not just loose statements, or observations of similar behavior.
I understand that not all of you might be scholed in this way of thinking...
Let me start with what a formal proof looks like
---â€"
Let Sj be a strategy consisting of
j games
Let M be the maximal individual betting decisions in a game.
Let Rij be the result of the betting decision of the i-th betting decision in the j-th game. The betting decisions themselves are mapped on a predefined set of all betting decisions that are possible for this strategy.
Let Si{Rij} be the sum over all betting decisions (indicated by counter i) for game j.
The sum over all games of the strategy played ad infinitum (=forever, j goes to infinity) is defined to be: res
Can now be written as:
Res= Sj{Si{Rij}}
Because the order of summation can be changed, this can also be written as:
Si{Sj{Rij}}. This should be read as: we first sum for all the j games played, the i-th result.
Because the betting decisions were mapped on all possible betting decisions this equates to a constant bet. As it can be PROVEN that for a constant bet the expectation value <0,
This second sum must be <0.
This then implies that the first sum
Res= Sj{Si{Rij}}
Must be <0. This means that no strategy can exist for which each individual game is, at least, on average a winning game.
Now, spot the assumptions!
You can never be 100% sure of anything. Simply more data means more proof. When testing a system, you need to test thw working principle that is supposed to increase accuracy of predictions. With a system like Priyanka's, there are lots of RBR RRR etc sequences. One way to test the theory is find a particular sequence where you think certain future spins are more likely.
For example, RRR means RBR would be more likely to spin next. But a simple test over a large amount of spins shows that RRR is no different to RBR, RRB, BRB etc. It is just old gambler's fallacy. It is the subject of intense debate on the forum. WHAT'S THERE TO DEBATE? JUST TEST THE DAMN THING OVER ENOUGH SPINS AND SEE. That's why I had software created and published to demonstrate the principle. Anyone can test even billions of spins and see. It's really not hard for anyone to know the truth. Simple testing can resolve any argument.
And when you conclude that a system isnt at all changing the odds, ask yourself: how are you going to overcome the unfair payouts if you havent increased your odds? Its simple math.
Quote from: Steve on May 06, 02:30 AM 2016
You can never be 100% sure of anything. Simply more data means more proof. When testing a system, you need to test thw working principle that is supposed to increase accuracy of predictions. With a system like Priyanka's, there are lots of RBR RRR etc sequences. One way to test the theory is find a particular sequence where you think certain future spins are more likely.
For example, RRR means RBR would be more likely to spin next. But a simple test over a large amount of spins shows that RRR is no different to RBR, RRB, BRB etc. It is just old gambler's fallacy. It is the subject of intense debate on the forum. WHAT'S THERE TO DEBATE? JUST TEST THE DAMN THING OVER ENOUGH SPINS AND SEE. That's why I had software created and published to demonstrate the principle. Anyone can test even billions of spins and see. It's really not hard for anyone to know the truth. Simple testing can resolve any argument.
And when you conclude that a system isnt at all changing the odds, ask yourself: how are you going to overcome the unfair payouts if you havent increased your odds? Its simple math.
Hi Steve,
With all respect: your reasoning is flawed. There is an assumption underlying your example. Your reasoning is like: " all swans are white, just go to the park and see for yourself". For decades this was seen to be a fact. All dissenters were ridiculed.
We all know what happened when Australia was discovered...
When you look closely to your statements you rigthly claim that spins are independent (this is the assumption underlying your example). And yes, this is a fact as it underlies randomness (and its implementations like the roulettewheel, or PRNG).
But nobody said that Priyanka is betting on "spins"...
Grts rrbb
Why does it have to be so complicated? With a mechanical system you know the odds of a specific sequence occurring, that's not an assumption, you know what the payout will be, that's not an assumption, so you can calculate expected value. If it's negative, don't expect long term profit.
Quote from: rrbb on May 06, 03:07 AM 2016nobody said that Priyanka is betting on "spins"...
Hmm :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tacwell on May 06, 03:15 AM 2016
Why does it have to be so complicated? With a mechanical system you know the odds of a specific sequence occurring, that's not an assumption, you know what the payout will be, that's not an assumption, so you can calculate expected value. If it's negative, don't expect long term profit.
Hi Tacwell,
You are right. Keeping things simple makes living easier.
But it is a choice. Columbus had the choice not to set sail, but he did: boy was that a bad decision ;)
Quote from: rrbb on May 06, 03:33 AM 2016
Hi Tacwell,
You are right. Keeping things simple makes living easier.
But it is a choice. Columbus had the choice not to set sail, but he did: boy was that a bad decision ;)
Unfortunately we cannot compare sailing off into the great unknown to a fixed odds game of roulette. Columbus didn't know his odds.
Quote from: Tacwell on May 06, 03:49 AM 2016
Unfortunately we cannot compare sailing off into the great unknown to a fixed odds game of roulette. Columbus didn't know his odds.
Yes, you are right: a bad example.
The goal of my initial proposal was not to spark a yes/no dispute. The idea is: formally proof that roulette can not be beaten. That's all. If you and others think it suffices to accept for example proves like yours, thats fine with me. I accept and respect that. What i do not accept is the claim that no discussion is needed, or even unwanted. In all the "proves" no one stated the underlying assumptions: i haven't seen a single one! The problem i have with that is that you then can not investigate other avenues...
Back to topic... I think we should start taking Priyanka seriously! I think Nick already has?
(link:://s32.postimg.org/80kd03akl/priyanka.png)
Who believes that Priyanka can beat roulette? Or who still believes in Gambler's Fallacy? What does iggiv, Turner and Steve think about Priyanka's claim to beat the game?
Quote from: buffalowizard on May 05, 01:27 PM 2016
Re. Atlantis' testing, I was looking at betting for a repeat after either all 3 the same or all 3 different.
123
22 now bet 1 and 3
Or
222
31 now bet 3 and 1
Retrack after each loss.
Seems to keep the losses in a row down, similar to Atlantis findings.
Hi BW,
This is similar idea and seems to work just as well too! (maybe better/safer?) :)
I would say though to be sure to add in the rule:
"If lose wait for "repeat" triplet first and wait for next "same" or "different"...
I have attached 3000 spins from random.org that shows the BW way.
The longest losing run is 3.
Best Regards,
A.
My two cents: I agree with Steve - why not let empirical results decide? The new roulette game on the forum is a great way to sort out the mere blowhards from those who actually have something. It's not as though the argument is about something that can't be tested one way or the other, like the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
Trouble is, the black swan argument cuts both ways. Suppose Pri gets up to 5000 bets and is still showing a great score. Just as those who believe in the possibility of a winning system can say "it simply hasn't been found YET", the General and his supporters will likewise say, the system simply hasn't lost YET - but you wait and see!
Anyway, it makes for good entertainment.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 06, 06:10 AM 2016What does iggiv, Turner and Steve think about Priyanka's claim to beat the game?
I see what you are trying to say (trying to insinuate?)
If I am correct in what you are insinuating, Priyanka isnt breaking any rules. I truly believe he wants to make us think and is fully supporting us when we do. Its not misleading the forum, IMO
If I am not correct that you are insinuating something, I apologise
Quote from: Turner on May 06, 06:37 AM 2016
I see what you are trying to say (trying to insinuate?)
If I am correct in what you are insinuating, Priyanka isnt breaking any rules. I truly believe he wants to make us think and is fully supporting us when we do. Its not misleading the forum, IMO
If I am not correct that you are insinuating something, I apologise
I know that iggiv was particularly skeptical about any system's potential to beat the game. And throughout this topic you seemed unsure about whether Priyanka was genuine or not. I also thought Priyanka might be peddling some kind of fantasy. However, I was wondering: now that you've seen convincing evidence in the form of the multiplayer roulette leadership board, does this change your opinions - or could you perhaps be experiencing cognitive dissonance? Is hostility set to increase against Priyanka or will she become more accepted here instead? Perhaps most will choose to just sit on the fence... Bayes still remains skeptical it seems... is Priyanka set to stay at the top - or will she suddenly lose all her winnings and drop to below 1.0?
I might add, the General is being disingenuous if he continues to demand more bets. Bias players use statistical tests like Chi-Square to determine whether the wheel is in fact really biased and a given sample isn't just a statistical blip. And yet if a system player demonstrates profits beyond "normal" fluctuations, it just "proves" that more bets are needed. A clear case of double standards! ::)
I say, let the data speak for itself.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 06, 06:51 AM 2016And throughout this topic you seemed unsure about whether Priyanka was genuine or not
I was just prodding him with a stick. We are friends from quite a while back.
Anyhow, your points are relevant and I am really not sure to be honest. Time will tell
Steve, are you capturing all bets being made in your game?
If I were Priyanka, I would not play there and I would just let the videos speak for themselves. For those who want to explore it further, have at it. For those who want others to think for them... Well, that doesn't work well in most cases. A wise man once told me, never outsource your thinking.
I already know how to win. This is another way.
Good luck everyone.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 06, 07:15 AM 2016Steve, are you capturing all bets being made in your game?
Don't give him ideas. I trust Steve when he said he is not capturing the bets. The day when I have the slightest doubt I will quit playing. But I trust him :)
Priyankas system appears to relate around RBR sequences. I have seen no evidence any such sequence can beat roulette. If someone has any proof otherwise, show me just one sequence to prove the point.
I already posted a video that shows how easily a very high win rate can be achieved in the short term. Its especially the case when you have unlimited bankroll and can extend progressions with splits, streets, etc. The results could still very easily be luck.
I look forward to her continued play, but Im not paying much attention until the amount wagered is closer to the average. For now it is well below average at less than 80,000.
Quote from: Bayes on May 06, 06:33 AM 2016
Anyway, it makes for good entertainment.
That's what most of us want right. Guys, let's get this straight. I don't care whether someone says My way of play is crap or whether my way of play is great. It doesn't matter an ounce. When Steve introduced multiplayer roulette I saw this as an opportunity to drive most people towards thinking in a slightly different way. It is also a great opportunity to chat with people on the fly and show them some concepts as seeing is believing. Step by step I have been showing some people how to utilise these concepts in a playable format.
There are people who have quit the forum earlier because there is nothing further to discuss and they are coming back to post just because they are seeing a honest and joyful discussion. I hope rrbb do not mind me quoting him here as he has inspired me to think this way before I could see what he has seen. It helps as our objective is a little beyond making money like a few others here in This forum. I greatly respect general and Steve and their comments are always welcome as I have enjoyed reading them always in the past. i believe in arguments and brainstorming as that is the only way to obtain clarity in thoughts.
It is to readers to chose what they would like to do and I will be more happy if the discussion is on these concepts rather than whether someone has beat the game or not. I want you to think for yourselves and take the right path as we are all grown ups. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity and that's the core behind what am trying to say. Some will get it and find the way, many will try and fail. But the satisfaction of sharing what I can share is what keeps me going and not what others think (my old friend Turner knows that and he always tries to get me back to the motive when he sees there is a slip and am grateful for that)
Hi Steve (Bayes also), in Priyanka's defense: to triple her bankroll she did play 1531 spins; not sure if you noticed that? She only got one chance to make that profit and she did it. I know enough about probability that Priyanka is not bluffing or just happened to get lucky, but I don't know enough about probability to beat the game of roulette. :) However, I do think we need to brush up on this "Non-Random" business and how to combine it with Random... it's not yet clear how that should work. For example:
Random: play for the dozen cycle to be the same as the last dozen cycle.
Non-Random: play for a dozen to repeat within 4 spins.
Do we:
A) Play both games simultaneously?
B) Play only bets that involve the single dozen included in the previous cycle and the one we want to repeat when the 2nd game calls for that same dozen to be played also
c) Some kind of hybrid of the above that involves more dozens/bets placed except perhaps when all 3 dozens would be required in which case we miss out the bet entirely.
So let's say that betting dozens to repeat by spin 4 is 50/50 like VdW/AP is 50/50 (Non Random).
We know that dozen cycles are 63% to be the same as the last (Random)
So when we combine 50% Non-Random in conjunction with 63% Random perhaps those 2 opposing forces work together to yield edge? However, if we were to combine 63% Random with another 54% Random bet selection then we may always end up in a negative since one of them needs to be Non-Random? Am I thinking along the right lines?
Steve, you can capture my bets if you want, I have nothing to hide. I think on rouletteplayers.org it is not real spins, it looks like some sort of strange rng or prng or who knows, but it not behave like real wheel.
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 06, 08:10 AM 2016
Steve, you can capture my bets if you want, I have nothing to hide. I think on rouletteplayers.org it is not real spins, it looks like some sort of strange rng or prng or who knows, but it not behave like real wheel.
Priyanka, do you see any difference in your testing with live vs RNG?
just cannot belive it what this topic was dedicated to and where went to..... :'( :'( :'( :'(
Quote from: maestro on May 06, 08:33 AM 2016
just cannot belive it what this topic was dedicated to and where went to..... :'( :'( :'( :'(
It was bound to happen... Like those events in the earlier discussions ;)
Mumbo the only times it has been rng is when the server was updated and i forgot to upload spins, or before the changes that allow use of uploaded spins. I take the spins straight from a mysql database with spins from my players. Eventually Im going to run out so will need another solution. Its exactly as I say it is. I have no reason to do differently.
The topic is headed the right direction, Towards the truth.
Let say you are right, but I saw one number repeated 5 times in 20 spins too many times, today it was 17, before it was 31, then 36, 25, every day I saw this, or I am just too lucky to see this things ;)
Ill put something in perspective.
Because of unlimited bankroll among other reasons, bankroll is a very poor indicator of a systems success. There are other players with large bankrolls but poor results. What matters is win rate, amount of spins, and amount bet. You need ALL THREE values to be high for a good rank. Or just a very high value for one or two.
In Priyankas case, as anyone online could see, earlier on she had big wins in relatively few spins. That success would be easily replicated and can easily be luck. Then later bets were smaller because the amount bet didnt change much.
To replicate her results, you would need only good luck in the short term with larger bets. This gives a high win rate. And then you can play a lot of spins later with smaller bets to build your "spins played" value. This way your win rate would barely move, but your rank would continue to climb.
But some people are quick to believe the win rate is everything. You need to consider her amount bet is around 15% of players with comparable rank.
No disrespect to priyanka, but the results dont tell us much yet.
Mumbo if you see unusual sequences, send them to me and ill check the database. I know at least if you have multiple browser windows logged on there can be similar anomalies. If there are no such errors, the spins are what they are from the mysql database. Exploit them if you think youve found a pattern. The software probably still has issues we havent yet found. So report what you find.
"Priyankas system appears to relate around RBR sequences. I have seen no evidence any such sequence can beat roulette. If someone has any proof otherwise, show me just one sequence to prove the point."
Steve, this is exactly the point.
YOU have not seen any evidence relating to RBR sequences that can beat roulette.
The General and all his PHD math buddies have not seen any evidence either.
However, Priyanka, myself and others have seen the evidence.
So it boils down to this. The only way we can prove it:
1. Give you the system, not likely or
2. You and anyone else can figure it out by reading this thread and doing the work.
Again, this is the point of this thread. To show that there are NON RANDOM ways, other than Physics, to beat roulette.
Cheers
Nick
I also think Priyanka is too lucky because of this anomalies and your database is mixing numbers with several database I think (?), so Priyanka have no chance on real wheel to play the same way, and if I wrong, I want to play 100 000 spins and hope Priyanka too and several others just to be sure who is right here.
quad 0,1,2,3 cannot be bet...thanks
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 09:57 AM 2016YOU have not seen any evidence relating to RBR sequences that can beat roulette.
The General and all his PHD math buddies have not seen any evidence either.
However, Priyanka, myself and others have seen the evidence.
Thank you for this, Nick!
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 06, 09:58 AM 2016Priyanka is too lucky
Thankfully!!! Who wouldn't want to be ;)
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 09:57 AM 2016
However, Priyanka, myself and others have seen the evidence.
In my experience, it's almost impossible to maintain a flat bet advantage, but it's really not that difficult to reduce the variance consistently to the point where it doesn't matter if you don't have it. And surely that's all that matters? Money management will take care of the rest. I'm still a "loser" as far as the maths is concerned, but who cares?
Anyway, my earlier comments weren't intended to be critical of Priyanka, quite the contrary.
Nick, if you have the RBR hg, good on you. You must have made millions. Am I right? If no, why not? You say youve seen the evidence, but the claims that are made public are just not consistent. With the free software I released, you can test for billions of RB combinations and not find patterns.
Mumbo, again send me details of anomalies you suspect. Ive checked spins manually and see some odd sequences but they are all within normal. You see a higher volume of spins in the game than real life, so youll encounter them more often. If you play 100 spins in a day, the chances are youll see groups of repeats. I dont know why you doubt the numbers. They are just whatever they are. There is no motive for me to do anything but what Ive said. When I run out of real spins I will make it known. Its still possible my players uploaded fake spins to test but i avoided using profiles more likely to do that.
I say Priyanka will have no problem with a live wheel either.
Therefore Priyanka HAPPY WINNINGS where ever you play.
Tamino aka Nathan Detroit
Steve,
Your assumption is wrong.
We are not playing for Patterns.
Pattern based systems do not work. They are random systems.
We are playing for a Non Random event, ie, something that HAS TO HAPPEN.
What HAS TO HAPPEN?
A math theorem HAS TO HAPPEN.
This thread explores the Van de Waerden theorem and the Pigeon Hole principles.
A math theorem is a Non Random event, it is something that has to happen, just like 1 + 2 HAS TO EQUAL 3.
No patterns.
cheers
Nick
Quote from: maestro on May 06, 08:33 AM 2016
just cannot belive it what this topic was dedicated to and where went to..... :'( :'( :'( :'(
Just wait until RG sees the possibility of the next HG in this thread and jumps on it. ;D
It seems my prediction was correct: this thread does seem to be turning a bit hostile with some signs of jealousy...? :girl_to:
When are we likely to return to the discussion of Non-Random? :question:
a new thread can be started with key highlights.....
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 06, 11:22 AM 2016
a new thread can be started with key highlights.....
I'll do it this weekend, as I think it's worth exploring further... but you guys need to chip in too on your understanding of certain concepts, like "constants" - I don't know what the hell they are talking about there! :twisted:
QuoteTo start with let us assume that there is no edge
.
If neither house or the player have the edge, then all that remains is variance.
Variance = luck.
And unfortunately you can't predict luck and you can't use luck to increase the accuracy of your predictions.
Luck runs out.
QuoteWhen are we likely to return to the discussion of Non-Random?
If you want to beat this game in the long run, then you need to focus on the non randomness of the wheel, not the game.
QuoteJust wait until RG sees the possibility of the next HG in this thread and jumps on it. ;D
No, I suspect that it will return to systems that attempt to win based on non hit numbers double streets and other foolish nonsense like that, rather than trying to exploit the wheel.
QuoteHowever, Priyanka, myself and others have seen the evidence.
Let's see the evidence. Perhaps we can take a look at Priyanka betting history and outcomes on the multiplayer so we can see some proof?
Quote from: The General on May 06, 12:23 PM 2016
Let's see the evidence. Perhaps we can take a look at Priyanka betting history
What about Priyankas whole year withdrawals from BV?
You think its fake?
QuoteWhat about Priyankas whole year withdrawals from BV?
You think its fake?
What about them? Are they supposed to be statistically relevant? I don't know anything about them.
Friday evening. Am going to drink in the name of global peace. Are you?
have a few for me also---I will join in later
For global peace and luck, Ill drink to that!
"If you want to beat this game in the long run, then you need to focus on the non randomness of the wheel, not the game"
General, you are correct in that we have to focus on the non randomness but not only of the wheel but of the game itself.
As I see it, there are 3 ways to play roulette:
1. Randomly, ie, wait for 3 R then bet Black, form a pattern, etc. All bound to lose
2. Non Random Physics, find an anomaly in the wheel and bet accordingly.
3. Non Random Numbers, (Math and Statistics) this is the 3rd way which most are unaware and the whole point of this thread.
Non Random Numbers means we play the game knowing that numbers have to behave according to Proven Number Theories, ie Arithmetic.
No guessing. Numbers have to do certain things ALL THE TIME. Without a Doubt. It has to happen.
Let me give you an example.
The Van de Waerden Theorem. A legitimate mathematical theory that you can post on your "Math Forums" and they will concur.
As it pertains to roulette, the VDW(Van de Waerden) says that in every 9 spins you will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS (discounting the zero for now) have an Arithmetic Progression.
This is known and this is proven.
We play each spin looking to see if an AP(Arithmetic Progression) has been formed.
This is what we look for. This is not random. This is a specific mathematical way to play the game. This is Non Random.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Nick
Quote
Non Random Numbers means we play the game knowing that numbers have to behave according to Proven Number Theories, ie Arithmetic.
No guessing. Numbers have to do certain things ALL THE TIME. Without a Doubt. It has to happen.
I am in agreement here with Nickmsi.
Other names for "non-random" would be: methodical; planned; definite; specific and ermm... systematic.
A.
QuoteGeneral, you are correct in that we have to focus on the non randomness but not only of the wheel but of the game itself.
Nickmsi,
Ignore the layout and forget the game. Both are a fools folly. Recorded history, math, all prove this much. The "game" is merely a distraction for ordinary gamblers.
The number theories are also a dead end. They prove that the "game" can not be beaten, not the other way around. The number "theories" will not help you exploit the non random nature of the game.
Focus
only on the wheel.
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 02:13 PM 2016
As it pertains to roulette, the VDW(Van de Waerden) says that in every 9 spins you will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS (discounting the zero for now) have an Arithmetic Progression.
Isn´t that because it´s about a specific number of colours contained in a specific number of spins? Add blue and yellow to the red and black and there goes the arithmetic progression, or you´ll have to a) increase the number of spins; or b) change the rules. It´s not a "property of random" as I see it.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 06, 01:01 PM 2016Friday evening. Am going to drink in the name of global peace.
Good idea, I'll follow!
"The number theories are also a dead end. They prove that the "game" can not be beaten, not the other way around. The number "theories" will not help you exploit the non random nature of the game"
General, I am assuming this is your own opinion.
I am open minded, if you have proof that the number theories are a "dead end", then prove it.
Don't refer me to the WizardofOdds or Math forums, just provide some proof that number theories don't work.
I provided you with an example of how the number theories can be used.
Kindly do the same . Show me they can't. I am not too old to learn new tricks.
Thanks
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 03:39 PM 2016I provided you with an example of how the number theories can be used.
Exactly what was this example? I can't find it. I'm looking for anything that indicates the odds can be increased. Really i want to be wrong and apologize for my ignorance because of what it would mean. I just need one clear theory or concept i can test, and see if it's true.
Quote from: Steve on May 06, 03:55 PM 2016
Exactly what was this example? I can't find it. I'm looking for anything that indicates the odds can be increased. Really i want to be wrong and apologize for my ignorance because of what it would mean. I just need one clear theory or concept i can test, and see if it's true.
Steve look at post #625
Hi Steve
The example I gave was that we play roulette looking for an AP. This is not random. We are playing for a math theorem to complete, which it has to, no doubt about it.
I cannot give you anything to test else I would be giving away the system.
What I can do is give you and everyone else the basic Van de Waerden Theorem in excel format so that you can test it yourself to see how it works, every time.
This is how we play, spin by spin we look for an AP to be formed. This is a Non Random way to play roulette.
This VDW is not the Holy Grail in itself, it is just the first step to understanding.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 04:07 PM 2016
Hi Steve
The example I gave was that we play roulette looking for an AP. This is not random. We are playing for a math theorem to complete, which it has to, no doubt about it.
I cannot give you anything to test else I would be giving away the system.
What I can do is give you and everyone else the basic Van de Waerden Theorem in excel format so that you can test it yourself to see how it works, every time.
This is how we play, spin by spin we look for an AP to be formed. This is a Non Random way to play roulette.
This VDW is not the Holy Grail in itself, it is just the first step to understanding.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Ok now I'm confused, does the wheel somehow know that it needs to hit a certain pocket to complete an arithmetic progression, or is there some other force that causes the wheel to hit that pocket, or is it a mathematical anomaly that can be applied to any 9 random numbers? Remember pockets are just pockets, we could use letters to identify them, or hieroglyphics for that matter, it wouldn't change anything.
Hi Tacwell. . .
The VDW does not play numbers, it plays R/B colors or H/L or O/E.
In any set of 9 Colors, you will have an AP. Guaranteed.
In any set of 9 H/L you will have an AP. Guaranteed.
In any set of 9 O/e will have an AP. Guaranteed.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 04:35 PM 2016
Hi Tacwell. . .
The VDW does not play numbers, it plays R/B colors or H/L or O/E.
In any set of 9 Colors, you will have an AP. Guaranteed.
In any set of 9 H/L you will have an AP. Guaranteed.
In any set of 9 O/e will have an AP. Guaranteed.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Thanks Nick
So for any 9 spins, there is no combination of red vs black what won't form an arithmetic progression? Surely then the odds and payout stay the same as without betting for the progression, thus negative expected value? Or am I still missing something?
Actually the chances RB are not being considered as numbers per se as what matters here is how they´re distributed across the nine spins. They could instead be pig pig dog pig dog dog pig dog pig yes, or anything else lol. But yeah the arythmetic progressions are always there whatever the outcome will be. Sometimes just one as in RR BB RR BB R or lots of them as in RRRRRRRRR. This means they don´t have any influence on what colour the nex spin will be. Whatever the next spin is, it will either form an AP or there was one or several already formed in the past 8 spins. It´s unpredictable as always. No edge for the player, just wishful thinking I´m afraid. If you happen to win like 6 times in a row using this method you´ll lose 6 times in a row afterwards.
Quote from: The General on May 06, 02:32 PM 2016
Nickmsi,
Ignore the layout and forget the game. Both are a fools folly. Recorded history, math, all prove this much. The "game" is merely a distraction for ordinary gamblers.
The number theories are also a dead end. They prove that the "game" can not be beaten, not the other way around. The number "theories" will not help you exploit the non random nature of the game.
Focus only on the wheel.
I´m still waiting for your answer to this questions:
QuoteQuote from: The General on May 03, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Sorry, but it's nothing more than a random fluctuation. I wish I could tell you that it would work, but it won't, and can't for obvious reasons. One our of play is meaningless.
Best of luck,
The General.
Just a simple question to the General:
If we start watching a wheel and we make an 0 for every unhit number (37 0s) and we cross that 0 when a number has hit 0:
Will there be a situation where we have 19 unhits ( means 0s) and 18 hits (means 0)?
Could we say that the count from 37 to 19 could go on and end at 0?
Could we say that the count of hits will go from 0 to 37?
If we only watch the situation 19 0 vs 180, could we say IT MUST CROSS TO 18 0 vs 19 0?
Is this forced by nature of the game to happen or is it a such rare event, that we couldn´t bet on this to happen?
Is that a math-fact or is it a lie or a trick?
If we have this proven, could we transfer our knowledge to other situations than 0 vs 0?
Quote from: psimoes on May 06, 04:53 PM 2016
Actually the chances RB are not being considered as numbers per se as what matters here is how they´re distributed across the nine spins. They could instead be pig pig dog pig dog dog pig dog pig yes, or anything else lol. But yeah the arythmetic progressions are always there whatever the outcome will be. Sometimes just one as in RR BB RR BB R or lots of them as in RRRRRRRRR. This means they don´t have any influence on what colour the nex spin will be. Whatever the next spin is, it will either form an AP or there was one or several already formed in the past 8 spins. It´s unpredictable as always. No edge for the player, just wishful thinking I´m afraid. If you happen to win like 6 times in a row using this method you´ll lose 6 times in a row afterwards.
Yeah, it's 50/50, but the graph for Non-Random series looks different to a 50/50 Random series (Nick demonstrated this in the early pages). In Random we are waiting to catch the win, but in Non-Random we are waiting to be caught. The secret to using Non-Random seems to be that it combines well with Random to gain edge - but it's not been confirmed exactly how that works (yet).
That VDW theorem is just stating the obvious. The outcomes are still unpredictable. Probably there´s a bit more to it, but if it´s the case then why isn´t there a MOP published yet? Look at the G.U.T thread and the instructions were posted right on the first page for immediate discussion. You may agree with it or not but there´s merit. Frankly I find the "patience, Grasshopper" tone irritating, sorry.
As I said earlier...
Quote from: Tacwell on May 06, 03:15 AM 2016
Why does it have to be so complicated? With a mechanical system you know the odds of a specific sequence occurring, that's not an assumption, you know what the payout will be, that's not an assumption, so you can calculate expected value. If it's negative, don't expect long term profit.
BTW, I find this thread rather entertaining, I don't see the jealousy or whatever falcor was referring to, and there's no derogatory defensive nonsense from that ghost.
Hi Psimoes . . .
"Probably there´s a bit more to it"
Yes, of course there is more to it. Sorry if you have to work for it.
I have been trying for 10 years to develop a winning system and have failed.
Priyanka sparked my interest in this post because, it reminded me of a Poster named "Dyksexlic", you old timers remember him.
He used riddles and hints to explain his Holy Grail and was heckled and derided by almost everyone.
I know now he had a Holy Grail based on the Pigeon Hole principle.
Here's his Holy Grail.
If you have 38 pigeons and 37 pigeon holes, one of the pigeon holes has to contain 2 pigeons.
In roulette terms, if you have 38 spins, 37 numbers, then 1 of the numbers has to repeat.
Simply play every number as it is spun. That's it. That's the Holy Grail, all you have to do is figure out a progression to handle it.
Again, the point of this thread is to get you to think of playing roulette in a different way, a Non Random way.
Cheers
Nick
You know, I always see 50:50 choices where ever I look. Even in the most pretty Escarty/VWDesq. applications
1-2-3
2-3-4
1-3-5
3-4-5
4-5-6
2-4-6
5-6-7
1-4-7
3-5-7
6-7-8
2-5-8
4-6-8
7-8-9
1-5-9
3-6-9
5-7-9
so......
R
R bet R for 123
B (loss)
R
R bet R for 456 & 246,
B (loss) bet R for 147,
B (loss) bet B for 678 (or R for 258?)
well..... Van de Waerden won that one, but any win along the way was 50:50 or luck.
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 05:41 PM 2016Here's his Holy Grail.
If you have 38 pigeons and 37 pigeon holes, one of the pigeon holes has to contain 2 pigeons.
Nick, I know you're not saying this is your holy grail, but regardless, the same logic could be applied to columns or dozens, 4 pigeons and 3 holes, or ECs, 3 pigeons and 2 holes, it really means nothing re roulette.
10 years is a long time looking for a system to beat fixed odds.
Nickmsi, I have to thank you for the sanest advice I have ever read here, at my Even Odds thread: whatever "pattern" you see forming, bet that it continues, not that it will end. I could start a HG thread with hints on how Inertia rules the Universe and is ever present in physical objects and non-physical objects as well. Problem is, it was never a HG to begin with, no matter how much thought you´d put into it.
Nicksmi,
Progressions can't turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.
The real problem that most of you have when it comes to beating the wheel is that most of you don't trust mathematicians, and recorded history. Which in to be frank is kind of weird.
At what point did most of you stop trusting mathematicians?
@Winkel,
Can you reword it? I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make.
Best of luck,
The General
The theory doesn't at all increase accuracy of predictions. The odds don't change. Excluding 0, the odds are still 50/50.
Can anyone show an example how it does change the odds? we all want the same thing here. But I'm not seeing any evidence. Merely saying theres more to it doesn't help, because the initial theory isn't valid to begin.
It's like the law of a third. It doesn't change anything.
Quote from: The General on May 06, 06:14 PM 2016@Winkel,
Can you reword it? I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make.
Quote from: winkel on May 06, 05:03 PM 2016Just a simple question to the General:
If we start watching a wheel and we make an 0 for every unhit number (37 0s) and we cross that 0 when a number has hit 0:
Will there be a situation where we have 19 unhits ( means 0s) and 18 hits (means 0)?
Could we say that the count from 37 to 19 could go on and end at 0?
Could we say that the count of hits will go from 0 to 37?
If we only watch the situation 19 0 vs 180, could we say IT MUST CROSS TO 18 0 vs 19 0?
Is this forced by nature of the game to happen or is it a such rare event, that we couldn´t bet on this to happen?
Is that a math-fact or is it a lie or a trick?
If we have this proven, could we transfer our knowledge to other situations than 0 vs 0?
I think his point is obvious, except 19/36 > 18/37 so no edge, I could be wrong.
I'm not sure what it is that he's trying to say. I will simply state that past spins don't have any influence on future spins.
Turner, Tacwell, Psimoes, Falkor, Steve et al.
Yes, you are correct.
The VDW by itself does not change the odds, does not give an edge.
Again, the point of this thread and the VDW is to get you to think about playing roulette with a Non Random system.
Do you all see that you can play roulette by using APs?
If you see that, then you are playing a Non Random system.
As I said before, the VDW does not give you an edge.
There is more, but first you need to understand how to play roulette this new way.
The VDW is a way to play roulette in a Non Random manner.
How do we make this Non Random method give us an edge? Well, you need to read the thread and add another Non Random theorem or Statistic. It is as simple as that.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: The General on May 06, 07:05 PM 2016
I'm not sure what it is that he's trying to say. I will simply state that past spins don't have any influence on future spins.
He's saying that after waiting until 18 out of 37 numbers have hit, and 19 remain unhit, at some point that must change to 19 hit, and 18 unhit, that's what he's betting on. Odds of hitting any of those 19 are 19/37, payout 19/36.
As a professional player, I will tell this...If you really want to win, with the least amount of effort and as efficiently as possible, then you need to learn how to think about the wheel/gaming device like an engineer. Until you can free your mind and completely forget about the layout and the game, you have no chance of becoming a long term winner.
QuoteHe's saying that after waiting until 18 out of 37 numbers have hit, and 19 remain unhit, at some point that must change to 19 hit, and 18 unhit, that's what he's betting on. Odds of hitting any of those 19 are 19/37, payout 19/36.
The odds of any number hitting remains unchanged, regardless of what has hit in the past. It appears as though he doesn't fully understand basic probability.
nick you are saying its a non random theorem, but it is random, like the law of a third. again i want to believe you but am not seeing any logic that alludes to anything that can work. and i cant get past the fact that you need to change odds to win. i see no way around it. really its basic math. i cant see how 1+1=3.
Quote from: The General on May 06, 07:19 PM 2016
As a professional player, I will tell this...If you really want to win, with the least amount of effort and as efficiently as possible, then you need to learn how to think about the wheel/gaming device like an engineer. Until you can free your mind and completely forget about the layout and the game, you have no chance of becoming a long term winner.
Uh no, you need to be able to think with a logical mindset. No other BS. Logically with a fair wheel, you won't win long term, if there is some wheel bias, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to exploit it. When computers can measure every variable regarding a spin, incl. the amount of sweat/chicken fat transferred onto the ball from your croupiers hand, rotor gear friction, lubrication viscosity, air pressure, plus a million other variables, only then will we be able to get seriously accurate predictions of which pocket will capture the ball, on non bias wheels, and then spins will no longer be random.
Also your bet selection wouldn't be random, but your accuracy in predicting winning color is still no better than random because u have random in the equation.
Like if you have 0 anywhere in any equation like 4×5×64×7×0×53×5 you still end up with 0.
Really, Mr General, you're not helping. We get that you believe the only way is the AP way. You tell us this all the time. We get it - really we do. You can get down off your soapbox now and go away confident in the knowledge that we have heard you and that we get it.
Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic. I WAS having fun trying to figure all this out - the subject here that is. I was enjoying meaningful dialogue, the to and fro of intelligent and meaningful discussion with like-minded and intelligent people. But for the last several days and countless pages all I have seen is the negative put-downing going on of those who are not interested. Well, if you are not interested then DON'T PARTICIPATE.
You won't convert us to your way of thinking - at least, not in this thread. We may go and follow you up in others if we want, but you can stop preaching in here now. It is getting tiresome.
A question - can the OP moderate their own thread? Can he/she delete unwanted posts? If not then I believe they should be able to. This thread is being bombed out of existence by the diehard haters of anything systematic or that is different to their own view.
Unfortunately the facts will seem negative to some people.
Regardless, best of luck. ::)
Thank you sir! This is just one of many avenues that people investigate. We should be permitted to do so. Appreciate your advice. We choose to continue investigating this approach, along with others in their respective threads. All the best to you too.
Quote from: RMore on May 06, 07:53 PM 2016
Really, Mr General, you're not helping. We get that you believe the only way is the AP way. You tell us this all the time. We get it - really we do. You can get down off your soapbox now and go away confident in the knowledge that we have heard you and that we get it.
Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic. I WAS having fun trying to figure all this out - the subject here that is. I was enjoying meaningful dialogue, the to and fro of intelligent and meaningful discussion with like-minded and intelligent people. But for the last several days and countless pages all I have seen is the negative put-downing going on of those who are not interested. Well, if you are not interested then DON'T PARTICIPATE.
You won't convert us to your way of thinking - at least, not in this thread. We may go and follow you up in others if we want, but you can stop preaching in here now. It is getting tiresome.
A question - can the OP moderate their own thread? Can he/she delete unwanted posts? If not then I believe they should be able to. This thread is being bombed out of existence by the diehard haters of anything systematic or that is different to their own view.
It doesn't matter..........Steve has fully embraced the abrasive quality of the General.........and is happy to let him run wild.
The General will continue to take jabs at other members..........and Steve will allow it.
If you go back and read his previous posts.......the General is given a wide birth here...........not sure why, but I guess Steve has his reasons. :ooh:
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 06, 04:07 PM 2016
...
What I can do is give you and everyone else the basic Van de Waerden Theorem in excel format so that you can test it yourself to see how it works, every time.
This is how we play, spin by spin we look for an AP to be formed. This is a Non Random way to play roulette.
...
Nick
Dear Nick,
Really nice demonstration of VdW principle. I would say, a must see for everyone interested :thumbsup:
When I played with it I just wondered: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black?" :question:
grts rrbb
Quote from: rrbb on May 07, 01:38 AM 2016
Dear Nick,
Really nice demonstration of VdW principle. I would say, a must see for everyone interested :thumbsup:
When I played with it I just wondered: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black?" :question:
grts rrbb
Of course to be complete: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black for on average ±2.3 times per cycle" :question:
sorry, still sleepy: I followed Priyanka's advice and drank for world peace
Quote from: The General on May 06, 07:05 PM 2016
I'm not sure what it is that he's trying to say. I will simply state that past spins don't have any influence on future spins.
This tells how incorrect your arguments are:
Only looking to the next spin, you might be right. But looking to development of the maths of probability you need to have more than one spin.
Pls tell me then: If the next spin always could be wrong, how long will this situation 19vs18 last unchanged? Forever?
Quote from: Tacwell on May 06, 06:31 PM 2016
I think his point is obvious, except 19/36 > 18/37 so no edge, I could be wrong.
Did you try it ?
I did for over 3000 sessions.
Never try , never know!
Quote from: winkel on May 07, 05:23 AM 2016
Pls tell me then: If the next spin always could be wrong, how long will this situation 19vs18 last unchanged? Forever?
As I wasn't a fan in the start...I can only say one thing now. THANK YOU WINKEL. :thumbsup:
Quote from: thelaw on May 06, 08:04 PM 2016The General will continue to take jabs at other members..........and Steve will allow it.
No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative". It is anyones best interest to listen to reason. For the vast majority of what he has said, he has been factual and direct for everyones benefit, but not rude or abrasive. He is preaching what? Basic fact, not opinion, that the whole professional gaming community knows. The same facts casinos use to make billions. The same elemental facts you will find on wikipedia or any credible site.
Everything we both say is ignored by most people. There is no conspiracy between me and Caleb. Its just that we understand grade 3 math. Really thats what it is. And when we see people preaching utter nonsense, we try to help, but are seen as negative nancies with a hidden agenda.
So Ive added most contributors to this thread to the systems only group. Im also moving this thread to the system only area where I wont post, and Caleb cant post there. Anyone who doesnt want help, or to be told why something wont work, can post there in peace. If anyone wants the ability to post, let me know.
If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 06:56 AM 2016
No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative". It is anyones best interest to listen to reason. For the vast majority of what he has said, he has been factual and direct for everyones benefit, but not rude or abrasive. He is preaching what? Basic fact, not opinion, that the whole professional gaming community knows. The same facts casinos use to make billions. The same elemental facts you will find on wikipedia or any credible site.
Everything we both say is ignored by most people. There is no conspiracy between me and Caleb. Its just that we understand grade 3 math. Really thats what it is. And when we see people preaching utter nonsense, we try to help, but are seen as negative nancies with a hidden agenda.
So Ive added most contributors to this thread to the systems only group. Im also moving this thread to the system only area where I wont post, and Caleb cant post there. Anyone who doesnt want help, or to be told why something wont work, can post there in peace. If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.
Hi Steve,
Here are my 2 cents.
I'm a little bit in doubt about your proposal (sorry couldn't find the right word, english is not my first language). On the other hand I do think it is good to have all viewpoints put on the table. And yes, both you, General and (most everyone) had very good things to add: it is really clear that there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience from which everyone could benefit: it would be a shame if critical voices are not allowed anymore. On the other hand, the discussion as it went last day made me a little bit sad: the critical voices were not there to challenge, but to dictate. As far as I know roulette is not a religion but a game.
Everyone is allowed to his or her own opinion, everyone is allowed to err in his or her ways (and you know, maybe, while erring, stumble upon a golden nugget): couldn't we just be a little bit more civilized about it?
As a side note: you are being uncivilized again in this post. I would advise you to read up on the latest MIT research that was based on Max Plancks statement: "science progresses one funeral at a time": link:://blog.alphaarchitect.com/2016/01/13/does-science-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time/#gs.UOhppYg (link:://blog.alphaarchitect.com/2016/01/13/does-science-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time/#gs.UOhppYg) . Supposedly that is the downside to being "knowledgable" (I do have to admit that I fall into that trap also quite a lot so it is not meant as personal criticism, it is just how things work)
grts rrbb
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 06:56 AM 2016
No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative". If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.
You really think your customers are dump stupid people. Belive me all the creators of strategies know they will fight the house edge.
But they do it as a hobby to prove something that might be unprovable.
And his accurate advice is ... what? There´s a House Edge? Wow, nobody ever heard of that.
He never ever did prove something not working, he just went in and said: It won´t work, I don´t read it. Thats just being nasty and hidden aggressive.
Imagine all your customers would say: Oh, yes caleb is right, there is no need to search or even spill a second on this.
You could burry this Forum immidiately.
rrbb, you are missing the point. The solutions to mathematical equations wont change in the next billion years. Its not a matter of opinion. Its not people like me and caleb in the way of progress.
Winkel, yes I understand for many people it is a hobby, and they dont care about reality. And many times he's provided proof of claims. It is just usually not understood.
You dont understand what Im saying. Im all for trying NEW ways to beat roulette. Im all for progress. Thats why when I see a repackaged martingale or system using the same nonsense, Ill usually say something. Why? To help. Not because Im a pest. Not because I believe in AP. But because I understand fundamental facts. Believe me it would be easier to just ignore rubbish. I have a weakness for helping people avoid obvious mistakes.
Am I biased towards AP? No. Traditional AP is just one way of increasing odds. Im sure one day better methods will be found, and they will replace traditional AP. I really dont give a crap if people dont like the idea of vb, computers etc. I do give a crap when people go in circles with no idea, and think facts are just negative talk. What actually happens is people are not understanding the facts.
Anyway, I need to leave this alone now. Ive said all I can.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 08:55 AM 2016The solutions to mathematical equations wont change in the next billion years
Steve - I will never say no when we are having a mathematical equation and a solution. Rrbb simply asked about a mathematical equation and no one was able to provide one. I am a mathematician. Rrbb is a mathematician. We can talk Mathematic language. But where is the equation you are talking about which proves the theory or truth you are explaining. Then we can try disprove that equation and why it doesn't work and take it forward. When caleb posted it fails because of the law of large numbers I showed him why law of large numbers is not the correct application or correct proof. I think if we all have that mathematic equation that proves this fact we will be ending the discussion. But where is it?
Quote from: Steve on May 06, 07:35 PM 2016cant get past the fact that you need to change odds to win
Steve - just a question for you. Improving the odds. Increasing the accuracy of prediction. Are they two different things? Can they be considered as two different things?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 09:03 AM 2016
Steve - I will never say no when we are having a mathematical equation and a solution. Rrbb simply asked about a mathematical equation and no one was able to provide one. I am a mathematician. Rrbb is a mathematician. We can talk Mathematic language. But where is the equation you are talking about which proves the theory or truth you are explaining. Then we can try disprove that equation and why it doesn't work and take it forward. When caleb posted it fails because of the law of large numbers I showed him why law of large numbers is not the correct application or correct proof. I think if we all have that mathematic equation that proves this fact we will be ending the discussion. But where is it?
Hey Priyanka,
To your point.......I find it odd that we are now 45 pages into a thread about a game revolving around mathematics, and yet we don't have an actual metric to measure success.
Over and over again, members are using the phrase "beat the game".......but provide no metrics by which to quantify results. This is like saying your searching for a "healthy" diet..........without precise goals.........it means nothing.
So how many spins must a system survive to "beat" the game? :question:
Thanks! :thumbsup:
I am currently compiling a document to share in a new topic "Random Thoughts - A concise reference", and I seem to have made a few breakthroughs a long the way! :ooh:
Priyanka would you like to proof-read it first? :D
See here for my new topic: RANDOM THOUGHTS BY PRIYANKA â€" A CONCISE REFERENCE (VERSION 1) (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16975)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16975
I just figured out an important pattern here:
Quote21 - Dozen 2
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
24
12
36 - Dozen 3
18 - Dozen 2
29 - Dozen 3. At least one repeat of a dozen
2
17 - Dozen 2.
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
19
10
16 - Dozen 2
7 - Dozen 1
11 - Dozen 1. At least one repeat of a dozen
20
This Non-Random event of when a section has to repeat has been converted below into "finite" cycles:
QuoteEverythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.
For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.
19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2
19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1
18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.
Likewise, this can also be converted into a finite cycle as well:
QuoteSecond sample 111 131 111 122
111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.
111 131 111 - Cycle 1
111 122 .... - Cycle 2
And this is also a "finite" cycle based on 9 spins (always fixed to 9 or till an AP is formed?)
QuoteRBR BRR RBB
123 456 789
So it could be like
RBRBR - cycle 1
RRR - cycle 2
RBB... - cycle 3
Am I right?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 08, 07:40 AM 2016Am I right?
Quote from: rrbb on May 07, 01:55 AM 2016what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black for on average ±2.3 times per cycle
I don't really understand what rrbb is saying in that quote, but I guess I can test it to see if the same/different percentage remains the same over 1000 > 10,000 cycles?
I guess the Law of the Third can be represented as a finite cycle - providing we see each cycle through till there are 12 repeats?
In terms of breaking down the same/different percentages in cycles something doesn't seem right here in the spreadsheet:
(link:://s32.postimg.org/j95rq501x/cycles.png)
There are 2 columns for "Cycle Lengths", but only the right column appears to be valid (the left column represents instead the section position)
So... where the "cycle" is defined by a different dozen, a Cycle Length of 2 should really be a Cycle Length of 1 (and Cycle Length 1 should not be zero)?
Another way of monitoring and classifying dozen triplet results
Recording the "movements" of 27 dozen triplets.
3 = first dozen result to give a starting dozen from which to base the subsequent movements that will occur:
s = same dozen (when a doz repeats)
l = left move (doz 3 to 2; doz 2 to 1; doz 1 to 3)
r = right move (doz 1 to 2; doz 2 to 3; doz 3 to 1)
3 2 1 sll = repeat
1 1 1 sss = same
1 3 1 slr = different
1 2 2 srs = repeat
2 3 3 srs = repeat
3 3 3 sss = same
3 3 2 ssl = repeat
2 2 2 sss =same
1 3 1 llr = repeat
3 2 3 llr = repeat
2 1 3 lll =same
3 1 1 srr = repeat
3 2 1 lll = same
3 1 3 lrl = repeat
1 1 3 rsl = different
3 2 2 sls = repeat
3 3 1 rsr = repeat
2 1 1 rls = different
1 3 1 slr = different
3 3 2 lsl = repeat
1 1 2 lsr = different
2 2 2 sss = same
3 3 2 rsl = different
2 1 1 sls = repeat
1 3 2 sll = repeat
3 2 2 rls = different
1 2 1 lrl = repeat
27 triplet outcomes (based on movements)
===============
repeat = 14
same = 6
different = 7
Interesting that "repeats" are also clearly ahead on movement based recording too! :)
A.
Quote from: Still on Jan 02, 11:38 AM 2016
Haven't figured this out, but what i observe with some certainty, at least on this bet, is some similarity to an EC bet Priyanka mentioned and demonstrated in a video posted in this reply last September 11:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15870.msg138322#msg138322)
In that video, an EC bet is selected by spinning the wheel enough times to observe 18/19 unique numbers to show up. Then, the 17 number EC bet is selected from all the unhit numbers left.
In this video, the observation window is shorter, but notice none of the unique numbers that did show up in the first nine spins are included in the 17 number EC bet.
In this series, you can clearly see that the 17 number EC bet is constructed on a "rolling" basis. For example, the 19 hits. So it is not included in the makeup of the next 17 number EC bet, replaced by a 6, a number which has not yet shown up at all.
Now here is an 11 number bet, which i would interpret as a play on a dozen, made up, like the EC bet, on a rolling basis, consisting of sleepy sleepers.
Here is an 8 number bet that i would interpret as some kind of quad play, made up, again, of sleepers on a rolling basis. The 20 has never hit, and gets an extra boost when it comes time to include some kind of progression.
Here we are back to an EC bet, this time made up of 18 numbers, ten of which get a boost according to some progression scheme. The second bet gives an extra .5 to number 1 after a loss, indicating an up-after-a-loss progression of sorts.
Now down to a 5 number bet, constructed the same way as the others, probably representing some custom made line bet. You can see how chips are added after a loss.
So what i suppose, at least in this scenario, is that there are at least four games (EC, dozens, quads, lines) going on with inside numbers (custom constructed with rolling sleepers), besides the .05 (minimum) red EC game going on for whenever there are no bets to be taken on any of the other four games.
It's not clear the logic that switches between the games, but it MIGHT have something to do with Priyanka's VdW scheme where the betting goes back to the .05 red whenever there are "dead runs" or nothing to bet on in any of the other games.
Below find a breakdown of the rolling number EC game demonstrated in the video link posted above:
17 0.05 l 17
3 0.05 w 3
16 0.05 w 16
16 0.05 w
11 0.05 l 11
9 0.05 w 9
6 0.05 l 6
27 0.05 w 27
23 0.05 w 23
2 0.05 l 2
31 0.05 l 31
12 0.05 w 12
3 0.05 w
25 0.05 w 25
18 0.05 w 18
6 0.05 l
19 0.05 19
13 0.05 13
35 0.05 35
11 0.05 l
12 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
11 0.05 l
9 0.05 w
17 0.05 l
27 0.05 w
5 0.05 w 5
28 0.05 l 28
24 0.05 l 24 (19 unique numbers showed, now time to construct a 17 number bet from sleepers)
5 8.5 l 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
33 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
22 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
36 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
15 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
24 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
36 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
25 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
11 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
21 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
13 8.5 l 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 w 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
10 8.5 w blank (not shown on video)
21 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
3 8.5 l blank (not shown on video)
33 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
34 0.05 w
25 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26 29,30,31,32,35
26 8.5 w 1,2,4,6,7,8,12,14,16,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
8 17 w 1,2,4,6,7,12,14,16,18,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
2 8.5 w
13 8.5 l
20 8.5 w
34 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
25 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
35 0.05 l
12 8.5 w 1,4,5,6,7,9,12,14,16,19,23,27,28,29,30,31,32
That's very good detective work from Still on video 1! Perhaps Priyanka is keeping a tally of Cycle Types for ECs, dozens, quads, and lines, and whichever one falls behind, i.e. sleeps, she bets on their "stitched" number counterparts? Not sure why the number bets, substituted by a few additional sleepers, have to add up to a specific number though.
The EC Cycles start out like this:
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LHH
H Then the bet is placed on high numbers, which wins
HLL
LL
LL
LH Then a bet is placed on high numbers, which wins
H Then a bet is placed on high numbers, which wins
When the 3rd Dozen was played as stitched sleeping Numbers, the defining dozen was also trailing behind:
11
121
11
122
2312
22
22
22
213 (oops: mistake!)
323
33
3212
22
23 Bet dozen 3
Tally (Defining Dozen)
1 = 3
2 = 7
3 = 3
Below are the cycles for the earlier video that Still referred to (note: there are exactly 20 cycles after 19 unique numbers showed).
Cycle Same/Different Number, Bet, W/L
17 0.05 l 17
LL 3 0.05 w 3
LL s 16 0.05 w 16
LL s 16 0.05 w
LL s 11 0.05 l 11
LL s 9 0.05 w 9
LL s 6 0.05 l 6
27 0.05 w 27
LHH d 23 0.05 w 23
2 0.05 l 2
HLH d 31 0.05 l 31
12 0.05 w 12
HLL d 3 0.05 w
25 0.05 w 25
LHL d 18 0.05 w 18
LL d 6 0.05 l
19 0.05 19
LHL d 13 0.05 13
35 0.05 35
LHL s 11 0.05 l
LL d 12 0.05 w
LL s 18 0.05 w
LL s 11 0.05 l
LL s 9 0.05 w
LL s 17 0.05 l
27 0.05 w
LHL d 5 0.05 w 5
28 0.05 l 28
LHH d 24 0.05 l 24 (19 unique numbers showed, now time to construct a 17 number bet from sleepers)
5 8.5 l 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
HLH d 33 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
HH d 22 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
HH s 36 8.5 w 1,4,7,8,10,14,15,20,21,22,26,29,30,32,33,34,36
15 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
HLL d 17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
24 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
LHL d 17 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
36 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
LHH d 25 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
11 0.05 l blank (not shown on video)
HLH d 21 0.05 w blank (not shown on video)
13 8.5 l 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
HLL d 3 8.5 w 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,14,16,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
LL d 10 8.5 w blank (not shown on video)
21 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
LHL d 3 8.5 l blank (not shown on video)
LH almost same 33 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26,29,30,31,32,34
LHH d 34 0.05 w
HH d 25 8.5 l 1,2,4,6,7,8,14,16,19,20,23,26 29,30,31,32,35
HH s 26 8.5 w 1,2,4,6,7,8,12,14,16,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
8 17 w 1,2,4,6,7,12,14,16,18,19,20,23,29,30,31,32,35
HLL d 2 8.5 w
LL d 13 8.5 l
20 8.5 w
LHH d 34 0.05 w
18 0.05 w
HLL d 18 0.05 w
25 0.05 w
LHL d 18 0.05 w
35 0.05 l
LHL s 12 8.5 w 1,4,5,6,7,9,12,14,16,19,23,27,28,29,30,31,32
Note sure if cycles really helps here... it doesn't seem like VdW either... so not sure what the Non-Random element is?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 08, 10:44 AM 2016
I don't really understand what rrbb is saying in that quote, but I guess I can test it to see if the same/different percentage remains the same over 1000 > 10,000 cycles?
...
Hi falkor2K15,
It was a question. Nothing more nothing less. When you know what you are looking for, finding it will be a little bit easier.
Before you test thousands of spins and a lot of possible ideas i advice you to read the great discussion between General and Bayes on the other thread of Priyanka. It just might spark an idea of what you are looking for. Combined with the ideas presented by Priyanka which you nicely compiled it might give some guidance in your tests.
;)
Grts rrbb
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 04, 12:07 PM 2015
Ati - You are right and perfect. Now the follow up question that one should ask is we can clearly see there are imperfections here. Is there a potential for us to modify the bet sizes across these positions instead of 1 unit bet uniform to create an edge? I will let you ponder on that.
Now enough of Parrandos and Vdw. Lets look at the third concept which is essentially making the sessions short enough to capture the variations. How on the earth do we do that?
As usual let us take a simple example. Going back to the dozens.
If you see the attached picture, let say you are tracking for 1 repeat of a dozen to happen. Quite often you will find that you will have to track all 3 dozens before a repeat can happen.
Now look at the same thing for 2 repeats of dozen to happen. You will find that you are starting to track lesser number of unique dozen for the second repeat can happen. The bigger the number of repeats you are tracking you will find that the number of unique dozens that you will track on an average will reduce. Translate this to a betting position that offers more options like double street, street or numbers. What do you see? Does this ring any bells?
This is just one way of making your sessions short enough to capture variations. However, I hope this gives a fantastic view of how you can make your playing sessions shorter and take advantage of variance.
This looks like the Holy Grail! We know that the Numbers have to repeat by spin 25; yet we know that we can get 12 unique streets without any of them having repeated once. However, if we are playing for 2 or more repeats of the Streets we may have to track less than 12. I am going to test my Mist Trap system today based on tracking for multiple repeats to see if the BR is less abused or not by the progressions.
Tracking 12 streets only required about 9-10 max when waiting for 2 repeats, but tracking Double Streets x3 looks even better; however, I think Double Streets could still max out, so it's looking like x4 is required to never reach the limit of having to track all 6.
To be ultra safe it looks like 5 repeats are needed to be tracked on the Double Streets! Now I understand what Priyanka meant by "Short Sessions". The amount of tracking spins is increased, but the amount of actual spins where bets are placed are reduced significantly. This looks very much like the Holy Grail before we even look at modifying it for more Non-Random and increasing odds/variance.
Quote
This looks very much like the Holy Grail before we even look at modifying it for more Non-Random and increasing odds/variance.
Bridgekeeper: Stop. What... is your name?
King Falkor: It is 'Falkor', King of the Britons.
Bridgekeeper: What... is your quest?
King Falkor: To seek the Holy Grail.
Bridgekeeper: What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
King Arthur: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that...!!!!
[Bridgekeeper is thrown over the bridge]
Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh!
Sir Bedevere: How do know so much about swallows?
King Falkor: Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know. :)
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=_7iXw9zZrLo
A.
Actually, the sessions seem to be getting longer when tracking 5 repeats of a line - 4 seems the shortest but can still max out. It may or may not be the Holy Grail, but I don't fancy figuring out mad progressions again. Therefore, I think I am going to code the Quads system next as quite a lot of Priyanka's play has been figured out in that, and she said it gains 9% edge!
So far so good... I managed to get the "same" percentage as Priyanka for Quads! :)
(link:://s32.postimg.org/dqaowyvv9/image.png)
(link:://s32.postimg.org/aeurmmxn9/image.png)
The rest of the stats are also matching... but I am still not sure why cycles defined by a "different" quad to previous are never of length 1?
(link:://s32.postimg.org/714ip92hh/image.png)
(link:://s32.postimg.org/7lumieus5/image.png)
Priyanka's spreadsheet has 1 error on cycle length 4 (different).
Oh I get it now: if it's length 1 then it has to be the same as the previous. It can't possibly be different.
Falkor - read carefully the replies from Rayman from rrbb. Perhaps the part where he talked about how many uniques. That holds the key between differentiating from spins to events and the dependency it creates. There is nothing new or not shared with you that I want to share. In that note, I will be gone for some time now. Until I return, GOOD LUCK
QuoteThat holds the key between differentiating from spins to events and the dependency it creates. There is nothing new or not shared with you that I want to share.
Priyanka, your writing style is usually very coherent, but this is rather cryptic to my limited comprehension skills... I wish you could be more explicit. Are you under oath or something? :)
I am going to next look at coding some of the possible rules relating to video 5:
The most common bet/rule is at the end of a cycle:
Quote9 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet.
1) Why does Priyanka bet the remaining 3 quads besides the one that defined the previous cycle?
Quote9 1 1
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W
2) Why does Priyanka then often proceed to betting the last 2 quads that appeared previously?
3) After (1) and (2) sometimes Priyanka makes no bet - possibly based on waiting for a virtual win or loss - why? How does that work exactly?
Quote15 2 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 3 No bet
9 1 Bet 2 - 4 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
11 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
23 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
4) Sometimes Priyanka bets the 2 missing Quads - possibly related to betting for a given cycle length (in this case a cycle length 3); is that true?
5) Sometimes Priyanka will bet during the middle of a cycle - possibly related again to the cycle length target, though I'm not so sure?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 10, 08:01 AM 2016
Priyanka, your writing style is usually very coherent, but this is rather cryptic to my limited comprehension skills... I wish you could be more explicit. Are you under oath or something? :)
I wish. But yeah am under oath, hence I can't. Let me take one last attempt.
You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it. What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below.
Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this.
One more thing. In the tree that you are publishing from the excel that I have shared, is there any elements that can be swapped around so that it gives you the view above? In the hurry before sending the excel I forgot to modify the title of one column. That is the reason there are two columns with cycle lengths. Does that give away anything?
Thanks Priyanka, nice to get a dialogue going with you again! Are you a member of the Freemasons or Jesuits? :question: I'll try to ponder what you are saying... the main problem I found is something more basic: I am having difficulty figuring out the Non-Random element in your videos unless it's simply the fact you are playing them in finite cycles as your only Non-Random contribution to each strategy. Certainly I cannot spot any VdW in your videos even though that's been a main theme of your topic.
Anyway, I got some promising results come through here from testing the first rule against the Quad cycles:
>End of Cycle: except for Cycle Length 1 bet the other 3 Quads.
Win!
Win Total: 1254 (75.09%)
Lose Total: 416 (24.91%)
+18
>End of Cycle: only for Cycle Length 1 bet the other 3 Quads.
Win!
Win Total: 1954 (72.67%)
Lose Total: 735 (27.33%)
-756
>End of Cycle: For any Cycle Length bet the other 3 Quads.
Win Total: 3208 (73.59%)
Lose Total: 1151 (26.41%)
-738
Now we can see why Priyanka uses that particular rule (i.e. missing out cycle length 1) as opposed to other bet selections. I think that result deserves a drink tonight!! >:D
Actually, those results were:
1) > Cycle Length 2
2) < Cycle Length 3
3) All Cycle Lengths
> Cycle Length 1 is actually negative too:
Win Total: 2417 (73.44%)
Lose Total: 874 (26.56%)
-618
So I guess Priyanka's edge must come from the right combination of rules, so isn't going to be easy to crack...
Cycle length 4
Win!
Win Total: 311 (73.87%)
Lose Total: 110 (26.13%)
All the edge is coming from Cycle Length 3 for that particular bet rule:
Win!
Win Total: 943 (75.56%)
Lose Total: 305 (24.44%)
+84
Let me try a different data set to confirm this is sweet, lovely, edge! :)
Damn... Betting after Cycle length 3 failed on my 2nd data set (lost about 500) so is nothing but curve fitting! >:( Oh well, the drink is off, but my health is back on instead. Back to the drawing board with this Quads/cycles system...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 10, 11:52 AM 2016
Damn... Betting after Cycle length 3 failed on my 2nd data set (lost about 500) so is nothing but curve fitting! >:( Oh well, the drink is off, but my health is back on instead. Back to the drawing board with this Quads/cycles system...
Hi Falkor,
Please spend some time on the last post of Priyanka. She gives some really amazing hints (to my taste she is too generous). Take you time, do not rush. You will not get it by running around and hoping you will bump into it. The probability that that will happen is extremely small.
rrbb
QuoteYou start at the top with the first spin.
You have two possibilities for the next spin:
1. A repeat. Out of 3 possible dozens you can only pick one (the first spin)-> 1/3 this ends our spincycle of length one!
2. No repeat. Out of 3 possibilities you can choose from 2 (no repeat of the first spin)-> 2/3.
For the next spin we again have 2 possibilities
A. A repeat. Now we have 2 possibilities to choose from (2/3). But remember: to reach this point, we first had to choose the second spin to be no repeat!
The total probability of a repeat on the second spin equals 2/3 x 2/3, which equals 4/9.
...
In the same fashion you can calculate the probability that a repeat on dozens occurs on the previous "defining" dozen: 17/27 (which is of course Priyanka's 63%)
The probability on any dozen is of course 1/3. But Under the condition of a repeat, the probability is "suddenly" 17/27.
This discussion seems interesting, but I don't think it's relevant to what rrbb and Priyanka were trying to communicate today?
QuoteYou made a very good remark. Something like "notice she does not bet on a repeat on the first spin". This is true, but just write down the number of unique numbers in a cycle, and you will be able to observe 2 other things.
This is the same as writing down the Cycle Length?
QuoteIndeed! It is not only quads! The betselection is also based on the first principle priyanka introduced. To answer 3nine's earlier question: in the nice worked out scheme of Ray you can quickly see the number of unique quads in a cycle! As i use cycles a long time, i do not need trackers...
because it makes no sense to bet on 4 unique quads, and because there is no bet on cycles of length 1 (as Ray observed) ...(you fill in the dots).
Is this a winning method? No, i do not think so. But it is an extremely clever showcase of how VdW (there you have it, i spilled the beans) can be applied. And as Ray indicated: it might just open a whole new way of selecting bets etc.
Is Priyanka actually applying VdW? Is that what rrbb and Priyanka are trying to communicate to me?
QuoteHowever, in case VdW is for example used for wins and losses (W, L ==> also a two coloring!) then not...
Is Priyanka applying VdW on wins and losses instead of ECs? Is that was the recent exchange was all about...?
VDW/AP
So i was messing around with RB and i know this alone does not guarantee an edge at face value, But if you think about it and have a little patience it can.
Remember the AP WILL ALWAYS happen but there are two possible ways to run into it that i am aware of
1. You form the AP dead on
2. The AP is formed but missed because you had two options
There is an edge if you wait for it.. *The longer the AP takes to form the higher your chances of hitting
Also you can play two games of 9(18 total spins, 9 each) and one game of pairs(18 total spins but 9 decisions) for a total of 3 games in 18 spins
Just sharing info, hopefully helps someone.
OK, it's possible that Priyanka is using VdW on Wins/Losses, but there is some inconsistencies. Nevertheless, I'll try to entertain the possibility in my simulator based on 3 rules that Priyanka seems to employ after the end of a cycle of length > 1:
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the "other quads"
24 3 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
The above is the ideal 3 steps. The last bet seems to be a way of trying to go for the repeat.
For cycle length 1 since most of these cycles will repeat instead of the "other quads" hitting, she only seems to adopt the 2nd and the 3rd rules - providing we get past the first spin:
25 3 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
The above is the ideal world, but often we don't get to the 2nd spin. So I'll simulate these triple/double rules every cycle whilst looking back over the previous 7-8 win/loss results to see if an AP can be formed. If the AP can be formed then I will bet chips, otherwise I will bet zero chips.
...if this works then VdW must be some kind of supernatural phenomenon! :) If this makes a profit then I'll eat glass...
Please watch the video again. I'm not sure why Ray wrote it out that way but Priyanka never bet on more than 2 quads. Not once, so "all other quads" never applies.
Quote from: 3Nine on May 10, 08:29 PM 2016Priyanka never bet on more than 2 quads. Not once, so "all other quads" never applies.
He often bets low ec and quad 4 or high ec and quad 1.
I checked falkors vid assessment against mine and the bets were as he said.
Some bets are on 3 quads
QuoteDoes the clash here appears because we have a possibility of betting both black and red. What if we tie our hands that we cannot bet black and we can bet only red. Does this clash happen. Does this handicap situation of betting only one colour makes this theorem more workable from a VdW perspective. Does this handicap really a handicap or is it a boon in some form making us lose less?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
Perhaps this is a reference to Priyanka using VdW only on wins?
I tried playing VdW on wins/losses, but I broke even each time:
(link:://s32.postimg.org/c8kq6wuxx/vdw.png)
Hmm... I found one way to make that data +18 instead of 0 using VdW! :o :o :o This could be it!!
It could just be curve fitting, but I better not reveal it just yet... let me do more testing...
Nah, none of this VdW stuff is working for me in the long run... I'll share my ideas anyway as it failed:
(link:://s32.postimg.org/qvihetj51/image.png)
When you look to complete the AP there can be a gap of 0, 1, 2 or 3 between the integers used to form the AP, so I just bet when there was a gap of 2:
1,4,7 and 2,5,9
Here it made +18, but it was just a fluke...
Sorry, correction (not enough time to edit post before it becomes locked):
1,4,7 and 2,5,8 and 3,6,9 (those all have a gap of 2)
BTW, it's worth mentioning that Priyanka's Quads system seems rubbish: it performs very poorly when betting every spin (see attached), so I can only assume it's been tweaked to work specifically with a Non-Random scheme.
link:s://:.sendspace.com/file/zkmvt6
Edit:forum attachments no longer enabled here.
Falkor,
What is the purpose of all this???
I will make a prediction: after years of testing and millions of posts like these you will conclude it can not be done. my proposal would be to accept that this is extremely difficult, if possible at all.
Again: you will NOT find it by blindly trying.
rrbb, aren't you the one who said that Priyanka might be using VdW on wins/losses, hence my recent experiments - guided by you? :question:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 11, 10:27 AM 2016
rrbb, aren't you the one who said that Priyanka might be using VdW on wins/losses, hence my recent experiments - guided by you? :question:
I said spend some time on it, not trying every system in the world with VdW and posting why it will not work. You had this great conversation with Priyanka at the start of this thread. She did explain why it will not work as it is. Something else is needed. Otherwise, forget it. And no, you will never find it by chance!
Check out the video that RayManZ analyzed. Well actually you do not need to as he wrote down all the spins etc. Work with this for a couple of week, Priyanka even gave a nice spreadsheet, why not add the numbers of RayManZ in it? Print it out, and spend a weekend in the sun glazing over it: use RayManZ analysis and try to understand what happens, use a remark I made and see what comes of it.
i will guarantee you that you will find a possible way of using VdW. In doing so, you might also see what she is actually trying to convey. It is NOT a system, it is a mindset.
good luck!
By the way simulations are OK to gain insights and stuff
rrbb, I've already analysed Priyanka's Quads video in detail, but it seems impossible to reverse-engineer since there's no pattern - and you did say we will never find it by chance? I can't see how VdW is being used on it's own and I certainly can't see what it's paired up with - particularly if we are looking for another Non-Random strategy to go hand-in-hand with VdW. Since there is no pattern to what Priyanka is doing - and Non-Random theorems are not easy to come by (we only know less than a handful) - how can gazing at her sessions figure out the missing play elements? For example, at the beginning she just waited for the end of a cycle and then started betting without waiting for an AP to form. One time she just started betting in the middle of a cycle. She may know how to beat the game, but I don't think she's given sufficient clues. She began by posting about VdW but all her videos looks nothing remotely like VdW. You think she's been more than generous, but perhaps you are both deluded in thinking that we can reach the same conclusions as you by the insufficient information provided? If I am wrong then I apologise, but there's nothing obvious to any of this.. it's like trying to figure out the Galaxy chocolate recipe just from eating it and telling me it tastes chocolaty and creamy...
QuoteSometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 11, 11:07 AM 2016
rrbb, I've already analysed Priyanka's Quads video in detail, but it seems impossible to reverse-engineer since there's no pattern - and you did say we will never find it by chance? I can't see how VdW is being used on it's own and I certainly can't see what it's paired up with - particularly if we are looking for another Non-Random strategy to go hand-in-hand with VdW. Since there is no pattern to what Priyanka is doing - and Non-Random theorems are not easy to come by (we only know less than a handful) - how can gazing at her sessions figure out the missing play elements? For example, at the beginning she just waited for the end of a cycle and then started betting without waiting for an AP to form. One time she just started betting in the middle of a cycle. She may know how to beat the game, but I don't think she's given sufficient clues. She began by posting about VdW but all her videos looks nothing remotely like VdW. You think she's been more than generous, but perhaps you are both deluded in thinking that we can reach the same conclusions as you by the insufficient information provided? If I am wrong then I apologise, but there's nothing obvious to any of this.. it's like trying to figure out the Galaxy chocolate recipe just from eating it and telling me it tastes chocolaty and creamy...
Look better. It's there! Thats all i can say. Again, use the data and analysis of RayManZ.
You make a crucial thinking mistake: why dou you assume Priyanka uses VdW in numbers or wins? What other "numbers" are there? What did i propose to RayManZ???
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 05:14 AM 2016numbers in the cycles
Quote from: rrbb on May 03, 05:14 AM 2016You might want to add the number of unique numbers in the cycles. The betting scheme in the last section of your reversed engineered work then also becomes clear: "suddenly" a new bet is added... and a part of the "earlier" bet (consisting of two parts) also changed "suddenly"
As for the "bets" that make no sense: I did not look at the video (too much detail ;-)) but my guess is that some minor things got lost in translation.
Again impressive work RayManZ!
This is what was recommended....
Lost by this comment "the number of Unique numbers in a cycle?" does that mean individual numbers not groups?
Quote from: rrbb on May 11, 11:26 AM 2016
Look better. It's there! Thats all i can say. Again, use the data and analysis of RayManZ.
You make a crucial thinking mistake: why dou you assume Priyanka uses VdW in numbers or wins? What other "numbers" are there? What did i propose to RayManZ???
You suggested VdW on wins before since you argued that W/L has 2 values like R and B (and it was in the same discussion over RayManZ's analysis of the Quads video)...
To RayManZ you proposed to count the number of "uniques" in the cycle, i.e. the Cycle Length minus the repeater, perhaps, so we are left with 1, 2 or 3 uniques per cycle since those cycles of length 1 are ignored.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 11, 11:51 AM 2016
You suggested VdW on wins before since you argued that W/L has 2 values like R and B (and it was in the same discussion over RayManZ's analysis of the Quads video)...
To RayManZ you proposed to count the number of "uniques" in the cycle, i.e. the Cycle Length minus the repeater, perhaps, so we are left with 1, 2 or 3 uniques per cycle since those cycles of length 1 are ignored.
Hi falkor,
I did not suggest to use VdW on wins and losses! I just mentioned one could do that. VdW is extremely versatile: one could use it on number partitions (like high/lows), length of cycles, wins/losses, you name it.
And concerning rayman: i think i said more: rayman noticed priyanka did not bet on cycles of length one. I mentioned something along the line that betting on 4 unique quads doesn't make sense. How many "lengths" are than left to bet on?
???
Quote from: MoneyT101 on May 11, 11:39 AM 2016
This is what was recommended....
Lost by this comment "the number of Unique numbers in a cycle?" does that mean individual numbers not groups?
Download the excel of priyanka: the wuestion to your answer is right there
I try to capture the last leg of a quad-line by betting that a line will have only ONE repeat quad in it. I bet using the H/L and Q1 or Q2 or Q3 or Q4.
eg:
3-1-2 To bet for a repeat quad it is needed to cover LOW + Quad3 then if ONE of the 3-1-2 repeats it is a WINNER!
3-1-2-1 = the bet was on L+Q3. Result=LOW. Win.
Currently I stop after a L and wait for a virtual win line. (a line with one repeat quad)
If I get a treble quad like 1-1-1 or 4-4-4 it is a NO BET.
3 1 2 2 bet L+Q3 = w
3 4 1 1 bet H+Q1 = w
3 2 4 3 bet H+Q2 = w
3 1 4 3 bet H+Q1 = w
1 4 3 2 bet H+Q1 = L
1 3 4 2 NO BET
4 4 1 3 vwin
1 2 1 3 bet H+Q2 = w
1 1 1 2 NO BET
1 2 3 1 bet L+Q3 = w
3 1 1 3 bet H+Q2 = w
2 1 4 1 bet L+Q4 = w
4 3 4 4 bet L+Q3 = L
1 1 1 2 NO BET
4 2 1 3 NO BET
3 3 4 3 NO BET
1 1 2 3 vwin
1 1 4 3 bet L+Q3 = w
2 1 3 1 bet L+Q3 = w
1 3 4 1 bet H+Q1 = w
1 4 3 4 bet H+Q1 =w
4 2 2 2 bet L+Q4 = w
4 4 2 3 bet L+Q3 = w
1 1 3 4 bet H+Q2 = w
2 3 3 2 bet H+Q1 = L
2 1 4 2 vwin
1 2 2 3 bet H+Q1 = w
1 3 2 4 bet L+Q3 = L
2 3 4 2 vwin
2 1 4 1 bet L+Q4 = w
2 3 1 3 bet L+Q3 = w
3 3 1 1 bet L+Q4 = w
3 4 3 2 bet L+Q4 = w
3 2 4 2 bet H+Q2 = w
2 3 4 2 bet H+Q2 = w
3 4 1 2 bet H+Q1 = L
2 2 1 2 NO BET
3 4 4 4 NO BET
2 3 2 1 vwin
3 3 3 4 NO BET
1 2 3 2 bet L+Q4 = w
4 2 4 2 bet L+Q3 = w
4 2 3 4 bet H+Q2 = w
4 1 3 4 bet H+Q1 = w
1 3 2 4 bet L+Q3 = L
1 2 2 3 vwin
1 1 2 1 NO BET
4 1 1 1 bet L+Q3 = w
3 1 1 3 bet L+Q3 = w
3 3 4 3 NO BET
4 1 4 2 bet L+Q3 = w
Maybe there is something good in this?
Regards,
A.
Quote from: atlantis on May 11, 02:32 PM 20163 1 2 2 bet L+Q3 = w
3 4 1 1 bet H+Q1 = w simple, bet 341 for one repeat in the line of 4. I get it :thumbsup:
3 2 4 3 bet H+Q2 = w
3 1 4 3 bet H+Q1 = w
1 4 3 2 bet H+Q1 = L
1 3 4 2 NO BET
4 4 1 3 vwin
1 2 1 3 bet H+Q2 = w why do we bet on quad 2? Just 3 or 4 are required to give 1 repeat. 2 is betting for 2 repeats.
1 1 1 2 NO BET
1 2 3 1 bet L+Q3 = w
3 1 1 3 bet H+Q2 = w
2 1 4 1 bet L+Q4 = w
4 3 4 4 bet L+Q3 = L
1 1 1 2 NO BET
4 2 1 3 NO BET
3 3 4 3 NO BET
1 1 2 3 vwin
1 1 4 3 bet L+Q3 = w
Atlantis........some questions in red
Quote from: rrbb on May 05, 05:18 AM 2016
The transformational part in this search
RRBB and Priyanka as the persons who owns the Philosopher's s Stone advocates that with so much power some other values other then financial ones should come in the first place.Such power must be directed in helping others too, not only in meeting our own raw passions.
Supposedly making our way to retrieving the stone should reincarnate us in a certain way. But we have so many hints at this time. Does that means that we are much closer to the revealing of the secret, and that our path wont be hard enough, so we wont be able to transform ourselves in the right way? Why advocacy of reincarnation through the hard work, and facilitating of it in the same time?
Is all that just a bunch of philosophical crap or something really important what Priyanka and RRbb passed through? How they acted before transformation then?
Cheers
Quote from: rrbb on May 11, 01:48 PM 2016
Hi falkor,
I did not suggest to use VdW on wins and losses! I just mentioned one could do that. VdW is extremely versatile: one could use it on number partitions (like high/lows), length of cycles, wins/losses, you name it.
And concerning rayman: i think i said more: rayman noticed priyanka did not bet on cycles of length one. I mentioned something along the line that betting on 4 unique quads doesn't make sense. How many "lengths" are than left to bet on?
???
:thumbsup: I'm going to come up with some new stats today and then look at some combined stats between cycles - but I can only envisage this VdW as being some kind of additional stat to aid us alongside the other stats - I cannot see why/how it (Non-Random) takes primacy.
QuoteMathematically, there is only one way to beat the roulette and that is through seeing the game with a non-random lens.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
A non-random lens or a VdW lens?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 12, 03:33 AM 2016
:thumbsup: I'm going to come up with some new stats today and then look at some combined stats between cycles - but I can only envisage this VdW as being some kind of additional stat to aid us alongside the other stats - I cannot see why/how it (Non-Random) takes primacy.
Hi falkor,
Now, that seems like a good idea! And a good remark.
One more hint, and then i'm out of posts:
At the beginning you had a great discussion with Priyanka about VdW remember? She gave a list of occurences of L, W, LW etc.
Her question was: how can you tip the balance? Think about that question. if i would tell you, you would go like "duhh". Just write down the list she gave, but without the numbers or percentages. The answer is there.
The answer will put many of the things Priyanka said in a new light!
Quote from: Drazen on May 12, 03:15 AM 2016
RRBB and Priyanka as the persons who owns the Philosopher's s Stone advocates that with so much power some other values other then financial ones should come in the first place.Such power must be directed in helping others too, not only in meeting our own raw passions.
Supposedly making our way to retrieving the stone should reincarnate us in a certain way. But we have so many hints at this time. Does that means that we are much closer to the revealing of the secret, and that our path wont be hard enough, so we wont be able to transform ourselves in the right way? Why advocacy of reincarnation through the hard work, and facilitating of it in the same time?
Is all that just a bunch of philosophical crap or something really important what Priyanka and RRbb passed through? How they acted before transformation then?
Cheers
Good questions indeed!
No, i think all of you work hard, are creative and basically deserve answers.
I hope you understand i just can't spell it out. The only thing i can do is say:"go and discover for yourself"
Do with it what you like!
Good luck!
Quote from: Drazen on May 12, 03:15 AM 2016Is all that just a bunch of philosophical crap
Hmmm....esoteric is the word I keep using.
It certainly qualifies for that on a few levels.
Trouble with this is the motive behind the post. Not particularly this post...but posts of this " drip feed" nature....mixed in with hear say that a few people have been told in PM...just to keep people guessing.
You have the nagging doubt that if anyone got close....would it be denied....or..lol...the poster leaves.
I dont really like posts like this to be honest.
Quote from: rrbb on May 12, 04:32 AM 2016
Hi falkor,
Now, that seems like a good idea! And a good remark.
One more hint, and then i'm out of posts:
At the beginning you had a great discussion with Priyanka about VdW remember? She gave a list of occurences of L, W, LW etc.
Her question was: how can you tip the balance? Think about that question. if i would tell you, you would go like "duhh". Just write down the list she gave, but without the numbers or percentages. The answer is there.
The answer will put many of the things Priyanka said in a new light!
I'll have a think about this one... could it be to do with converting the outcomes into their opposite components and then playing just for 3 wins max?
W
L
LW
LL
LLW
LLL
LLLW
LLLL
L
W
WL
WW
WWL
WWW
WWWL
WWWW
Quote from: Turner on May 11, 04:44 PM 2016
Atlantis........some questions in red
1) Beneficial because I was playing on 0 with le partage rule (half EC stake returns)
2) Insurance, really - extra coverage just in case the 2 double quads appeared.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on May 12, 06:03 AM 2016
1) Beneficial because I was playing on 0 with le partage rule (half EC stake returns)
2) Insurance, really - extra coverage just in case the 2 double quads appeared.
A.
Cheers mate
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 12, 06:00 AM 2016
I'll have a think about this one... could it be to do with converting the outcomes into their opposite components and then playing just for 3 wins max?
W
L
LW
LL
LLW
LLL
LLLW
LLLL
L
W
WL
WW
WWL
WWW
WWWL
WWWW
If you lose then switch to playing opposite? If you lose again then switch back to normal? Something like that maybe? :question:
Quote from: Turner on May 12, 05:07 AM 2016
Hmmm....esoteric is the word I keep using.
It certainly qualifies for that on a few levels.
Trouble with this is the motive behind the post. Not particularly this post...but posts of this " drip feed" nature....mixed in with hear say that a few people have been told in PM...just to keep people guessing.
You have the nagging doubt that if anyone got close....would it be denied....or..lol...the poster leaves.
I dont really like posts like this to be honest.
Hi Turner,
I understand that sentiment. It's up to you if you believe all this or not but it's all there. Really. And becoming too close and than back of? I think that all hints that were given, for example to RayManZ would prove otherwise.
I don't think switching the bet is the answer. Look at my post #382 in this thread where I break down each possible way through the 512 combinations that can occur. It ends up 50/50. In this situation switching makes no difference to the final result. It has to be something a little more subtle I think.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 12, 06:49 AM 2016
If you lose then switch to playing opposite? If you lose again then switch back to normal? Something like that maybe? :question:
Way too complex falkor. You are thinking in solutions. Do you have a nephew or niece of say preschool age? Replace the L's by apples, and W's by pears. Then think about the right question to ask, and they will give you an answer right away.
The answer is not a solution nor a betting scheme. It is a guide that, combined with all info Priyanka gave, can give some nice results.
Quote from: rrbb on May 12, 07:13 AM 2016
Hi Turner,
I understand that sentiment. It's up to you if you believe all this or not but it's all there. Really. And becoming too close and than back of? I think that all hints that were given, for example to RayManZ would prove otherwise.
Sounded more serious than I meant it to. Its just not the way I work.
Ive enjoyed it and I have got a lot of it but many get frustrated by this way of posting.
Quote
The answer is not a solution nor a betting scheme. It is a guide that, combined with all info Priyanka gave, can give some nice results.
If there is no solution then whatever it is - I doubt whether casinos are really going to be that bothered about it - can't see them closing their doors or changing rules...
Still, I really hope all the hinting, mystery and "cloak and dagger" is worth it all though. Would be so nice after this if it was and the expected "nice results" did materialise on a regular basis.
A.
Nice response - rrbb. "Think of the right question". That is so often the best approach. It sounds so simple but can be so difficult to twist the brain around to do that. But that is where I am going to try to go. Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 08:39 AM 2016
Nice response - rrbb. "Think of the right question". That is so often the best approach. It sounds so simple but can be so difficult to twist the brain around to do that. But that is where I am going to try to go. Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.
I prefer bananas...but hey, thats just part of lifes rich tapestry :thumbsup:
Quote from: rrbb on May 12, 07:38 AM 2016
Way too complex falkor. You are thinking in solutions. Do you have a nephew or niece of say preschool age? Replace the L's by apples, and W's by pears. Then think about the right question to ask, and they will give you an answer right away.
The answer is not a solution nor a betting scheme. It is a guide that, combined with all info Priyanka gave, can give some nice results.
The only thing I can think of is playing 2 VdWs simultaneously - but that's just as complex - no? Surely if there's no logical solutions for 1 VdW then there's no answers to the problem regardless of how subtle it is? All paths lead to 50/50 so no edge is possible with 1 VdW stream? And then anything that is Variance based will just dilute that 50/50 VdW further? The thing I was going to explore was VdW on number of "uniques" in the cycle length, for which all the 3 outcomes are winners in their own right; however, cycle length 4 could make us lose everything.
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 08:39 AM 2016
Nice response - rrbb. "Think of the right question". That is so often the best approach. It sounds so simple but can be so difficult to twist the brain around to do that. But that is where I am going to try to go. Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.
Skipping bets after a win/loss during a single VdW stream - playing normal or opposite - isn't going to change that 50/50, is it?
Probably not - I was just rambling as thoughts popped. So what is the question? In my mind's eye I see that table with apples instead of L's and pears instead of W's (no bananas - sorry Turner). And then I try to become a pre-schooler. Shouldn't be too hard - they say that as you get older you revert more and more to a child-like state. How can I go straight to the pears? or perhaps how can I make it more pears than apples? What are we trying to achieve here? Mix up the pears and apples somehow? Jeez - I dunno.
i have a feeling that its simpler than we thought also....some way of poking in at a bet and when something aligns bet big a few times then retreat... at least some have a figured a new approach
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 09:18 AM 2016
Probably not - I was just rambling as thoughts popped. So what is the question? In my mind's eye I see that table with apples instead of L's and pears instead of W's (no bananas - sorry Turner). And then I try to become a pre-schooler. Shouldn't be too hard - they say that as you get older you revert more and more to a child-like state. How can I go straight to the pears? or perhaps how can I make it more pears than apples? What are we trying to achieve here? Mix up the pears and apples somehow? Jeez - I dunno.
Betting opposite the table has more wins/pears, but when coupled with the figures that are attached to that table then the number of losses add up to the same since they are more frequent even though there is less outcomes that feature them.
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 12, 09:36 AM 2016
i have a feeling that its simpler than we thought also....some way of poking in at a bet and when something aligns bet big a few times then retreat... at least some have a figured a new approach
Pri says that we must first look for the edge before considering progressions.
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 08:39 AM 2016
Nice response - rrbb. "Think of the right question". That is so often the best approach. It sounds so simple but can be so difficult to twist the brain around to do that. But that is where I am going to try to go. Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.
This has possibly gained me between 0.3 and 0.6% edge! But it could just be luck on both data sets I tried... I will run for more spins and see.
It might be a 1.7% edge - not 0.6%. I need to swap out another database in 2 hours time to confirm the 2nd data set also has a similar edge at 100,000 spins like the first data set.
Sorry, these %s are totally inaccurate because my tests involved some 0 chip bets that were counted as wins. I ended up with +107 profit, but I don't know how I would figure out the edge. I will code this more accurately if the edge is consistent across all data sets @ high spin rates.
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 08:39 AM 2016
Nice response - rrbb. "Think of the right question". That is so often the best approach. It sounds so simple but can be so difficult to twist the brain around to do that. But that is where I am going to try to go. Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.
Doesn't dound like rambling to me!
"But uncle, why do you eat so much pears when you do not like them?"
Yep - this seems like edge for sure - but quite small. Losses were 50.1% under normal circumstances, but this also came out with a profit on the 2nd data set @ 100,000 spins. Why so few pears extra... but at least it's something! :)
That little bit of edge is strange and bizarre... I guess you can only do that with VdW... not with playing Red/Black. It equates to about 175 units over 100,000 spins.
I'm just testing the 2nd way of gaining edge using VdW and it's a lot more powerful than the apples and pears method, but I'm not allowed to reveal this on the forum...sorry folks! :girl_to: Priyanka obviously obviously knows what she's talking about. To me this VdW is a very very strange phenomenon! :ooh: :ooh: Consider this game of Roulette beaten - whether it makes it to the official news media or not... :thumbsup: (but I had to suspect Priyanka at the beginning - she was highly highly suspicious! :wink:)
Guys, if you also know these 2 methods then please don't flood the gold market, ok? And remember: this is only the beginning... we've got a long way to go to build on this edge and the imbalances!
I'm going to update the "Concise Reference" soon as there's a lot more useful quotes to go in there... O0
Priyanka, would you be up for an interview sometime...? :question:
Oh come on now! Are you serious? This is a private forum as I understand it. Or are you planning on setting up a private PM group? Those of us left in this thread are all working hard to figure it out. BTW - do you ever sleep? :smile:
QuoteOh come on now! Are you serious? This is a private forum as I understand it. Or are you planning on setting up a private PM group? Those of us left in this thread are all working hard to figure it out. BTW - do you ever sleep?
Did you ever watch the Simpsons and the Rugrats? Apparently, the twin towers were hit by "remote controlled" airplanes before being pulverized to dust using "nuclear" Cold Fusion! The information is PUBLIC in over 100 movies and cartoons... Besides Donald Trump, Priyanka should be in an old episode of the Simpsons somewhere too...
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cJf_NTzCss0
If you want to learn more then come and find me at the market stall where you can purchase apples, pears and a good bunch of bananas!
hey at least you got something out of !! thats good
Quote from: RMore on May 12, 07:32 PM 2016
Oh come on now! Are you serious? This is a private forum as I understand it. Or are you planning on setting up a private PM group? Those of us left in this thread are all working hard to figure it out. BTW - do you ever sleep? :smile:
Good evening RMore
The point of this post is to save you the heartache that will be involved with "chasing falkor"
It is making me sick to my stomach watching Priyankas work fall into his hands
Falkor is a scammer....he has been banned before under another name
Recently, he has started this thread and in this thread he listed priyanka as an enemy: link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16311.0
He posts a plethora of information of which noone really understands. I do not know entirely what his deal is but this is not the first time he has claimed grail. See above link. Time before? claimed he would give the grail after christmas and never did.
Waste of time
this quote from falkor a few posts ago "but I'm not allowed to reveal this on the forum...sorry folks!" NOTHING but hot air
I am NOT stirring anything up. just warning you guys about falkor because you guys are working hard.
Do not chase him for answers
Priyanka never intended this post to turn into " if you also know these 2 methods then please don't flood the gold market, ok?" as Falkor puts it. He is not playing out her agenda he is making it his own.
shoo fly
Quotefalkor please stop ruining priyankas thread
OK sure thing.
Where is Priyanka now....? :question:
OK guys, carry on. I digress. That just needed to be said.
Maybe Pri and rrbb may be dropping these clues to lead Falkner on to mess with him? And others perhaps? There is no basis for an edge in anything in this post. I'm no expert at VDM Theory, but it's just a non random fact no different than saying a dozen will repeat at least once in 4 spins....doesn't help us choose which one to pick.
Original poster
Where are you?
(link:://media2.giphy.com/media/tAjyoBheySPfy/200w.gif)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 12, 08:08 PM 2016
It is making me sick to my stomach watching Priyankas work fall into his hands
Falkor is a scammer....he has been banned before under another name
Recently, he has started this thread and in this thread he listed priyanka as an enemy: link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16311.0
Exactly. I was surprised that this guy got so many replies despite what he said and the way he said to Priyanka.
But I guess that is due to Priyankas wisdom and kindness. She knows he is not the only one who will benefit from it.
Cheers
Quote from: Scarface on May 12, 09:06 PM 2016
Maybe Pri and rrbb may be dropping these clues to lead Falkner on to mess with him? And others perhaps? There is no basis for an edge in anything in this post. I'm no expert at VDM Theory, but it's just a non random fact no different than saying a dozen will repeat at least once in 4 spins....doesn't help us choose which one to pick.
A good post thought with a clear mind
do the results carry over after the 9 spins for vdw? If the reply gives away to much info you can pm me...
ex
R
R
B L
B
B W
R L
B W
B
R L ..........does this L carry over to the next 9 spins to read LLLL? or is it considered just L?
R
B
B
R L
R
B
R
B L
R
B
B L
B W
R
R L
B L
R L
R W
R W
Quote from: Drazen on May 13, 02:24 AM 2016
Exactly. I was surprised that this guy got so many replies despite what he said and the way he said to Priyanka.
But I guess that is due to Priyankas wisdom and kindness. She knows he is not the only one who will benefit from it.
Cheers
Do not worry, the discussed person "runs around like hen without a head" as the saying goes in dutch.
It is NOT possible to bump into a solution to the riddle by chance.
So for the rest: do with the info whatever you like, but please, please. Do not run around like a fool. Take your time, step by step. It is all logical. The basis is simple. No magic involved.
Only use simulations to gain insight i.e answer questions about behavior. Running simulations to test if an hypothesis works us close to foolishness.
Write down the simple principles, and once in a while go over them, and try to simplify them even more.
Do not think to complex like: "maybe when i do a VdW on the results of an VdW and then multiply it by..." Do not forget what you try to achieve!
(Btw a certain person who said that another method works even better than apples an pears really does not onderstand it! Believe me.
In this thread you will not find methods! There are principles, a different mindset and TOOLS.
Step by step, take your time, do not feel rushed
Quote from: MoneyT101 on May 13, 03:27 AM 2016
do the results carry over after the 9 spins for vdw? If the reply gives away to much info you can pm me...
ex
R
R
B L
B
B W
R L
B W
B
R L ..........does this L carry over to the next 9 spins to read LLLL? or is it considered just L?
R
B
B
R L
R
B
R
B L
R
B
B L
B W
R
R L
B L
R L
R W
R W
Whatvis it that you try to achieve? Think about that i would suggest
Quote from: Drazen on May 13, 02:24 AM 2016
Exactly. I was surprised that this guy got so many replies despite what he said and the way he said to Priyanka.
But I guess that is due to Priyankas wisdom and kindness. She knows he is not the only one who will benefit from it.
Cheers
What makes you think you're the nice guy, huh? I bet you bullied people your entire life...
"The current thinking is that bullies mean to inflict emotional and physical pain. They expect the action to hurt and they take pleasure from the distress it causes. That is what we believe to be the case, typically. The bully is quite aware. It’s an imbalance of power. And the bullies understand that. Bullying also tends to be an ongoing event. It happens more than once and it happens over and over again. There’s a pattern."
link:://:.huffingtonpost.com/zorianna-kit/psychologist-bullies-know_b_1387874.html
Quote from: Scarface on May 12, 09:06 PM 2016
Maybe Pri and rrbb may be dropping these clues to lead Falkner on to mess with him? And others perhaps? There is no basis for an edge in anything in this post. I'm no expert at VDM Theory, but it's just a non random fact no different than saying a dozen will repeat at least once in 4 spins....doesn't help us choose which one to pick.
There's a difference I noticed between VdW and betting R/B (besides looking at the graphs). The R/B is comprised of two outcomes to make up the 50/50, but the VdW has several different outcomes that makes up the 50/50.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 13, 03:40 AM 2016
There's a difference I noticed between VdW and betting R/B (besides looking at the graphs). The R/B is comprised of two outcomes to make up the 50/50, but the VdW has several different outcomes that makes up the 50/50.
Interesting...
A.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 13, 03:38 AM 2016
"The current thinking is that bullies mean to inflict emotional and physical pain. They expect the action to hurt and they take pleasure from the distress it causes.
I don't see a way how anyone can be hurt physically here :question: Maybe emotionally in some way but our mods are excellent security guards for that matter.
I am not a bully Falklor. There is no better feeling in the world when you honestly help someone. I assure you.
Cheers
Quote from: Drazen on May 13, 04:01 AM 2016I am not a bully Falklor
of course you are not.
@ Falkor, sometimes when people have english as a second language, they can use English in "too pure" a form, and it can come across as a little harsh.
However, you seem to be from UK so you havnt got that excuse.
I know Drazen well and he is no bully.
Be careful please.
"And relax"
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 13, 03:38 AM 2016
What makes you think you're the nice guy, huh? I bet you bullied people your entire life...
"The current thinking is that bullies mean to inflict emotional and physical pain. They expect the action to hurt and they take pleasure from the distress it causes. That is what we believe to be the case, typically. The bully is quite aware. It’s an imbalance of power. And the bullies understand that. Bullying also tends to be an ongoing event. It happens more than once and it happens over and over again. There’s a pattern."
link:://:.huffingtonpost.com/zorianna-kit/psychologist-bullies-know_b_1387874.html
Thinking of the time, where you instantly and unforced started to attack me, makes me laugh about this post.
winkel
Quote from: winkel on May 13, 05:11 AM 2016
Thinking of the time, where you instantly and unforced started to attack me, makes me laugh about this post.
winkel
Professor winkel, stop holding grudges - let them go...
Noone is being a bully
However Priyanka never intended this to be turned into what you are turning it into
You can start another thread saying dont to share findings of you so wish
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 13, 06:31 AM 2016
Noone is being a bully
However Priyanka never intended this to be turned into what you are turning it into
You can start another thread saying dont to share findings of you so wish
I agree. Falkor, you spent a long time itemising this thread elsewhere. Why dont you place ALL of your thoughts in there?.
You have a lot of them.
Turner, I am going to update that thread this weekend as well as rebuild my VdW machine.
Can VdW on R/B be exploited more if played in cycles where the last result is used as the first result of the next cycle? Would it be 9 spins each time or until an AP is formed? That leads me to my next question: if we come across multiple sequences (or clashes) what are the rules for looking back in time to figure out which colour is more likely to complete their AP? Lastly, can VdW be used to predict the future?
In my opinion. You really really really need a blog. This way you can put all your thoughts without hijacking a thread
Again, priyanka never handed you the torch
This is the biggest edge I managed to gain so far after 100K spins from flat-betting, without any progression or other stats (332 profit), but I need to tweak it as I think more edge can still be squeezed out...
(link:://s32.postimg.org/9np8dp7k5/edge.png)
I'm just as confused regarding this thread as the next guy, but here's how I've been thinking.
Taking the apples and pears for example.
Since apples and pears just like Reds and Blacks are mutually exclusive, meaning they don't have anything in common, why do we want to look for an edge using just the two?
Just Red and Black doesen't raise our propability to make a hit, nor will they by just combining them two give us an edge. So if I would choose, I would want to add another EC like, Reds and Odds to raise the propability to later find one.
Even though this is a mindset we use Quads just as an example. So if we look at the first Quad, we see that we have 5 Reds and 5 Odds, and 4 Blacks and 4 Evens.
By using Quads we won't just raise our propability by using Red and Odd, Black and Even, but combining them along with Cycles and VdW to make our bets more accurate and maybe find an edge.
This could also be applied to any other bet selection from what I can see, like Lines and Dozens/Columns aswell and should be easy enough to keep track in the head.
I haven't taking this much into practice and again, I might just be rambling and I hope I won't mislead anyone, I could be wrong.
Here's the VdW on the "Quads" video we were analyzing earlier... why does Priyanka miss out a bet on row 22? VdW suggests she is due to complete an AP on 1 unique!? And it's not like she withholds a bet the next time 111 is due, so there's no rhyme nor reason to her decision.
(link:://s32.postimg.org/s8n7v8839/Untitled_1.png)
Falkor - this is probably the nth time am saying this. You will not get anywhere analysing my videos. My videos are just there to show some concepts I explained in theory.
QuoteTry playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.
Here's how I gained a whisker of an edge after 10,000 spins: (ignore the bug that says LOW HIGH after the number - just concentrate on the number itself)
Dozens transfer turned off - dataset 1(link:://s32.postimg.org/5g91wlpbp/d1off.png)
Dozens transfer turned on - dataset 1(link:://s32.postimg.org/v1m8mqmwl/d1on.png)
Dozens transfer turned off - dataset 2(link:://s32.postimg.org/y75vmnv5h/d2off.png)
Dozens transfer turned on - dataset 2(link:://s32.postimg.org/gie4v1jed/d2on.png)
Compare the before and after for datasets 1 & 2; notice the losses are slightly reduced with this feature turned on? :question:
I doubt that actually did anything - I probably lost less because I bet less! :twisted: :lol:
Next test will actually be to alternate games - until somebody offers some more tips... :wink:
falkor
start your own thread
and EXPLAIN WTF you are doing
PLEASE
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/3osxYv6bZUlrCEtYkw/giphy.gif)
I might have to give up soon with VdW...
I tried alternating games based on wins and losses, but the bankroll just kept going down...
I tried playing first to 3 games, but the bankroll just kept going down...
I tried mixing up different spin numbers to form different APs, but the bankroll just kept going down...
I don't think I've got anything left to try with VdW... I'll have a look at cycles next, but it will have to be without VdW because nobody has the foggiest on how it can possibly be used...
QuoteLet me take another example of a game, to illustrate a different game you can play. You can play the fastest colour to reach 3 to complete an AP. Take a set of spins that we saw earlier.
Spin R/B Fastest to 3
18 R
19 R
19 R Red wins. Outcome 1
9 R
31 B
21 R
17 B
25 R Red wins. outcome 1. Now play for AP to complete on red to become fastest to achieve 3.
26 B
27 R
36 R Bet red.
31 B Black appears. Loss. Bet red.
17 B Loss. Outcome 2. Our outcomes read 112
34 R
13 B
0 0
12 R
26 B
12 R Red is fastest. Our outcomes read 1121
12 R
10 B
36 R
12 R Red fastest. Outcomes read 11211. Outcome 1 on next set will complete the AP
18 R
23 R
0 0 Loss.
1 R Win. End of set. It read LLLW for this set.
10 B
6 B
30 R
Some stats I did over 10,000 spins:
Max lose count = max number of losses in a row
Total losses = total times the other colour reached the finish line first
As for bankroll there's no advantage I can see...
First to two games
Max win count = 10; Max lose count = 11
Total wins: 305; Total losses: 314
First to three games
Max win count = 8; Max lose count = 12
Total wins: 235; Total losses: 140
First to four games starting at two
Max win count = 13; Max lose count = 12
Total wins: 142; Total losses: 122
First to four games starting at three
Max win count = 8; Max lose count = 8
Total wins: 178; Total losses: 86
First to five games starting at four
Max win count = 9; Max lose count = 11
Total wins: 153; Total losses: 51
First to six games starting at five
Max win count = 9; Max lose count = 12
Total wins: 122; Total losses: 43
First to 15 games starting at 14
Max win count = 9; Max lose count = 11
Total wins: 46; Total losses: 13
First to 20 games starting at 19
Max win count = 6; Max lose count = 7
Total wins: 36; Total losses: 7
First to 30 games starting at 29
Max win count = 4; Max lose count = 12
Total wins: 25; Total losses: 3
First to 50 games starting at 49
Max win count = 8; Max lose count = 3
Total wins: 15; Total losses: 1
First to 55 games starting at 54
Max win count = 3; Max lose count = 8
Total wins: 12; Total losses: 3
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 14, 06:54 PM 2016
... start your own thread and EXPLAIN WTF...
Sorry RG, WTF is taken!
Thanks a lot for this thread Priyanka!
Id like ask in 500 spins we have 63%, but when i decreased to 100 spins, percent changing from 45 to 80%.
It means need at least few hundred spins for keep constant.
Greetings.
I got some new stats on the Quads now:
Defined by Total (same): 2424 (55.61%) (different): 1935 (44.39%)
Uniques Total (same): 1311 (39.48%) (different): 2010 (60.52%)
Length Totals 1: 1038 (24.08%) 2: 1569 (36.40%) 3: 1235 (28.65%) 4: 469 (10.88%)
Length Totals (same) 1: 1038 (43.00%) 2: 809 (33.51%) 3: 438 (18.14%) 4: 129 (5.34%)
Length Totals (different) 1: 0 (0.00%) 2: 760 (40.06%) 3: 797 (42.01%) 4: 340 (17.92%)
uniques Totals 1: 1569 (47.94%) 2: 1235 (37.73%) 3: 469 (14.33%)
uniques Totals (same) 1: 777 (59.31%) 2: 470 (35.88%) 3: 63 (4.81%)
uniques Totals (different) 1: 792 (40.35%) 2: 765 (38.97%) 3: 406 (20.68%)
It seems that by skipping cycle length 1 we've pushed "different" up to 60.52% and "same" has gone below 50%. Before our best odds were with "same" at 55.61%, so I think that's how we take advantage of the cycle length?
I got more detailed stats here - check this out:
1 Uniques to 1: 777 2: 558 3: 211
2 Uniques to 1: 560 2: 470 3: 186
3 Uniques to 1: 211 2: 189 3: 63
Data set 1
1 Uniques to 1: 807 2: 590 3: 210
2 Uniques to 1: 576 2: 459 3: 170
3 Uniques to 1: 224 2: 158 3: 61
Data set 2
That's consistent and more accurate than "same" or "different"! :thumbsup:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 15, 05:47 PM 2016
I got some new stats on the Quads now:
Defined by Total (same): 2424 (55.61%) (different): 1935 (44.39%)
Uniques Total (same): 1311 (39.48%) (different): 2010 (60.52%)
Length Totals 1: 1038 (24.08%) 2: 1569 (36.40%) 3: 1235 (28.65%) 4: 469 (10.88%)
Length Totals (same) 1: 1038 (43.00%) 2: 809 (33.51%) 3: 438 (18.14%) 4: 129 (5.34%)
Length Totals (different) 1: 0 (0.00%) 2: 760 (40.06%) 3: 797 (42.01%) 4: 340 (17.92%)
uniques Totals 1: 1569 (47.94%) 2: 1235 (37.73%) 3: 469 (14.33%)
uniques Totals (same) 1: 777 (59.31%) 2: 470 (35.88%) 3: 63 (4.81%)
uniques Totals (different) 1: 792 (40.35%) 2: 765 (38.97%) 3: 406 (20.68%)
It seems that by skipping cycle length 1 we've pushed "different" up to 60.52% and "same" has gone below 50%. Before our best odds were with "same" at 55.61%, so I think that's how we take advantage of the cycle length?
Don't waste time testing this one. I thought by skipping the first spin on a new quad cycle would give an advantage, but it doesnt. Wins and losses still come up as they should statistically
Quote from: Scarface on May 15, 06:35 PM 2016
Don't waste time testing this one. I thought by skipping the first spin on a new quad cycle would give an advantage, but it doesnt. Wins and losses still come up as they should statistically
But those uniques to uniques test results are to die for! I tried similar tests with different systems, but the results were never consistent across data sets because they were not within a finite cycles framework. This is the first time I've ever seen such a pattern that's consistent - not curve fitted. I could be wrong but this should gain edge without any VdW... I can understand why you are warning me, Scarface! ;)
1 Cycle Lengths to 1: 240 2: 353 3: 315 4: 117
2 Cycle Lengths to 1: 396 2: 588 3: 407 4: 158
3 Cycle Lengths to 1: 288 2: 446 3: 351 4: 138
4 Cycle Lengths to 1: 104 2: 165 3: 148 4: 49
1 Cycle Lengths to 1: 255 2: 381 3: 292 4: 123
2 Cycle Lengths to 1: 389 2: 615 3: 459 4: 147
3 Cycle Lengths to 1: 289 2: 447 3: 347 4: 127
4 Cycle Lengths to 1: 117 2: 171 3: 112 4: 45
O0
QuoteEverythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.
... This will be my last post here and am not returning after this.
Have I been a good student? :smile:
Defined by 1 to 1: 574 2: 161 3: 160 4: 169
Defined by 2 to 1: 165 2: 648 3: 143 4: 173
Defined by 3 to 1: 155 2: 441 3: 561 4: 157
Defined by 4 to 1: 169 2: 169 3: 161 4: 641
Defined by 1 to 1: 637 2: 179 3: 164 4: 165
Defined by 2 to 1: 154 2: 632 3: 159 4: 163
Defined by 3 to 1: 158 2: 447 3: 600 4: 172
Defined by 4 to 1: 197 2: 139 3: 164 4: 562
I'm going to start coding the system rules tomorrow; I'll then be able to drill down deeper into the win/loss stats... I can see why this is so much fun! :love:
Nice job Falcor!
Quote from: rrbb on May 04, 05:50 PM 2016
The idea is, to "travel" from the top (first spin) to the end of a branch, you have to multiply the probabilities.
I think that what Priyanka shared is extremely important:
The probability on any dozen is of course 1/3. But Under the condition of a repeat, the probability is "suddenly" 17/27.
This "phenomena" has a certain name an applications. Bayes could tell you more about this!
The relevance for roulette remains to be seen, but admit: it is fascinating!
Btw: there are many other imbalances. Priyanka showed you some...
Hope this helps a little bit.
Grts rrbb
Am I the only one who think this might be important and maybe give new insights?
What phenomena is there about? Something that hasnt been mentioned by now?
Best
Drazen
yes that seems like an important idea Drazen
What does "condition of a repeat" mean?
Quote from: Drazen on May 16, 07:51 AM 2016What phenomena is there about
Nothing strange or new. Going to bayes site it is link:://:.roulettician.com/probability1.html#mozTocId598749
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 09:30 AM 2016
Nothing strange or new. Going to bayes site it is link:://:.roulettician.com/probability1.html#mozTocId598749
Just out of curiosity where did you and Bayes study Maths? Are you guys both pretty hard dicks, i.e. PhDs, i.e. highly indoctrinated into the Matrix? :wink: Sorry, this probably sounds offensive, but it's not meant to... not as dangerous as Turner fighting with Steve. RouletteGhost, if you are reading, please don't get involved... restrain yourself and wait for my next comment, OK? ;)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 16, 09:40 AM 2016not as dangerous as Turner fighting with Steve
lol...Im not fighting with Steve
Steves a cool guy. You can have a heated discussion with him. Nothing seems to phase him
Damn, instead of "indoctrinated" I meant to say "integrated"... wrong word... my bad. :-[
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 16, 09:51 AM 2016
Damn, instead of "indoctrinated" I meant to say "integrated"... wrong word... my bad. :-[
Im glad you explained "hard dick"
Its new to me.
meaning PHDs that is :o
A different view point is perceived as fighting
:ooh:
Quote from: Drazen on May 16, 07:51 AM 2016
Am I the only one who think this might be important and maybe give new insights?
What phenomena is there about? Something that hasnt been mentioned by now?
Best
Drazen
Hi drazen,
years ago I showed this at VLS: link:://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=13004.0
Priyanka and winkel
Many thanks for pointing this out
Cheers
Quote from: winkel on May 16, 11:49 AM 2016
years ago
I read the entire post. It is a pity to see some of the responses in that post and you seem to have done a great job of handling them. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 12:37 PM 2016
I read the entire post. It is a pity to see some of the responses in that post and you seem to have done a great job of handling them. :thumbsup:
I wonder who Landis might be
:rolls eyes:
Hello Priyanka!
I'd like ask what your approach have higher winrate EC, dozen, quads or doublestreets?
Greetings.
Why does Priyanka open up her first 2 Quads videos in such a different way? If she's using VdW then it should be detectable in these first few spins:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/49kc72wjf/quads.png)
She usually plays the first way, but in the 2nd video she missed out the 2nd bet after a win, and then she played opposite. There was some discussion before about playing VdW "opposite" to try to stop the AP from forming. One key theme throughout her Quads play is that the 2nd bet of each cycle (spin 2) is sometimes opposite, and in the one example above, no bet at all. All other bets @ spins 1,3,4 are pretty much consistent except after a loss. So how is VdW being applied when winning? Something to do with the 2nd spin only? It can't be based on the defining quad because here we only have 1 result to work with: different.
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/49kc72wjf/quads.png)
If VdW is being applied at the spin level then CW/CCW is not really applicable with 4 quad variables, so that just leaves "same"/"different":
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/ezlgfh5mz/vdw.png)
VdW could be being used similar to the above, but this would imply that Priyanka isn't always looking for support for the AP to form when there is only 1 s/d result - as long as there is no danger of an AP forming against her bet selections when there is 2 or more s/d results in sequence - hence the next spin could complete the AP. However, this theory is far from proven yet since there's 1 bet above (in purple) that I feel should have been played.
The 3rd quads video has yet another different opening:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/77zok2q3v/quads.png)
It may be that VdW is not being used at this early stage, and since Priyanka is thought to use virtual wins and losses, perhaps these bets are based on running totals of S/D or Cycle Lengths?
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/51ucz8j8r/vdw2.png)
Video 1 (2nd in the above)
s/d = 1/2 then 2/3
CL = 2 then 2
Video 2 (1st in the above)
s/d = 0/4 then 1/6
CL = 3 then 3
Video 3 (3rd in the above)
s/d = 1/3 then 1/6
CL = 3 then 3
The cycle length is the same on the last 2 so it could be to do with same/different on individual spins? Otherwise I think we've exhausted all possibilities?
I have all ways believed that same and different are a big clue, follow 1 time
Here's a transcript of all the Quads videos:
Video 5: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | 29 | 4 | | |
| | | 3 | 1 | | |
| 1 | 411 | 9 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 26 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 27 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 4 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 3 | 313 | 27 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 32 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 18 | 1 | L | |
| D | 1 | 3411 | 1 | 1 | | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 7 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 28 | 4 | W | |
| | | 27 | 3 | | |
| D | 3 | 1433 | 24 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 5 | 1 | W | |
| D | 1 | 311 | 7 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 28 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 1 | 141 | 2 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 15 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 31 | 4 | L | |
| D | 4 | 1244 | 30 | 4 | | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | |
| S | 4 | 424 | 29 | 4 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 4 | 44 | 31 | 4 | L | |
| S | 4 | 44 | 36 | 4 | | |
| S | 4 | 44 | 35 | 4 | | |
| | | 5 | 1 | | |
| | | 11 | 2 | | |
| | | 20 | 3 | | |
| D | 3 | 41233 | 23 | 3 | | |
| S | 3 | 33 | 23 | 3 | | |
| S | 3 | 33 | 23 | 3 | | |
| | | 1 | 1 | | |
| D | 1 | 311 | 9 | 1 | | |
| | | 27 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 19 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 7 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 15 | 2 | L | |
| D | 2 | 3122 | 10 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | L | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 12 | 2 | | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 10 | 2 | | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | |
| S | 2 | 2132 | 16 | 2 | | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 15 | 2 | | |
| | | 22 | 3 | | |
| | | 31 | 4 | | |
| D | 3 | 2343 | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 11 | 2 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| S | 3 | 3123 | 23 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 3 | 33 | 25 | 3 | L | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 2 | 1 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 1 | 3211 | 5 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 29 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 20 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| S | 1 | 1431 | 2 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 24 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 16 | 2 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 2 | 1322 | 12 | 2 | W | FINISHED |
Video 6: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjvj4FQVuU
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | 17 | 2 | | |
| | | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | |
| 3 | 2313 | 22 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 18 | 2 | W | |
| | | 35 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 4 | 3244 | 33 | 4 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 14 | 2 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 3 | 1 | W | |
| S | 4 | 4214 | 34 | 4 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 6 | 1 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| S | 4 | 414 | 35 | 4 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 9 | 1 | W | |
| D | 1 | 11 | 9 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 21 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 25 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 16 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 6 | 1 | L | |
| D | 1 | 3211 | 8 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 1 | 11 | 7 | 1 | L | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 4 | 1 | | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 3 | 1 | | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 8 | 1 | | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | |
| D | 2 | 122 | 17 | 2 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 5 | 1 | L | |
| D | 1 | 2311 | 1 | 1 | | |
| | | 20 | 3 | | |
| D | 3 | 133 | 24 | 3 | | |
| | | 33 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 3 | 343 | 19 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 6 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 34 | 4 | L | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | |
| D | 2 | 31422 | 17 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 2 | 22 | 12 | 2 | | |
| | | 35 | 4 | | |
| | | 8 | 1 | | |
| D | 1 | 2411 | 1 | 1 | | |
| | | 23 | 3 | | |
| S | 1 | 131 | 2 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 33 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 4 | 144 | 33 | 4 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 22 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 16 | 2 | L | |
| D | 3 | 4323 | 24 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 9 | 1 | W | |
| S | 3 | 313 | 24 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 29 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 14 | 2 | L | |
| D | 2 | 3422 | 13 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 20 | 3 | W | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| | | 5 | 1 | L | |
| D | 1 | 23411 | 1 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 19 | 3 | W | |
| S | 1 | 131 | 4 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 16 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 29 | 4 | L | |
| D | 4 | 1244 | 30 | 4 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 3 | 1 | W | |
| | | 12 | 2 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 2 | 4122 | 17 | 2 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | | 1 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 27 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 3 | 2133 | 24 | 3 | W | FINISHED |
Video 7: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5VUUfwkFilI
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | | | | |
| | | 23 | 3 | | |
| | | 28 | 4 | | |
| | | 17 | 2 | | |
| 2 | 3422 | 16 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 24 | 3 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 30 | 4 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 3 | 2343 | 23 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 15 | 2 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| S | 3 | 323 | 25 | 3 | L | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 32 | 4 | W | |
| | | 10 | 2 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| S | 3 | 3423 | 26 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 3 | 33 | 22 | 3 | L | |
| | | 30 | 4 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| S | 3 | 343 | 25 | 4 | L | |
| D | 4 | 44 | 25 | 4 | | |
| | | 5 | 1 | | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | |
| D | 2 | 4122 | 13 | 2 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| S | 2 | 212 | 16 | 2 | L | |
| | | 23 | 3 | | |
| D | 3 | 233 | 25 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 2 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 5 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 31 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 22 | 3 | L | |
| D | 3 | 1433 | 21 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 17 | 2 | W | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 2 | 3243 | 15 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 30 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 24 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 3 | 2433 | 21 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 2 | 1 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 31 | 4 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 1 | 3141 | 9 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 31 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 22 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 4 | 1434 | 32 | 4 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 4 | 44 | 36 | 4 | L | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | |
| S | 4 | 414 | 28 | 4 | | |
| | | 10 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 2 | 422 | 17 | 2 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| S | 2 | 22 | 17 | 2 | L | |
| | | 29 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 26 | 3 | L | |
| D | 4 | 2434 | 33 | 4 | | |
| | | 3 | 1 | | |
| | | 10 | 2 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| D | 2 | 4122 | 18 | 2 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 9 | 1 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 10 | 3 | L | Bet quads 1,3,4 |
| | | 34 | 4 | W | |
| D | 1 | 21341 | 4 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | | 24 | 3 | L | |
| | | 30 | 4 | | Bet quads 1,2,3 |
| D | 3 | 1343 | 24 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | | 32 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 13 | 2 | L | |
| S | 3 | 3423 | 27 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | | 14 | 2 | W | |
| | | 36 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| S | 3 | 3243 | 22 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | | 34 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 4 | 344 | 30 | 4 | L | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 13 | 2 | W | |
| S | 4 | 424 | 30 | 4 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | | 10 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 12 | 2 | W | FINISHED |
Video 9: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rHlShQm1k
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | | | | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | |
| | | 36 | 4 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | |
| 4 | 1434 | 33 | 4 | | |
| | | 2 | 1 | | |
| | | 24 | 3 | | |
| D | 3 | 4133 | 24 | 3 | | |
| | | 1 | 1 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 7 | 1 | L | |
| | | 12 | 2 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 29 | 4 | W | |
| D | 4 | 1244 | 34 | 4 | | |
| | | 19 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 17 | 2 | W | |
| | | 3 | 1 | | |
| S | 4 | 43214 | 32 | 4 | | |
| S | 4 | 44 | 34 | 4 | | |
| | | 15 | 2 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | | 4 | 1 | W | |
| S | 4 | 4214 | 36 | 4 | | |
| | | 22 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| S | 4 | 434 | 30 | 4 | L | |
| | | 19 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 433 | 26 | 3 | L | |
| S | 3 | 33 | 21 | 3 | | |
| S | 3 | 33 | 19 | 3 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 12 | 2 | L | |
| D | 2 | 322 | 18 | 2 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 5 | 1 | L | |
| | | 31 | 4 | | |
| S | 2 | 2142 | 11 | 2 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 4 | 1 | L | |
| D | 1 | 211 | 8 | 1 | | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 1 | 131 | 7 | 1 | W | |
| | | 19 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 10 | 2 | W | |
| | | 30 | 4 | | |
| D | 2 | 13242 | 11 | 2 | | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 24 | 3 | L | |
| D | 1 | 2131 | 8 | 1 | | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 22 | 3 | | |
| | | 2 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 2 | 1 | W | |
| | | 12 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 2 | 122 | 16 | 2 | W | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 15 | 2 | | |
| | | 28 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 9 | 1 | L | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | |
| S | 2 | 24132 | 18 | 2 | | |
| | | 3 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 2 | 212 | 11 | 2 | W | |
| | | 23 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 4 | 1 | L | |
| D | 3 | 2313 | 22 | 3 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 5 | 1 | W | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 35 | 4 | L | |
| S | 1 | 1341 | 2 | 1 | | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | | |
| | | 19 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 1 | 131 | 4 | 1 | W | |
| | | 18 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 1 | 121 | 1 | 1 | W | |
| | | 22 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 35 | 4 | L | |
| D | 3 | 1343 | 22 | 3 | | |
| | 33 | 23 | 3 | | |
| | | 29 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 4 | 344 | 36 | 4 | W | |
| | | 8 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 411 | 1 | 1 | W | |
| | | 19 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 34 | 4 | L | |
| D | 3 | 1343 | 22 | 3 | | |
| | | 32 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 4 | 344 | 34 | 4 | W | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 433 | 22 | 3 | W | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 5 | 1 | W | FINISHED |
Video 10: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=TwOiBydJJF0
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | | | | |
| | | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | |
| 4 | 3144 | 29 | 4 | | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | |
| | | 17 | 2 | | |
| D | 3 | 4323 | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 1 | 1 | L | |
| | | 25 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 27 | 3 | L | |
| | | 36 | 4 | | |
| D | 4 | 344 | 29 | 4 | | |
| | | 11 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 22 | 3 | L | |
| S | 4 | 4234 | 35 | 4 | | |
| | | 5 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 411 | 1 | 1 | W | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 2 | 1 | | |
| | | 31 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 1 | 141 | 5 | 1 | W | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 5 | 1 | | |
| S | 1 | 11 | 7 | 1 | | Bet last quad |
| S | 1 | 11 | 5 | 1 | W | Bet last quad |
| S | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | W | Bet last quad |
| S | 1 | 11 | 5 | 1 | W | Bet last quad |
| | | 32 | 4 | L | |
| S | 1 | 141 | 4 | 1 | | Bet last quad |
| S | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | W | Bet last quad |
| | | 23 | 3 | L | |
| | | 11 | 2 | | |
| D | 3 | 1323 | 25 | 3 | | Bet last quad |
| S | 3 | 33 | 21 | 3 | W | Bet last quad |
| | | 34 | 4 | L | |
| | | 18 | 2 | | |
| D | 2 | 3422 | 14 | 2 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 30 | 4 | L | |
| D | 4 | 244 | 29 | 4 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 12 | 2 | L | |
| D | 2 | 422 | 15 | 2 | | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 12 | 2 | | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 2 | 242 | 16 | 2 | W | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 211 | 2 | 1 | W | |
| | | 16 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 31 | 4 | L | |
| D | 4 | 1244 | 28 | 4 | | |
| | | 3 | 1 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| S | 4 | 414 | 36 | 4 | W | |
| S | 4 | 44 | 30 | 4 | | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| D | 2 | 422 | 16 | 2 | W | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | | |
| S | 2 | 22 | 18 | 2 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 27 | 3 | L | |
| D | 3 | 233 | 23 | 3 | | Bet last quad |
| | | 21 | 3 | W | FINISHED |
lot of multiple wins shown WWWL SPACE WWL , after a Different then a Same I think Pri bets for a Same
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jun 21, 07:15 PM 2016
lot of multiple wins shown WWWL SPACE WWL , after a Different then a Same I think Pri bets for a Same
I'm not even sure VdW is even being used in those quads videos - unless for a couple of decision if that? It's possible that Priyanka may have only used VdW in video 1 and that non-random cycles are enough to gain edge in the later videos. I think the different opening bets is based on aiming to repeat on specific cycle lengths - later on specific defining quads. And it's possible that one bet was missed by mistake, hence there was no bet in one vid.
I'm going to tag on the dozens video here, albeit without the color-coding.
Note: this video is designed to lose!| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Dozen | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| | | 32 | 3 | | |
| 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 7 | 1 | W | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| d | 1 | 211 | 10 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 11 | 1 | L | |
| | | 16 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 29 | 3 | L | |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 3 | 1 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 20 | 2 | L | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 3 | 2133 | 32 | 3 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 3122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 36 | 3 | W | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 2312 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 4 | 1 | W | |
| d | 1 | 211 | 12 | 1 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 19 | 2 | W | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 14 | 2 | L | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 23 | 2 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 212 | 22 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 21 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| s | 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 1 | 2131 | 2 | 1 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1321 | 3 | 1 | L | |
| | | 22 | 2 | | |
| | | 36 | 3 | | Bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 1 | 1 | W | End of Cycle. Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | L | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| d | 3 | 1323 | 35 | 3 | | |
| s | 3 | 33 | 34 | 3 | | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | |
| s | 3 | 323 | 36 | 3 | | |
| | | 19 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 323 | 29 | 3 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 33 | 35 | 3 | L | |
| | | 1 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | | 2 | L | FINISHED |
I must say there's some very good information in these Random Thoughts topics (it's beyond GUT!), but it's taken me months to grasp the principles due to a lack of context to link each one together. If the context was there in the beginning then it could have been understood in a day instead of 9 months, so I am working on a new topic/article titled Random Thoughts: A Simplified Overview. This will place all the buzzwords like "Sequences", "Events", "Combinations", "Stitching Bets", "Imbalances", "Dependencies", "Creating Bias", "Parallel Games" into a single model that is built up of all those principles. Random Thoughts: A Concise Reference (version 3) will also be published with #hashtags and structured/filtered with a fine-tooth comb.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 21, 12:38 PM 2016
The 3rd quads video has yet another different opening:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/77zok2q3v/quads.png)
It may be that VdW is not being used at this early stage, and since Priyanka is thought to use virtual wins and losses, perhaps these bets are based on running totals of S/D or Cycle Lengths?
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/51ucz8j8r/vdw2.png)
Video 1 (2nd in the above)
s/d = 1/2 then 2/3
CL = 2 then 2
Video 2 (1st in the above)
s/d = 0/4 then 1/6
CL = 3 then 3
Video 3 (3rd in the above)
s/d = 1/3 then 1/6
CL = 3 then 3
The cycle length is the same on the last 2 so it could be to do with same/different on individual spins? Otherwise I think we've exhausted all possibilities?
The following quote most likely explains why we have 3 different opening decisions (dark purple) - normal bet, opposite bet and no bet:"There are different bets at different points in the cycle, right? After the first dozen, let's say it is a 1, then we should consider a bet on 1 again because at this point there is only one choice to close out the cycle. But should we bet at this point? We should look for some support for this bet on the first dozen from elsewhere - some other non-random measure. For example maybe the VdW - although not sure how to do that.
...
What can we say about the very first betting opportunity? What possible support can we get for this? Either positive or negative because if positive then we play the bet but if negative then we can consider playting the OTHER 2 dozens - but ONLY if there is strong suppport for either. Where can that support come from?"
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 21, 05:46 PM 2016
Here's a transcript of all the Quads videos:
Lot work maybe find out nothing falkor2k15. You busy beaver to. :thumbsup:
Let's continue with this problem anyway, as Priyanka has clearly put in more effort than me in trying to communicate the solution covertly:
"I really feel that the important things we need to focus on right now are, firstly, the second non-random event (assuming the VdW on the EC's is the first) and the way in which these 2 events are put together in the betting plan. Note the word EVENT. I believe that we need to think of the VdW theorem that Pri gave us as an example of an event to be also a good example of the meaning of the word EVENT in this context. We need to find another such event that fits with either the groupings of 9 numbers (which Pri calls a quad) or perhaps 6-lines, maybe even dozens although I personally don't think it is this."
We are looking for an event, which is usually a "more than 1 spin" sequence or combination that is not equally likely. This could be a cycle length, definition or a series of stitched bets - with subtle emphasis on lines.
"I have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.
There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it. "
The above is reminiscent of the unsolved simultaneous EC + Dozens VdW example that was posted nearer to the beginning of the topic, but here stitching High/Low as "events" to resemble Quads is not stated in the context of VdW - but in the context of 2 streams as parallel games thereby creating dependency to overcome a Dead-heat or Dead-run. This could still be the VdW "support" that we are looking for with regards to decisions on quads, but it's not clear how it works even in it's original context, so to extend that as VdW support is even more abstract at this stage.
"in Priyanka quad videos, any ideas how she use DS as VDW in her quads bet selections?"
It's looking more likely that we should look towards to the Double Streets instead of the ECs - but as an event I'm not sure?
"Pri said early on in the other thread that Dozens and EC's (and possibly 6-lines or was it quads) COULD be played with an edge using VdW and other non-random techniques such as repeating dozens in a cycle and so on."
"Actually, we also have to discover the 2nd non-random event don't we? I know it is probably on the 6-lines but it can't be VdW because this would be far too complex - even the dozens have a sequence length of 27 and nobody is able to accurately find all the AP's in that on the fly. Does anybody have any idea what the 2nd non-random event might be?"
Not much help other than continuing the emphasis on lines.
"But I don't think that is all. I think there is another component that has to be added. Possibly another non-random sequence? One with a lower strike rate because of a smaller coverage perhaps? Consider what he hinted at with High/Low combined with dozens or perhaps six-lines. Or perhaps the quads (9 numbers as I understand it - personally I've always thought quads were 4 numbers, corners basically, but whatever) are the basic and the High/Low is used when a bet is ambiguous - the dead run situation. I see no reason why, when a dead run situation presents itself, that you can't, at that time, look back and create a sequence starting point that gives you a bet on this spin. After all, the VdW theorem says ANY 9 number sequence so why not create them on the fly as and when needed as the "other" bet?"
More clues - but more in the context of dead-runs as opposed to looking for support for betting quads normal, opposite or not betting at all.
"What if we bet the last 3 hit lines in the dozen, instead of the whole dozen. If a cycle ends with dozen 2 as dominant, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 2 on the first bet. If dozen 1 hits next, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 1 and 2.
Seems like there is always 1 line in a dozen that stays cold. Thought this might increase the odds of a hit better."
This could have some relevance regarding "lower strike rate" in the previous quote, but it's not clear if it can help us with decisions on quads.
"the double streets, in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%. Surprising, but that is the truth. So chances of getting 134, 156, etc where all double streets are different are better than chances of getting 121, 555, 556, 322 etc. Can that be used to our advantage during the play where some steps are random and some steps are non-random. Yes definitely."
Another stat besides VdW that might offer support in some way.
Priyanka suggests that we should never play randomly and look for support before attempting to close off a quads cycle and to even bet opposite if VdW demands it compared to the original bet we had in mind, but usually Pri only bets opposite when there is a cycle length of 3 and bets normal when there is a cycle length that is less than 3. Of course, there are the odd exceptions to these rules, and rarely is there no bet at all on the 2nd spin, unless following a losing streak and waiting for virtual wins/losses. However, it doesn't appear she is relying on VdW as per what is being preached - or it could be that cycles ending in length 3 happens to coincide with more VdW data offering support for the opposite bet.
VdW: "What is the applicability in roulette. Sorry, I don’t have an answer. It is yet to be seen, but I have an inkling that this versatility could be put to use somehow when we are having two variables that do not essentially have a 50-50 probability appearing, but could or might give an advantage when lining up in a VdW sequence".
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/77zok2q3v/quads.png)
H/L, DZ, QUAD, LINES
1 2 2 3
2 3 3 5
1 1 1 2
2 2 3 4
1 2 2 1
d d d d
d d d d
d d d d
d s d d
No bet - why?
H/L, DZ, QUAD LINES
2 3 4 5
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
2 3 3 5
d d d d
s s s d
d d d d
Quad 3+1 = normal bet. Why bet here and why bet normal and not opposite?
H/L, DZ, QUAD, LINES
2 2 3 4
2 3 4 5
1 2 2 3
1 2 2 3
2 2 3 4
s d d d
d d d d
s s s s
d s d d
2+3 = normal bet
1+4 = opposite bet
Why bet opposite? What is the VdW support for quads 1+4...? :question:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 22, 11:21 AM 2016
However, it doesn't appear she is relying on VdW as per what is being preached
Falklor I really admire to you efforts, and I gave you applause for that.
I am sure she is not relying on VdW exclusively as you are attempting to do all the time.
Did you missed those posts? I highlighted them recently.
Best
Drazen
Thanks Drazen! Unfortunately, I'm unable to find those recent posts you refer to - do you have a link?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17013.75
Reply #89
Cheers Drazen!
The last word on this was that Priyanka was working on a Quads system that doesn't need VdW, and with constant ratios like these across multiple data sets I hope to gain some basic edge by the end of the week:
Defined by 1 to 1: 42 2: 18 3: 14 4: 16
Defined by 2 to 1: 17 2: 70 3: 24 4: 15
Defined by 3 to 1: 16 2: 53 3: 68 4: 22
Defined by 4 to 1: 16 2: 22 3: 15 4: 46
Defined by 1 to 1: 49 2: 16 3: 17 4: 17
Defined by 2 to 1: 12 2: 58 3: 18 4: 15
Defined by 3 to 1: 17 2: 39 3: 64 4: 21
Defined by 4 to 1: 20 2: 13 3: 19 4: 55
1 Cycle Lengths to 1: 17 2: 39 3: 28 4: 9
2 Cycle Lengths to 1: 40 2: 82 3: 53 4: 11
3 Cycle Lengths to 1: 27 2: 53 3: 35 4: 10
4 Cycle Lengths to 1: 8 2: 13 3: 9 4: 3
1 Cycle Lengths to 1: 19 2: 47 3: 28 4: 9
2 Cycle Lengths to 1: 42 2: 54 3: 46 4: 11
3 Cycle Lengths to 1: 32 2: 38 3: 39 4: 17
4 Cycle Lengths to 1: 11 2: 14 3: 13 4: 7
One thing I noticed what both Priyanka and winkel do: when they lose a trot or a cycle, they don't try to salvage it, but play more a "regression towards the mean" game. Priyanka seems to contradict herself somewhat when she says that she plays for an event, i.e. cycle length 3, but I reckon she changes her bet at the spin level when things don't go as planned whilst on a winning streak; however, upon a loss she does back out.
One new observation I've noted for the concise reference version 3 is that Priyanka seems to "increase the span of the biased game" in the Double Streets PP video: she extends a lost cycle to 2 repeats - and she does this on 2 occasions in order to recover them! ;) :wink: ;) :wink: I bet nobody else noticed that! :wink: :girl_to:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 22, 11:31 AM 2016
VdW: "What is the applicability in roulette. Sorry, I don’t have an answer. It is yet to be seen, but I have an inkling that this versatility could be put to use somehow when we are having two variables that do not essentially have a 50-50 probability appearing, but could or might give an advantage when lining up in a VdW sequence".
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/77zok2q3v/quads.png)
H/L, DZ, QUAD, LINES
1 2 2 3
2 3 3 5
1 1 1 2
2 2 3 4
1 2 2 1
d d d d
d d d d
d d d d
d s d d
No bet - why?
H/L, DZ, QUAD LINES
2 3 4 5
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
2 3 3 5
d d d d
s s s d
d d d d
Quad 3+1 = normal bet. Why bet here and why bet normal and not opposite?
H/L, DZ, QUAD, LINES
2 2 3 4
2 3 4 5
1 2 2 3
1 2 2 3
2 2 3 4
s d d d
d d d d
s s s s
d s d d
2+3 = normal bet
1+4 = opposite bet
Why bet opposite? What is the VdW support for quads 1+4...? :question:
The first example (from video 6; the 2nd of the Quads videos) I made a mistake in my analysis - I missed out a number! :-[ There's probably no VdW at this stage - no bet was placed because it was a cycle length of 4; CL 3 = opposite bet; CL 2 = normal bet; CL 1 = cycle is not played at all.
VdW is probably being used on wins and losses* - why else would Priyanka wait for both virtual wins and losses? :question: It cannot be to even out the running totals of the stats/ratios because in that case she would only be waiting for virtual losses - never waiting for virtual wins too.
*There's a small chance it's the cycle length instead of wins/losses.
OK, here's the sequence we need to analyse for VdW:
| Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | 29 | 4 | | |
| | 3 | 1 | | |
| 1 | 411 | 9 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 26 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| 3 | 133 | 27 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 4 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| 3 | 313 | 27 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 32 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 18 | 2 | L | |
| | 1 | 1 | | |
| 3 | 34211 | 7 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 28 | 4 | W | |
| | 27 | 3 | VL | |
| 3 | 1433 | 24 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 5 | 1 | W | |
| 1 | 311 | 7 | 1 | VW | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 28 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| 1 | 141 | 2 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 15 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 31 | 4 | L | |
| 4 | 1244 | 30 | 4 | No bet | |
| | 14 | 2 | VW | |
| 4 | 424 | 29 | 4 | VW | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| 4 | 44 | 31 | 4 | L | |
| 4 | 44 | 36 | 4 | | |
| 4 | 44 | 35 | 4 | | |
| | 5 | 1 | | |
| | 11 | 2 | | |
| | 20 | 3 | VL? | |
| 3 | 41233 | 23 | 3 | | |
| 3 | 33 | 23 | 3 | | |
| | 1 | 1 | | |
| 1 | 311 | 9 | 1 | No bet | |
| | 27 | 3 | VW | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| 3 | 133 | 19 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 7 | 1 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 15 | 2 | L | |
| 2 | 3122 | 10 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | L | |
| 2 | 22 | 12 | 2 | | |
| 2 | 22 | 10 | 2 | | |
| | 4 | 1 | | |
| | 26 | 3 | VW? | |
| 2 | 2132 | 16 | 2 | No bet | |
| 2 | 22 | 15 | 2 | VL | |
| | 22 | 3 | | |
| | 31 | 4 | VW | |
| 3 | 2343 | 25 | 3 | | |
| | 9 | 1 | VW | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 11 | 2 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| 3 | 3123 | 23 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| 3 | 33 | 25 | 3 | L | |
| | 14 | 2 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 2 | 1 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| 1 | 3211 | 5 | 1 | W - why bet? | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 29 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 20 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| 1 | 1431 | 2 | 1 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 24 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 16 | 2 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| 2 | 1322 | 12 | 2 | W | FINISHED |
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
VL
W
VW
W
W
W
L
No bet
VW
VW
L
VL?
No bet
VW
W
W
L
L
VW?
No bet
VL
VW
VW
W
W
L
W
W - why bet?
W
W
W
W
W
W
.
(link:s://:.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/000-0906000143-killingthegoldengoose.jpg)
(link:://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/14/article-2188100-148A5674000005DC-237_634x478.jpg)
Can somebody please PM me to check if my analysis is correct? Priyanka >:D, RMore :love:, Scarface >:D, rrbb :love:, praline O0, RayManZ :love: :love: ? :xd:
It would be great if Pri would hop on and comment. Right now I'm a lurker because I just don't have the time to spend on analysis, as much as I would like to. But I haven't abandoned the topic. I admire your tenacity Falkor, and hopefully soon I can get back to some serious investigative work.
Rog
RMore, sorry I forgot to mention that I am reluctant to post my analysis pertaining to the above sequence here in this topic (RouletteGhost might have already snapped up this potential HG though...) - so I just wanted somebody to confirm by PM if correct or not (I wasn't referring to the recent developments in the topic at large). Is there a way I can hide a post from 1 or 2 members? I don't mind RG seeing it. That's why I think it's better to PM innit.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 26, 01:22 AM 2016That's why I think it's better to PM innit.
Did you actually just say " innit"?
I hope that was some kind of spelling mistake and not the annoying homies jive bollox "innit" that has infected the english language
Quote from: Turner on Jun 26, 03:22 AM 2016
Did you actually just say " innit"?
I hope that was some kind of spelling mistake and not the annoying homies jive bollox "innit" that has infected the english language
:xd: :xd: :xd: Turner, if I do ever find the Holy Grail, you'll be the first to know - you get me, blood!? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Turner on Jun 26, 03:22 AM 2016
Did you actually just say " innit"?
I hope that was some kind of spelling mistake and not the annoying homies jive bollox "innit" that has infected the english language
Turner , you've gotta roll with da times bro....
These days they all spit like they from da hood :lol:
(Thx to gangsta rap I think)
Lol.....a refreshing interlude to deflect my attention from all the smites Im getting :thumbsup:
We could make a top 10 with the most smites. Then that feature would actually be of use. Btw I'm winning against you ;)
The funny part is there members who have a certain age who should know better then to involve in that childish game...but they smite the most :xd:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 26, 01:22 AM 2016
RMore, sorry I forgot to mention that I am reluctant to post my analysis pertaining to the above sequence here in this topic (RouletteGhost might have already snapped up this potential HG though...) - so I just wanted somebody to confirm by PM if correct or not (I wasn't referring to the recent developments in the topic at large). Is there a way I can hide a post from 1 or 2 members? I don't mind RG seeing it. That's why I think it's better to PM innit.
(link:s://media1.giphy.com/media/nqS1Eikkw2Lsc/giphy.gif)
Did falkor just say he is reluctant to post an analysis?
Did pigs fly or something?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 26, 01:22 AM 2016
RMore, sorry I forgot to mention that I am reluctant to post my analysis pertaining to the above sequence here in this topic (RouletteGhost might have already snapped up this potential HG though...) - so I just wanted somebody to confirm by PM if correct or not (I wasn't referring to the recent developments in the topic at large). Is there a way I can hide a post from 1 or 2 members? I don't mind RG seeing it. That's why I think it's better to PM innit.
Soon he will ask for deleting all his topics and posts, because there is the HG in it and he doesn´t want to reveal it to the public.
DejaVue, always these Dejavues. Is it only me? should I meet a psychiatrist?
Quote from: winkel on Jun 26, 08:56 AM 2016should I meet a psychiatrist?
We should have a resident psychiatrist in the forum lol
I'm sensing hatred in winkel's heart... he's needs to let go of all these grudges... RouletteGhost has already forgiven me - I can tell. Turner hasn't banned me for a while so I guess I am not a thorn in his side. The only thing that troubles me is winkel's lack of a sense of humour, his over-seriousness, and seemingly his inability to understand dark comedy.
Let's continue the interlude with a test to see who - using their mathematical roulette brain - can understand dark comedy, and who, instead, gets offended? :smile: Just one simple exercise is all I am asking of you then I will post my analysis afterwards showing how I believe Priyanka is using VdW in her Quads videos - so do we have a deal, guys??? :question:
Jesus was in a synagogue lecturing some Jews. In the gospels story he was about to be driven over the edge of their city upon the brow of a hill, but in contrast, in the historical narrative of Josephus, it’s the Romans who are driving the Jewish people out of their own citadel! Once the verbatim link is considered, which forms a concept in itself ("driving" Jews "down" a hill/precipice from their "city"), “Physician, heal yourself†then begins to stand out as some kind of slogan for “kill themselves with their own hands†â€" but this is far from clear at first glance. To confirm the concept - and indeed the parallel - we need to look up the verse that Jesus is referring to about “Elijah and the widow†- who killed herself and her son - as a dark anti-Semitic reminder of the Roman victory at Japha and Jotapata, where the Jews committed suicide after many were driven over a cliff by the Romans. The authors require us to sometimes look up verses in other books of the bible in order to understand the joke. Jesus’ words make more sense when harmonized with Josephus in this, the first of many parallels - occurring in sequence - for at least 50 stories in the Gospels and real life events in the Jewish War.
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/dkm9xd0hn/image.jpg)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/8tvmuhoo5/image.jpg)
Maybe Pri is using VDW. But the real question is does it actually give the player and edge? :question:
Quote from: Scarface on Jun 26, 11:31 AM 2016
Maybe Pri is using VDW. But the real question is does it actually give the player and edge? :question:
Yeah it does give an edge when you know how to use it in the right way!
donik7777, you have accidentally blocked me in PM - could you please unblock me so I can respond to you? Thanks.
I think youd get a better response if you stopped with the "i cant post it" and "delete it " attitude
Quote from: Turner on Jun 26, 09:19 AM 2016
We should have a resident psychiatrist in the forum lol
Forum do seem have more nuts than fruitcake.
Quote from: dimsun on Jun 26, 06:42 PM 2016
Forum do seem have more nuts than fruitcake.
The real question is: are you able to now make better sense of Jesus' words in the gospel or not? Does everyone now understand the significance of what Jesus was teaching? >:D So next time you hear the phrase "Physician, heal yourself" you know what it means and why that story was written...
Did OK last night in the casino playing Quads, but was a bit shaky as it was my first time in 2 years... I had forgotten the etiquette! (also I was drunk!!) :twisted:
link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=nruw1vQOcMQ
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 27, 06:51 AM 2016
The real question is: are you able to now make better sense of Jesus' words in the gospel or not? Does everyone now understand the significance of what Jesus was teaching? >:D So next time you hear the phrase "Physician, heal yourself" you know what it means and why that story was written...
Understanding easy, using understanding harder.
Quote from: dimsun on Jun 27, 07:29 AM 2016Understanding easy, using understanding harder.
Lol....nice !
Quote from: dimsun on Jun 27, 07:29 AM 2016
Understanding easy, using understanding harder.
you taking the blue pill or the red pill?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 21, 07:51 PM 2016I'm going to tag on the dozens video here, albeit without the color-coding.Note: this video is designed to lose!
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Dozen | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| | | 32 | 3 | | |
| 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 7 | 1 | W | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| d | 1 | 211 | 10 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 11 | 1 | L | |
| | | 16 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 29 | 3 | L | |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 3 | 1 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 20 | 2 | L | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 3 | 2133 | 32 | 3 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 3122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 36 | 3 | W | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 2312 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 4 | 1 | W | |
| d | 1 | 211 | 12 | 1 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 19 | 2 | W | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 14 | 2 | L | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 23 | 2 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 212 | 22 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 21 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| s | 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 1 | 2131 | 2 | 1 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1321 | 3 | 1 | L | |
| | | 22 | 2 | | |
| | | 36 | 3 | | Bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 1 | 1 | W | End of Cycle. Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | L | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| d | 3 | 1323 | 35 | 3 | | |
| s | 3 | 33 | 34 | 3 | | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | |
| s | 3 | 323 | 36 | 3 | | |
| | | 19 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 323 | 29 | 3 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 33 | 35 | 3 | L | |
| | | 1 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | | 2 | L | FINISHED |
I'm obviously failing in my mission to promote VdW here... can you guys not see how significant this is!? Look how many losses Priyanka was able to achieve from betting double dozens!? Double Dozens should win more but result in less net profit - but here they are manipulated to drastically lose using VdW by a sheer non-random force of nature. This is a very big deal, guys! This is no fairy tale (and Priyanka is no fairy).
QuoteThere is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited? In her video it has been shown that Priyanka avoided cycles of length 1. #TriggeringBias #Cycles
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
| Cycle Length | | 28.83% | 71.17% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% |
| Cycle Length (same) | | | | 44.98% | 33.41% | 17.19% | 4.42% |
| Cycle Length (different) | | | | 0.00% | 42.01% | 42.09% | 15.90% |
|
| CL1 Ignored | | 30.37% | 69.63% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | | | | 0.00% | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% |
| CL1 Ignored (different) | | | | 35.84% | 26.91% | 25.30% | 11.96% |
In general, whether the cycle length is the same or different, is not affected.
Under normal circumstances cycle length 1 to 1 had the highest ratio, but now with CL1 ignored, cycle lengths 2 to 2 and 3 to 3 have increased ratios instead.
I guess that having an early repeat with cycle length 1 has also reduced, but I can't say I yet understand what the exploitative advantage is as of yet?
Although I haven't yet exhausted the stats here's all my tests I've done so far...
| QUAD CYCLES CONSTANT RATIOS | (BETWEEN 2 CYCLES) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | Same | Different | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Defining Quad | | 55.48% | 44.52% | | | | |
| Defined by Quad 1 to Same/Different | | 54.50% | 45.50% | | | | |
| Defined by Quad 2 to Same/Different | | 65.31% | 34.69% | | | | |
| Defined by Quad 3 to Same/Different | | 48.83% | 51.17% | | | | |
| Defined by Quad 4 to Same/Different | | 55.42% | 44.58% | | | | |
| Defined by 1 to X | | | | 54.50% | 15.52% | 15.12% | 14.86% |
| Defined by 2 to X | | | | 14.54% | 55.84% | 14.50% | 15.11% |
| Defined by 3 to X | | | | 11.53% | 33.39% | 43.82% | 11.26% |
| Defined by 4 to X | | | | 14.76% | 15.63% | 14.19% | 55.42% |
| | | | | | | |
| Cycle Length | | 28.83% | 71.17% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% |
| Cycle Length (same) | | | | 44.98% | 33.41% | 17.19% | 4.42% |
| Cycle Length (different) | | | | 0.00% | 42.01% | 42.09% | 15.90% |
| Cycle Length X to same | | | | 24.66% | 37.16% | 28.13% | 9.27% |
| Cycle Length X to different | | | | 75.34% | 62.84% | 71.87% | 90.73% |
| Cycle Length 1 to X | | | | 24.66% | 36.72% | 29.40% | 9.22% |
| Cycle Length 2 to X | | | | 25.47% | 37.16% | 27.79% | 9.59% |
| Cycle Length 3 to X | | | | 24.25% | 37.79% | 28.13% | 9.83% |
| Cycle Length 4 to X | | | | 25.76% | 37.26% | 27.70% | 9.27% |
| | | | | | | |
| CL1 Ignored | | 30.37% | 69.63% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | | | | 0.00% | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% |
| CL1 Ignored (different) | | | | 35.84% | 26.91% | 25.30% | 11.96% |
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to same | | | | | 37.14% | 28.52% | 9.45% |
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to different | | | | | 62.86% | 71.48% | 90.55% |
| CL2 (C1 Ignored) to X | | | | 25.24% | 37.14% | 28.07% | 9.55% |
| CL3 (C1 Ignored) to X | | | | 24.36% | 37.58% | 28.52% | 9.54% |
| CL4 (C1 Ignored) to X | | | | 25.56% | 36.60% | 28.38% | 9.45% |
| | | | | | | |
| CL1 Ignored | 1st spin ignored | 40.47% | 59.53% | | 49.62% | 37.68% | 12.71% |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | 1st spin ignored | | | | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% |
| CL1 Ignored (different) | 1st spin ignored | | | | 41.94% | 39.43% | 18.63% |
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to same | 1st spin ignored | | | | 49.68% | 37.71% | 12.70% |
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to different | 1st spin ignored | | | | 50.32% | 62.29% | 87.30% |
| CL2 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | | | | 49.68% | 37.54% | 12.78% |
| CL3 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | | | | 49.68% | 37.71% | 12.61% |
| CL4 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | | | | 49.17% | 38.13% | 12.70% |
Priyanka's last 2 videos miss out spin 1 entirely, so there may be more advantage to be gained there...
Great effort Falkor
In the meantime I decided for another approach.
I traveled 2500 kilometers from my home and I moved to the island next to Priyanka. From here I plan to hunt him down and force to tell me the answer. :lol:
Wish me well
Best
Drazen
Good approach Drazen - I do indeed wish you well!
Amazing work Falkor! A question - what do you think the rules are for the Quad selection and betting? Not sure I quite follow that. It seems a bit random.
cheers
Rog
OK, I sussed it!
The stats only tell us about the next cycle event - not individual spins as far as I can tell yet!
So in the Priyanka tradition of stitching bets we have the following options:
Cycle Length 1
Bet last Quad (3 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/3
Cycle Length 2
1. Virtual spin
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/6
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
Cycle Length 3
Part virtual
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet opposite of last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
3. Bet last 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 6 chips each) = 67/9 parlayed
With 67/9 payout odds for Cycle Length 3 this explains clearly why we want increased constants for CL3 followed by CL2! And that's why CL1 is ignored - because it increases our chances of CL3 and CL2? Before, CL1 was more prevalent, albeit with lesser profit potential.
The parlay bet has been hinted at several times - but must have deliberately been left out of the video.
When you refer to cycle length, are you referring to the VdW on an EC, or are you talking about the repeating dozens and going for the one that defined the previous dozen?
And while I am on the dozen thing, do I recall correctly that a repeat of the defining dozen from the previous group is LESS than 33% likely?
In fact, the stats don't seem to increase CL2+3 per se - but they increase them specifically for when we expect them to be the
same as the previous cycle - bringing them in line with the
bias created out of the
defining quad. That's why Priyanka has different betting rules following a cycle ending in CL2 or CL3: she is going for a repeat of the same cycle length!
QuoteWhen you refer to cycle length, are you referring to the VdW on an EC, or are you talking about the repeating dozens and going for the one that defined the previous dozen?
I've not got to the stage of using
VdW yet - I am just trying to understand how Priyanka came up with her betting rules and selections based on
stitching bets for increased odds and exploiting the cycle length 1. So right now this is more about going for the Quad repeats on CL2 and CL3 - in line with the
defined bias - but not yet with the specific defining Quad in mind.
QuoteAnd while I am on the dozen thing, do I recall correctly that a repeat of the defining dozen from the previous group is LESS than 33% likely?
That was for Dozens - but here for Quads I believe we need to go for the
same as per my first paragraph above.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 08:20 PM 2016
OK, I sussed it!
The stats only tell us about the next cycle event - not individual spins as far as I can tell yet!
So in the Priyanka tradition of stitching bets we have the following options:
Cycle Length 1
Bet last Quad (3 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/3
Cycle Length 2
1. Virtual spin
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/6
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
Cycle Length 3
Part virtual
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet opposite of last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
3. Bet last 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 6 chips each) = 67/9 parlayed
With 67/9 payout odds for Cycle Length 3 this explains clearly why we want increased constants for CL3 followed by CL2! And that's why CL1 is ignored - because it increases our chances of CL3 and CL2? Before, CL1 was more prevalent, albeit with lesser profit potential.
The parlay bet has been hinted at several times - but must have deliberately been left out of the video.
Correction: the last one should be:
3. Bet last 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 5 chips each) =
55/10 parlayed
I'm not entirely sure my theory holds water - it's possibly contradicted by these stats for same/different:
Defining Quad 55.48% 44.52%
Cycle Length 28.83% 71.17%
CL1 Ignored 30.37% 69.63%
To get the same cycle length as opposed to the defining quad (even though that's the catalyst for the bias in the first place), is only 28.83% - but it is increased slightly to 30.37% with CL1 ignored. It might mean something along the lines of: we will lose less sets of 9/10 chips in trying to obtain our 55 chips. I might go further and say we are looking at a 1.5% edge - or is this wishful thinking? :twisted:
Defined by 1 to X 54.50% 15.52% 15.12% 14.86%
Defined by 2 to X 14.54% 55.84% 14.50% 15.11%
Defined by 3 to X 11.53% 33.39% 43.82% 11.26%
Defined by 4 to X 14.76% 15.63% 14.19% 55.42%
Why is defined by 3 a special case: 2 and 3 both become dominant!? Could it be a bug in my simulator?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 09:32 PM 2016
Defined by 1 to X 54.50% 15.52% 15.12% 14.86%
Defined by 2 to X 14.54% 55.84% 14.50% 15.11%
Defined by 3 to X 11.53% 33.39% 43.82% 11.26%
Defined by 4 to X 14.76% 15.63% 14.19% 55.42%
Why is defined by 3 a special case: 2 and 3 both become dominant!? Could it be a bug in my simulator?
Yeah there was a bug - now corrected - so expect it to be 14/15% like the rest. This test is therefore too granular - same/different are the only meaningful variables here.
In Priyanka's last 2 videos - unlocking magic - spin 1 is missed out and fewer bets are placed. Let's look at the stats for that:
CL1 Ignored 1st spin ignored 40.47% 59.53% 49.62% 37.68% 12.71%
CL1 Ignored (same) 1st spin ignored 60.91% 35.10% 3.99%
CL1 Ignored (different) 1st spin ignored 41.94% 39.43% 18.63%
Same has now increased to 40%! CL2 (betting only the 2nd spin) becomes the most dominant for both same and different.
Quote from: Drazen on Jun 29, 07:40 PM 2016
Great effort Falkor
In the meantime I decided for another approach.
I traveled 2500 kilometers from my home and I moved to the island next to Priyanka. From here I plan to hunt him down and force to tell me the answer. :lol:
Wish me well
Best
Drazen
He's probably with the mafia in Italy!
I suspect that in a losing session the stats will go pear shaped - prompting us to switch tactic to try to bet on the running totals coming back in line.
It's not clear what Priyanka does after Cycle Length 4 or why she does it:
| 1 | 34211 | 7 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 28 | 4 | W | |
| | 27 | 3 | VL | |
|
| 3 | 23143 | 22 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 18 | 2 | W | |
| | 35 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
|
| 1 | 21341 | 4 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | 24 | 3 | L | |
| | 30 | 4 | | Bet quads 1,2,3 |
In the first instance she supposedly would have played the 2nd bet and sustained a (virtual) loss - but the other examples suggests she doesn't play the 2nd bet in that situation.
The last example is from video 3 where Priyanka changed tactic - probably to do with aligning her bets to the stabilising of ratios. I am going to enter those numbers from video 3 into my simulator and see if anything stands out in terms of the ratios.
Quote from: Drazen on Jun 29, 07:40 PM 2016I traveled 2500 kilometers from my home
Great move, Drazen!
Sretno!
The only stats that are affected by the removal of Cycle Length 1 seem to be based on the cycle length in combination with the defining dozen, so I need to devise a new test.
| Cycle Length (same) | | | | 44.98% | 33.41% | 17.19% | 4.42% |
| Cycle Length (different) | | | | 0.00% | 42.01% | 42.09% | 15.90% |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | | | | 0.00% | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% |
| CL1 Ignored (different) | | | | 35.84% | 26.91% | 25.30% | 11.96% |
We know that after Cycle Length 4 we expect a "different" cycle length (91%!) - but it doesn't appear the current tests show which cycle lengths are more likely for different.
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to different | | | | | 62.86% | 71.48% | 90.55% |
hell of a lot of good work falkor!
What if you looked within those cycles, Falkor?
Quote from: 3Nine on Jun 30, 11:24 AM 2016
What if you looked within those cycles, Falkor?
I'm unable to find her quote but that might be sacrilege? I'm sure it was Priyanka who said that we must look at the events, which are not equally likely, instead of individual spins?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 30, 11:40 AM 2016
I'm unable to find her quote but that might be sacrilege? I'm sure it was Priyanka who said that we must look at the events, which are not equally likely, instead of individual spins?
Why not take a
closer look?
Some interesting stats come through:
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining dozen is the same?
CL1 to CLX (same): 1228 (44.%) 942 (34.%) 490 (18.%) 134 (5.%)
CL2 to CLX (same): 1931 (46.%) 1401 (33.%) 704 (17.%) 174 (4.%)
CL3 to CLX (same): 1438 (44.%) 1132 (35.%) 557 (17.%) 32 (3.%)
CL4 to CLX (same): 449 (45.%) 363 (36.%) 124 (4.%) 160 (16.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining dozen is different?
CL2/234 to CLX (same): 1932 (46.%) 1402 (33.%) 705 (17.%) 175 (4.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (same): 1439 (44.%) 1133 (35.%) 558 (17.%) 125 (4.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (same): 450 (45.%) 364 (36.%) 161 (16.%) 33 (3.%)
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (same): 5046 (100.%) 0 (0.%) 0 (0.%) 0 (0.%)
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining dozen is different?
CL1 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 980 (44.%) 944 (42.%) 328 (15.%)
CL2 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 1468 (42.%) 1543 (44.%) 506 (14.%)
CL3 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 1107 (42.%) 1112 (42.%) 121 (15.%)
CL4 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 334 (40.%) 414 (16.%) 374 (45.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining dozen is different?
CL2/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 1469 (42.%) 1544 (44.%) 507 (14.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 1108 (42.%) 1113 (42.%) 415 (16.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 335 (40.%) 375 (45.%) 122 (15.%)
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (diff): 3917 (25.%) 5943 (38.%) 4572 (29.%) 1416 (9.%)
CL234 to defining quad on spin 2 (diff): 5944 (50.%) 4573 (38.%) 1417 (12.%)
Above = defining quad NOT dozen!
The last test is our first look inside the cycle: can the cycle length help us to guess whether the first betting result (spin 2; spin 1 is the final result of the last cycle that is brought forward to the next cycle) will be the same as the defining quad or different?
Those CL234 tests used the wrong variable... running all stats again. :yawn:
Let's try again... hopefully this will make more sense too:
Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
Cycle Lengths - same or different to previous cycle length
CL1234 Totals (same): 12616 (29.%) (different): 31146 (71.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (40.%) (different): 19551 (60.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (30.%) (different): 30471 (70.%)
Cycle Lengths - overall general stats
CL1234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 2: 16296 (50.%) 3: 12374 (38.%) 4: 4173 (13.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
Cycle Lengths - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL1234 Totals (same) 1: 10920 (45.%) 2: 8111 (33.%) 3: 4173 (17.%) 4: 1074 (4.%)
CL1234 Totals (different) 1: 0 (0.%) 2: 8185 (42.%) 3: 8201 (42.%) 4: 3099 (16.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 2: 8200 (42.%) 3: 7708 (39.%) 4: 3643 (19.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 1: 10920 (36.%) 2: 8200 (27.%) 3: 7708 (25.%) 4: 3643 (12.%)
Cycle Lengths - which cycle length will most likely be the same or different to the previous cycle length
CL1/1234 1: 2693 (25.%) 2: 6055 (37.%) 3: 3481 (28.%) 4: 387 (9.%) to same
CL1/1234 1: 8226 (75.%) 2: 10241 (63.%) 3: 8893 (72.%) 4: 3786 (91.%) to different
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - which cycle length will most likely be the same or different to the previous cycle length
CL2/234 2: 8096 (50.%) 3: 4666 (38.%) 4: 530 (13.%) to same
CL2/234 2: 8199 (50.%) 3: 7708 (62.%) 4: 3643 (87.%) to different
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - which cycle length will most likely be the same or different to the previous cycle length
CL2/234 2: 8096 (37.%) 3: 4666 (29.%) 4: 530 (9.%) to same
CL2/234 2: 13700 (63.%) 3: 11694 (71.%) 4: 5076 (91.%) to different
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL1 to CLX (same): 2693 (45.%) 2000 (33.%) 1046 (17.%) 256 (4.%)
CL2 to CLX (same): 4151 (46.%) 2988 (33.%) 1564 (17.%) 392 (4.%)
CL3 to CLX (same): 3001 (44.%) 2320 (34.%) 1171 (17.%) 103 (4.%)
CL4 to CLX (same): 1075 (45.%) 803 (34.%) 323 (5.%) 392 (17.%)
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL1 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2010 (41.%) 2163 (44.%) 751 (15.%)
CL2 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 3067 (43.%) 2964 (41.%) 1170 (16.%)
CL3 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2356 (42.%) 2310 (42.%) 284 (16.%)
CL4 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 752 (42.%) 893 (16.%) 764 (42.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL2/234 to CLX (same): 4152 (46.%) 2989 (33.%) 1565 (17.%) 393 (4.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (same): 3002 (44.%) 2321 (34.%) 1172 (17.%) 324 (5.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (same): 1076 (45.%) 804 (34.%) 393 (17.%) 104 (4.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL2/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 3068 (43.%) 2965 (41.%) 1171 (16.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2357 (42.%) 2311 (42.%) 894 (16.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 753 (42.%) 765 (42.%) 285 (16.%)
Can the cycle length help us to guess whether spin 2 (spin 1 is the final result of the last cycle that is brought forward to the next cycle) will be the same as the defining quad
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (same): 2693 (25.%) 4151 (38.%) 3001 (27.%) 1075 (10.%)
CL234 to defining quad on spin 2 (same): 4152 (50.%) 3002 (36.%) 1076 (13.%)
Can the cycle length help us to guess whether spin 2 (spin 1 is the final result of the last cycle that is brought forward to the next cycle) will be different to the defining quad
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (diff): 8430 (25.%) 12481 (37.%) 9628 (29.%) 3193 (9.%)
CL234 to defining quad on spin 2 (diff): 12482 (49.%) 9629 (38.%) 3194 (13.%)
Falkor, can I ask a dumb question please? I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of Cycle and Cycle Length in terms of quads because I want to make sure I properly understand your stats and what they mean.
Are we talking about repeaters here? That is, a cycle length of 1 means that, from the point where we start the process we have a repeat immediately. So quad 1 appears and then straight-away quad 1 appears again - this is a cycle of length 1. If we skip 1 spin and get a repeat then that is a cycle of length 2. And so on. So that the maximum is 4 because a repeater absolutely must appear at least by the 5th spin and in this case it is a cycle of length 4.
Also, are you calculating your stats on the basis that the quad that terminated the cycle is also used as the first spin in the new cycle?
thanks
Rog
Quote from: RMore on Jul 01, 07:06 PM 2016Are we talking about repeaters here? That is, a cycle length of 1 means that, from the point where we start the process we have a repeat immediately. So quad 1 appears and then straight-away quad 1 appears again - this is a cycle of length 1. If we skip 1 spin and get a repeat then that is a cycle of length 2. And so on. So that the maximum is 4 because a repeater absolutely must appear at least by the 5th spin and in this case it is a cycle of length 4.
That's correct.
Quote from: RMore on Jul 01, 07:06 PM 2016
Falkor, can I ask a dumb question please? I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of Cycle and Cycle Length in terms of quads because I want to make sure I properly understand your stats and what they mean.
Are we talking about repeaters here? That is, a cycle length of 1 means that, from the point where we start the process we have a repeat immediately. So quad 1 appears and then straight-away quad 1 appears again - this is a cycle of length 1. If we skip 1 spin and get a repeat then that is a cycle of length 2. And so on. So that the maximum is 4 because a repeater absolutely must appear at least by the 5th spin and in this case it is a cycle of length 4.
Also, are you calculating your stats on the basis that the quad that terminated the cycle is also used as the first spin in the new cycle?
thanks
Rog
Yep - what you are describing is exactly the framework used for the above stats. I need to check exactly how Priyanka is missing out cycle length 1 - but it seems to have no affect on the stats hardly - certainly I'm not seeing any potential exploit with it (yet).
Thanks 3Nine. And regarding the starting point? Do I have that correct also?
Now, trying to figure out the numbers in Falkor's analysis.
QuoteDefined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
Do I understand that this means: out of 43,763 cycles total there were 24,278 that completed with the same quad as the one that completed the last cycle, and 19,485 where the completing quad was different?
I really have to question my understanding of this because I would have expected the figure to be somewhere around the 25% for same and 75% for different. A little variation I can cope with but this? That is huge! There are 4 possibilities to complete a cycle right? Any one of the 4 could do it and in a random game the chances of any one of the 4 coming up is 25% (not including the zero). The same quad as the last cycle completion is just one of the quads - the other 3 did NOT complete the cycle - right? So the chances for that particular quad to come up is still just 25% in my book. So how can it possibly be 55%. Plainly I have misunderstood what these stats mean.
Rog,
A recent post of Priyanka's may be helpful:
"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, <EM>the probability of the cycle length being 1 has to be ruled out</EM>. 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."
Hope that helps.
Quote from: RMore on Jul 01, 07:56 PM 2016Do I understand that this means: out of 43,763 cycles total there were 24,278 that completed with the same quad as the one that completed the last cycle, and 19,485 where the completing quad was different?
I really have to question my understanding of this because I would have expected the figure to be somewhere around the 25% for same and 75% for different. A little variation I can cope with but this? That is huge! There are 4 possibilities to complete a cycle right? Any one of the 4 could do it and in a random game the chances of any one of the 4 coming up is 25% (not including the zero). The same quad as the last cycle completion is just one of the quads - the other 3 did NOT complete the cycle - right? So the chances for that particular quad to come up is still just 25% in my book. So how can it possibly be 55%. Plainly I have misunderstood what these stats mean.
It's the same stat as the one in Priyanka's spreadsheet:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/rnq9atmln/stat.png)
It's been covered before for dozens:
rrbbyou can calculate the probability that a repeat on dozens occurs on the previous "defining" dozen: 17/27 (which is of course Priyanka's 63%)
link:://s32.postimg.org/gml4xyxl1/defining.jpg
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.450 (page 31)
rrbb I think that what Priyanka shared is extremely important:
The probability on any dozen is of course 1/3. But Under the condition of a repeat, the probability is "suddenly" 17/27
Btw: there are many other imbalances. Priyanka showed you some...
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.450 (page 31)
Nothing strange or new. Going to bayes site it is link:://:.roulettician.com/probability1.html#mozTocId598749
winkel: link:://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=13004.0
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.795 (page 54)
This stat has a 75% chance:
Cycle Lengths - which cycle length will most likely be the same or different to the previous cycle length
CL1/1234 1: 2693 (25.%) 2: 6055 (37.%) 3: 3481 (28.%) 4: 387 (9.%) to same
CL1/1234 1: 8226 (75.%) 2: 10241 (63.%) 3: 8893 (72.%) 4: 3786 (91.%) to different Also "probability asserting itself" based on the outcome of 3/4 quads besides the defining quad:
Can the cycle length help us to guess whether spin 2 (spin 1 is the final result of the last cycle that is brought forward to the next cycle) will be the same as the defining quad or different?
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (same): 2693 (25.%) 4151 (38.%) 3001 (27.%) 1075 (10.%)
CLX to defining quad on spin 2 (diff): 8430 (25.%) 12481 (37.%) 9628 (29.%) 3193 (9.%) (8430 / (2693 + 8430)) * 100 = 75%
3Nine, yeah, the defining dozen (or quad) result is based on stitching bets and predicting that the next cycle (as an event) will be the same as the previous defining element:
Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
I'll just grab a Krispy Kreme... one sec.
OK, so perhaps this is where missing out cycle length 1 can change the above stats? I don't think I've covered or considered that test before? :question:
The next opportunity seems to be at spin 3 where Priyanka either bets the last 2 quads or the opposite of the last 2 quads. Spin 2 doesn't seem to offer any bias, so perhaps something happens at spin 3 (to also be tested next).
Thanks guys. This is getting real interesting. OK, so the 55% is the COMBINED probability of the possibility that the previous defining quad will hit on one of the next four spins - determined by simulation rather than theoretical calculation? Does this include the zero?
The theoretical number for this (taking into account the zero) is 67% (I think, if I have it right). So the simulation is worse than the theoretical. This would indicate that we should NOT play for the same I would have thought.
This seems to contradict where this is all going so where am I going wrong in my thinking here?
RMore, your first sentence is correct: combined probability of the next 4 spins - but I don't include zero in my calculations.
You mention theoretical is 67%, but it was calculated on paper to match the excel simulation (63% for dozens; 55% for quads):
link:://s32.postimg.org/gml4xyxl1/defining.jpg
Surely the higher the percentage the higher the predictability so we should play with the defining element in mind I think? However, we do get better stitched payout odds if we play for cycle length 3 (2nd best is CL2), and I'm not sure if Priyanka uses the above constant (same or different defining element) in her strategy or not*? For that reason it seems Priyanka avoids closing the cycle on spin 2 - she instead goes for spin 3 (CL2) betting the last 2 quads (to close off CL2) or she goes for spin 4 (CL3) via the opposite of the last 2 quads; the final bet of the cycle is then the last 3 quads to close off CL3. What she uses to make those decisions after spin 2 is not yet clear - but it might be simply based on the previous cycle length dictating the next cycle length. That just leaves the biggest mystery of all: why miss out CL1? What exploit/advantage is to be had from doing that?
Unless it's something to do with VdW why does CL1 as a trigger deserve the silent treatment?
*At the end of video 3 Priyanka begins betting specific quads, so she could be trying to play catch up in terms of the aforementioned constant - otherwise her basic play doesn't seem to rely on any specific stats/exploits other than missing out the CL1 trigger (for some strange reason) then going for the best payout odds in terms of CL2 or CL3, stitched.
That's a great picture. I get that. Is it valid to add probabilities like that? Anyway, in the case of dozens, and without zero, then the probability that any particular dozen will hit in the next 3 spins is 70.37%. Theoretically calculated. This is a better chance than 63% for the chosen dozen that is the same as the previous dozen. So wouldn't it be a better bet to grab any of the other 2?
I'll have a think about that, RMore, thanks!
BTW, there was a discussion before that the defining element being the same as previous is based on a stat that is subject to distortion, depending on the previous cycle length.
Oh really? That's interesting. That should be reasonably easily verified I would have thought. Given that you have a running sim that generated your stats couldn't you simply add up as you go into different variables depending on the previous cycle length?
Yeah - I just trawled through my set of stats on the previous page (worse than a day out at the newspaper archive!) and *embarrassingly* enough it appears all my tests were based around predicting the cycle length instead of predicting the defining element. That's worse than falling for thermite technology as being used on 9/11 instead of LENR cold fusion - that old gag coming from the hired opposition! RMore, sometimes I'm so stupid you know... I need to brush up on this big time. :-[ :sad2:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=x3uBWKRAIXs
Better to change your mind when new information comes to light than to stick like glue to old out-dated views. I guess sometimes our enthusiasm gets a little ahead of our proven facts. That's not an issue - we all do that - it only becomes an issue when we can't shift our position depending on the known facts as they surface. Keep at it.
When I can find some time I might write a sim for myself. I'm an old school programmer, can't use these modern tools to save my life, but I can code like a demon in COBOL or BASIC (although probably rusty on COBOL now). I have a Digital VAX VM on my PC that runs Open-VMS and BASIC so I play around with that. Got lots of data stored up and my own RNG based on a million decimal places of PI that works for me. Not perfect I am sure but sufficient for the task. It's just finding the time. Even though I am retired now I just seem to be so busy! And the brain isn't quite as quick as it once was.
Anyway, just fix up your code and move on. I'm really interested in how it is going even though I know that some of the great minds lurking here think we are crazy!
I hear ya, RMORE: I am aware of the problem of Cognitive Dissonance! :)
I was brought up using BASIC from about age 8 on the ZX Spectrum - and my late mother used COBOL on those old mainframe computers when she worked for Citibank! Did you use punch cards as well back in the day? :)
I use some 3rd party scripting language for my coding - but I think I was/am the only exponent of it. The company disappeared decades ago - and their software was never popular or well known anyhow. You would never even have heard of the software I use for testing Quads: it's called GDidb Pro.
FYI: my code looks like this - totally alien - but when you know one programming language then you know them all!
&assign(?cyclesamep?,(?cyclesame?/(?cyclesame?+?cyclediff?))*100)
&format(?cyclesamep?,"%\#.00f",?cyclesamep?
<B>Defined by Total (same):</B> ?sametotal? (?samepercentage?%) <B>(different):</B> ?difftotal? (?diffpercentage?%)
They even have things like For loops! :D
# Open HTML file for writing
&html(“index.htmlâ€)
{
# declare user variable “countâ€
&defvar(?count?)
# loop until count is zero. This function will loop 5 times
&for(?count?,0,?count?<10,2)
{
# write the current value of count to the HTML file
?count?
}
}
I did learn Visual Basic and C - but can't be asked to further develop those skills. Our time on this earth is very limited.
People may think we are crazy - but CD suggests it's them - not us! Here's what the Flavians had to say about Cognitive Dissonance in the first century (aimed at the Jews):
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/5fd1icwh7/hypocrites.jpg)
Quote from: RMore on Jul 01, 10:54 PM 2016
even though I know that some of the great minds lurking here think we are crazy!
Those "great minds" you are referring to are the educated ones...
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/md1y9pt53/intelligencea.jpg) (link:s://postimg.org/image/md1y9pt53/)
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/tub5oxio7/intelligenceb.jpg) (link:s://postimg.org/image/tub5oxio7/)
Word!
OK now, time to get off the soapbox - back to work lads!
:wink:
Quote from: RMore on Jul 01, 11:39 PM 2016
Word!
OK now, time to get off the soapbox - back to work lads!
:wink:
Roger that!
Are we yet able to make contact with the Ether, where free energy and edge are both obtainable?
Data set 1Defined by Total (same): 24293 (56.%) (different): 19470 (44.%)
Defining Quad - same or different based on previous cycle length
CL1 (same): 6154 (55.90%) (different): 4855 (44.10%)
CL2 (same): 9014 (55.10%) (different): 7344 (44.90%)
CL3 (same): 6921 (55.68%) (different): 5509 (44.32%)
CL4 (same): 2204 (55.59%) (different): 1761 (44.41%)
Doesn't appear to be any distortion based on previous cycle length?
Data set 2
Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
Defining Quad - same or different based on previous cycle length
CL1 (same): 5995 (54.90%) (different): 4924 (45.10%)
CL2 (same): 9095 (55.81%) (different): 7201 (44.19%)
CL3 (same): 6815 (55.08%) (different): 5559 (44.92%)
CL4 (same): 2373 (56.87%) (different): 1800 (43.13%)
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (in the next 4 spins):
Defined by 4 to X: 1610 (15.) 1705 (16.) 1548 (14.) 6046 (55.)
Does the last result look correct? I thought quads 1-3 would have each had a better chance on their own - but I already run the test in 2 different ways with the same results.
Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
Defining Quad - same or different based on current cycle length
CL1 (same): 10920 (100.00%) (different): 0 (0.00%)
CL2 (same): 8111 (49.77%) (different): 8185 (50.23%)
CL3 (same): 4173 (33.72%) (different): 8201 (66.28%)
CL4 (same): 1074 (25.74%) (different): 3099 (74.26%)
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length 3):
Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22.) 726 (24.) 635 (21.) 1049 (34.)
The last result in full:
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length X):
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100.)
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17.) 724 (18.) 654 (16.) 1997 (49.)
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22.) 726 (24.) 635 (21.) 1049 (34.)
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25.) 255 (24.) 259 (25.) 273 (26.)
Yep - looks right to me.
Developing a strategy from all these stats that are coming through is far from simple it seems... Which of these first 2 questions comes first - or do they both need to be addressed simultaneously?
1) Which Cycle Length should we play for next cycle?
2) Will the next cycle be defined by the previous quad or will it be different?
The next questions on from that will perhaps be:
3) How to best play for a such and such cycle length?
4) How to create further bias/edge during the above event.
Q1 depends on the best trigger for predicting the next cycle length - but also taking into account the best payout odds, which we know occur during CL2 and 3. How to evaluate constants and payout odds together? To understand if such triggers exist, more tests may need to be devised. Does ignoring CL1 contribute to this trigger or could there possibly be another reason why CL1 should be ignored?
Q2 could be tied up with Q1 because they are possibly dependent on each other? If you know whether the defining element will be the same or different then can you say more about the cycle length OR if you know more about the cycle length can you say more about the defining element in terms of "same"/"different"? This is the most confusing part for me.
Q3 involves playing for a set number of spins depending on which CL is being attempted, and there's different ways of playing those. Perhaps we should play only the last 2 quads instead of the last 3 or the last quad instead of the last 2? Do we include the defining quad or try to avoid it?
Q4 perhaps we could look at opportunities surrounding the last hit streets within the quads, or weight our bets differently across the quads, or look at extending the cycle to 2 repeats even. More stats needed to find out.
RMore, any feedback would be appreciated on the above!
It seems to me that all your hard work in the various ways of looking at the cycles is just confirming that internally the laws of probability are working as expected. There would seem to be no strange distortions occurring anywhere no matter which quad you choose to break down or follow. We must conclude therefore that if we want to develop a strategy based on this structure we must do so around the numbers that flow naturally from that overlay on the series of outcomes. And that's what this is, really. Simply an overlay on the flow of outcomes that transforms one series of numbers into another. Hence it is a transformation process.
But here we have imposed a carefully constructed structure such that it results in a series of discrete strings of numbers - that is, a string begins and ends rather than continues on endlessly. Furthermore it is constructed in such a way that the string ends NECESSARILY rather than arbitrarily, so that while there is an endless supply of these transforms, each transform is complete unto itself.
Bottom line - I do think there is power in this type of transformation, but exactly how to capitalise on that is difficult and presently eludes me. Some would say this is because there is no possible advantage here no matter the "power" that I speak of, but I am not so sure. I think we do need to get a little creative and think outside the box a bit more. Simply running a series of statistical simulations is really doing nothing more than confirming that probability rules. The thing is, we already know this and so your effort in analysing the data, while admirable, is possibly wasted. Well - not entirely because I guess it has, at least, confirmed that probability is alive and well and functioning just fine here.
But let's move on from there. Let's look at the numbers themselves - the ones that result from the transformation. It seems to me that there are actually two streams of data that can be analysed here. The series of numbers inside each string, and the flow of cycle lengths as each string completes. This makes it a sort of matrix if you will, a 2-dimensional animal that is writhing and straining against the constraints imposed by the cage in which we have placed it - but cannot ever escape. We may not ever be able to tame this beast but we can constrain it.
Probably not much help but that's how I see it - at the moment anyway.
(edit: haven't read RMore's latest reply yet!)
OK, I had a long think about this. I think 2 different strategies can be built up around both constants - initially beginning with one or the other: Cycle Lengths + Defining Element.
Defining Element strategy
In terms of Quads it seems the defining element is in our favour for each cycle to have more chance of finishing on it - even if you combined all the opposite quads against it:
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length X):
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100%) = Defining element wins! 2727 vs. 0
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17%) 724 (18%) 654 (16%) 1997 (49%) = draw! 2727+1997 vs. 687+724+654
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22%) 726 (24%) 635 (21%) 1049 (34%) = Other quads win! 2727+1997+1049 vs. 687+724+654+665+726+635
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25%) 255 (24%) 259 (25%) 273 (26%) = Other quads win! 2727+1997+1049+273 vs. 687+724+654+665+726+635+258+255+259 = 6046 vs. 4863 in favour of the defining quad!
So in this strategy we should aim to close off the cycle with the defining quad, gradually bringing in our knowledge of cycle lengths to assist us with decisions. I can envisage betting on the defining quad together with the most recent quad as a way of potentially gaining edge. Also, the fewer quads that we bet the better the payout.
Cycle Lengths strategy
I haven't yet found any support that a trigger exists for predicting the next cycle length, including missing out CL1, so why Priyanka does that is currently alien:
If previous Cycle Length is 1,2,3 or 4 then what percentage for the next Cycle Length to be 1,2,3 or 4
CL1 to 1: 2693 (25.) 2: 4010 (33.) 3: 3209 (28.) 4: 1007 (11.)
CL2 to 1: 4151 (25.) 2: 6055 (33.) 3: 4528 (27.) 4: 1562 (11.)
CL3 to 1: 3001 (24.) 2: 4676 (33.) 3: 3481 (27.) 4: 1216 (11.)
CL4 to 1: 1075 (26.) 2: 1555 (33.) 3: 1156 (27.) 4: 387 (11.)
However, the cycle lengths do have a natural bias to CL2 and CL3:
Cycle Lengths - overall general stats
CL1234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
So we could build up a strategy of playing for Cycle Length 2 and 3 and introducing the other constant - defining element - to aid us with decisions a long the way. By stitching and parlaying bets we can get increase payouts. This is the strategy that Priyanka used in her videos, albeit flat-betting. However, she appears to be acting on triggers (if it finishes on one cycle length she ignores CL1 and goes for a repeat of the same) - but nothing has shown up in my stats to offer even an inkling as to the basis of those triggers!? :question:
Regarding why Pri leaves out CL1 - what if she does that out of necessity rather than choice? I mean, what if the bet strategy is such that there is no possible bet on the first spin? I dunno - just some random thoughts going on here. What could be a rule that results in that?
Thanks Rog! :) That's a step-up from my imagination of the ether and universal architecture! :thumbsup: Yours is indeed a beautiful analogy... :love: And I'll be following up on your advice pretty quickly... tomorrow I will see what I can come up with and hopefully take it from there? So then... until the next cycle of the earth... good-night my friend! ;)
Quote from: RMore on Jul 03, 07:27 PM 2016
Regarding why Pri leaves out CL1 - what if she does that out of necessity rather than choice? I mean, what if the bet strategy is such that there is no possible bet on the first spin? I dunno - just some random thoughts going on here. What could be a rule that results in that?
OK I guess it's nothing more than a loss/virtual loss in the non-random world then - pausing play ahead of VdW to dictate the next action.
Next I am going to tackle the animal in the cage... anyone care to sponsor me?
(link:://officialhuskylovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Dog-with-its-head-stuck-in-a-Cage.jpg)
"But here we have imposed a carefully constructed structure such that it results in a series of discrete strings of numbers - that is, a string begins and ends rather than continues on endlessly. Furthermore it is constructed in such a way that the string ends NECESSARILY rather than arbitrarily, so that while there is an endless supply of these transforms, each transform is complete unto itself."
Above Roger describes a "string" of numbers ending "necessarily" on a repeat, rather than stopping randomly; hence he is describing specifically the string of, say, dozens or quads, that make up a
cycle; and these strings "transforms" into another string: cycle lengths.
"We must conclude therefore that if we want to develop a strategy based on this structure we must do so around the numbers that flow naturally from that overlay on the series of outcomes. And that's what this is, really. Simply an overlay on the flow of outcomes that transforms one series of numbers into another. Hence it is a transformation process."
"But let's move on from there. Let's look at the numbers themselves - the ones that result from the transformation. It seems to me that there are actually two streams of data that can be analysed here. The series of numbers inside each string, and the flow of cycle lengths as each string completes. This makes it a sort of matrix if you will, a 2-dimensional animal that is writhing and straining against the constraints imposed by the cage in which we have placed it - but cannot ever escape. We may not ever be able to tame this beast but we can constrain it."
Here again Roger describes how a string of dozens or quads, which make up cycles, are "transformed" into a 2nd stream of numbers/data that make up our string of cycle lengths.
"Cycle of lenght 1, cycle of length 2, cycle of lenght 1, CL1, CL1, CL2, CL3, CL2, CL4, CL3, CL1, CL2, CL1, CL3, CL3, CL3..... this is a sequence that is formed by events which are cycle lenghts."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.195
The "cage" is the framework of cycles imposed upon the dozen/quad strings, limiting their possible combinations into a set of events (4 different cycle lengths with 4 different defining elements) based on the pigeon hole principle, thereby putting a "constraint" on sequences of roulette spins that would otherwise continue endlessly or finish "arbitrarily". Roulette is a beast but we can constrain it using cycles - concentrating on their resulting streams of data - guiding us in controlling it's behaviour.
How to create a strategy from this? Well, just from looking at the newly created stream of cycle lengths it seems we could look for patterns amongst that stream alone, and hopefully expect more stable ratios of lengths that aren't subject to much variance - with the possibility of using a count to bring the lengths back up when one type has deviated? Also, there might be rare events contained in this stream that we could potentially capitalise on...
"...it is rare to have several unique 3 dozen cycles in a row.
I was tinkering around with the idea of betting for a repeat after seeing 3 unique fall.
As far as your idea here, how would we bet a sequence with repeats in the middle like this:
1233312222133321123
1233
33
3122
22
22
2133
33
3211
123
Just wondering how common it would be to have a string of unique 3 dozens with several repeats in the middle."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16937.30
Playing a system based around Cycle Lengths and/or the Defining Element - with or without VdW - our worst enemy is always going to be Cycle Length 4 (see above and below), resulting in "Dead-heats":
"While non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will make this dead-heats into winning combination."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.90 (page 7)
However, ultimately, what Roger seems to be describing is that a relationship exists between cycle lengths and spins - both separate streams of data in their own right - that we can capitalise on:
"(Cycle Lengths) - That holds the key between differentiating from spins to events and the dependency it creates."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.690 (page 47)
Over the course of these topics we've analysed several different parallel games with supposed dependency existing between them. In (thinking) Outside The Box rrbb examined "transforming" ordinary roulette numbers into a 2nd stream of random numbers by carrying over the last result to the start of the sequence (a similar concept to the ending of a cycle and beginning of a new one by carrying over the defining quad); in the same context Herby examined "transforming" the rolls of a die into a 2nd stream of numbers (1-6) using the same framework:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.60
We've also examined "transforming" dozen/quad cycles into a 2nd stream of cycle lengths (countless times!) and even looked at VdW on ECs and Dozens simultaneously:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0
What is this relationship between all these parallel games? And how can we possibly capitalise on it? I'm not even sure of the basics of how to play a 2 stream game of roulette over the single stream game that we are used to? It's not the same as playing at 2 different (independent) roulette tables because there is dependency between our two streams: "if one is peaking then the other is also peaking" (source: link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.225). Do we concentrate on each stream? Do we play one at a time or both together? Do we alternate at a set frequency? Or do we ignore the streams at large and concentrate on the "transformation" mechanism itself, i.e. the exact moment where a result in one stream is born out of it's counterpart? What are the basics we need to know in order to get us started on this?
Also, the problem as I see it is the nature of the "overlay" that occurs during this "transformation" process. On one side we have parallel games that compliment each other every spin - but on the other side are parallel games where the results occur at different points in each stream albeit with some overlap in the overlay:
| OUTSIDE THE BOX - STRAIGHTS | | | | VDW - ECS + DOZENS | |
| Stream 1 | Stream 2 | | | Stream 1 | Stream 2 |
| 27 | 27 | | 28 | | |
| 4 | 5 | | 26 | Poss. 1,2,3 (High) | Poss. 1,2,3 (Dozen 3) |
| 8 | 9 | | 9 | | |
| 23 | 24 | | 18 | Poss. 3,4,5 (Low) | |
| 35 | 35 | | 1 | | |
| 17 | 20 | | 21 | | Poss. 3,5,7 (Dozen 1) |
| 14 | 18 | | 24 | Poss. 1,2,3 (High) | Poss. 4,6,8 (Dozen 2); Poss. 6,7,8 (Dozen 2) |
| 32 | 33 | | 10 | Poss. 3,4,5 (Low) | Poss. 8,9,10 (Dozen 1) Poss. 4,7,10 (Dozen 2) |
| 9 | 15 | | 11 | | |
| 13 | 19 | | 12 | | |
| | | | | |
| OUTSIDE THE BOX - DICE | | | | CYCLES + CYCLE LENGTHS | |
| Stream 1 | Stream 2 | | | Stream 1 | Stream 2 |
| 2 | 2 | | 17 | 2 | |
| 4 | 4 | | 20 | 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 | | 11 | 1 | |
| 3 | 2 | | 35 | 3 | |
| 4 | 3 | | 34 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | | 12 | 1 | |
| 5 | 5 | | 23 | 2 | |
| 6 | 6 | | 15 | 2 | 2 |
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 03, 07:02 PM 2016
(edit: haven't read RMore's latest reply yet!)
OK, I had a long think about this. I think 2 different strategies can be built up around both constants - initially beginning with one or the other: Cycle Lengths + Defining Element.
Defining Element strategy
In terms of Quads it seems the defining element is in our favour for each cycle to have more chance of finishing on it - even if you combined all the opposite quads against it:
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length X):
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100%) = Defining element wins! 2727 vs. 0
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17%) 724 (18%) 654 (16%) 1997 (49%) = draw! 2727+1997 vs. 687+724+654
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22%) 726 (24%) 635 (21%) 1049 (34%) = Other quads win! 2727+1997+1049 vs. 687+724+654+665+726+635
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25%) 255 (24%) 259 (25%) 273 (26%) = Other quads win! 2727+1997+1049+273 vs. 687+724+654+665+726+635+258+255+259 = 6046 vs. 4863 in favour of the defining quad!
So in this strategy we should aim to close off the cycle with the defining quad, gradually bringing in our knowledge of cycle lengths to assist us with decisions. I can envisage betting on the defining quad together with the most recent quad as a way of potentially gaining edge. Also, the fewer quads that we bet the better the payout.
Cycle Lengths strategy
I haven't yet found any support that a trigger exists for predicting the next cycle length, including missing out CL1, so why Priyanka does that is currently alien:
If previous Cycle Length is 1,2,3 or 4 then what percentage for the next Cycle Length to be 1,2,3 or 4
CL1 to 1: 2693 (25.) 2: 4010 (33.) 3: 3209 (28.) 4: 1007 (11.)
CL2 to 1: 4151 (25.) 2: 6055 (33.) 3: 4528 (27.) 4: 1562 (11.)
CL3 to 1: 3001 (24.) 2: 4676 (33.) 3: 3481 (27.) 4: 1216 (11.)
CL4 to 1: 1075 (26.) 2: 1555 (33.) 3: 1156 (27.) 4: 387 (11.)
However, the cycle lengths do have a natural bias to CL2 and CL3:
Cycle Lengths - overall general stats
CL1234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
So we could build up a strategy of playing for Cycle Length 2 and 3 and introducing the other constant - defining element - to aid us with decisions a long the way. By stitching and parlaying bets we can get increase payouts. This is the strategy that Priyanka used in her videos, albeit flat-betting. However, she appears to be acting on triggers (if it finishes on one cycle length she ignores CL1 and goes for a repeat of the same) - but nothing has shown up in my stats to offer even an inkling as to the basis of those triggers!? :question:
I'm going to test some more stats tomorrow. The following stats were based on individual quads closing a cycle, but since the defining quad already has a head-start the other quads need to hit twice to overtake it and be the new defining quad.
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100%)
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17%) 724 (18%) 654 (16%) 1997 (49%)
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22%) 726 (24%) 635 (21%) 1049 (34%)
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25%) 255 (24%) 259 (25%) 273 (26%)
I actually need to test what chance there is of quad 4 and the other quads hitting at spin 2,3 and 4 - regardless of whether they close the cycle or not.
If the previous cycle length was the same then does that affect the next cycle length being same/different?
If the previous defining quad was the same then does that affect the next cycle having the same/different defining quad?
This statement is still a bit of an enigma:
"There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited?"
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
Could Priyanka simply be referring to skipping the first bet and playing for cycle lengths 2 and 3 rather than missing out any previous cycles of length 1? We do get different ratios then:
Cycle Lengths - same or different to previous cycle length
CL1234 Totals (same): 12616 (29.%) (different): 31146 (71.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (30.%) (different): 30471 (70.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (40.%) (different): 19551 (60.%)
In the first 3 Quads videos she does play the first bet - but it's not to complete the cycle. In the last 2 vids she missed out the first bet entirely.
Gosh that's a lot of writing there Falkor! This is really absorbing you isn't it? I really should look into Pri's vids a bit more. I seem to recall that she said that the first vid or perhaps 2 (?) she played arbitrarily but I think she also said at some point that certain ones were played accurately according to how she would actually play. Do you happen to remember which is accurate? And was there an accurate transcript of the outcomes and her play?
Sorry to ask because I know I could trawl through all the posts and probably find out for myself but honestly I am pressed for time and thought that of all the people lurking here you would most likely be the one to know.
Rog, seeing as my day job of fixing computers only takes 5% of brain power, I need to keep my brain occupied with something more interesting! Could you please find me a better job? I'm a wasted talent.
I know that when Priyanka introduced the first quads video based on Iron Steel and Turner's ideas, she said it had a 9% edge - and that was the only video where an accurate transcript was posted before I came along and messed up that trend through being slapdash! :D
Number Quad Cycle quad W/L Bet Why?
29 4
3 1
9 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
4 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
32 4 W Bet 3 - 4 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
18 2 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
1 1 No bet
7 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 VL No bet Virtual loss.
24 3 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
5 1 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
7 1 1 VW Bet 2 - 3 - 4 Virtual Win. End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W Bet 1 - 4 We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
15 2 W Bet 1 - 2 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
31 4 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
30 4 4 No bet ??? No ideal why we dont make a bet here…
14 2 VW No bet Virtual win.
29 4 4 VW Bet 1 - 2 - 3 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
31 4 4 L No bet Here we lost our bet. Now we wait for a virtual win.
36 4 4 No bet
35 4 4 No bet
5 1 No bet
11 2 No bet
20 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
1 1 No bet
9 1 1 No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 Bet 1 - 3 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
19 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
7 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
15 2 L No bet Lost
10 2 2 Bet 1 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
16 2 2 L No bet Lost
12 2 2 No bet
10 2 2 No bet
4 1 No bet
26 3 No bet
16 2 2 No bet
15 2 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 3 No bet
9 1 Bet 2 - 4 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
11 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
23 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
25 3 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
5 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 ??? Why bet? We did not have a virtual win here.
29 4 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
20 3 W Bet 1 - 3 - 4 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
24 3 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
12 2 2 W END
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.210 (page 15)
Apart from that, her most amazing video was the one on the Double Streets. I wish there were more videos of that, alas.
Next I have a very exciting test coming up ahead of the other ones I planned: which quad closes the cycle for CL 1,2,3, and 4?
*Most recent
*2nd most recent
*Oldest (defining quad)
OK. Thanks.
Damn, that's a bad result:
Which Cycles are closed by which Quads in terms of most recent
CL1: always by defining quad otherwise cycle length has to be longer
CL2: last quad 8185 (50.) defining: 8111 (50.)
CL3: last quad 4105 (33.) 2nd to last: 4096 (33.) defining: 4173 (34.)
CL4: last quad 1069 (26.) 2nd to last: 1015 (24.) 3rd to last: 1015 (24.) defining: 1074 (26.)
It's to be expected. You are simply measuring a stochastic process in various different ways and so of course the results will be as predicted by probability. We are still inside the box.
Quote from: RMore on Jul 05, 07:19 AM 2016
It's to be expected. You are simply measuring a stochastic process in various different ways and so of course the results will be as predicted by probability. We are still inside the box.
I know we are still inside the box, Rog, but which principles besides VdW are outside the box? I don't think Priyanka really shared enough info about parallel games, hence my post from yesterday to show the current state of affairs. The only reason I am performing these tests is because Cycles could be considered non-random and are based on the pigeon hole principle. And since Cycles are a new concept to us here they should first be put through the normal, conventional, tests first?
Fair enough. Can't fault your reasoning there. At least it is confirming that your models are working correctly.
Quote from: RMore on Jul 05, 07:31 AM 2016
Fair enough. Can't fault your reasoning there. At least it is confirming that your models are working correctly.
Since cycles have more stable ratios subject to less deviation, as well as bias, created out of the defining element linking one cycle to another, I don't have any expectation nor can I predict what will happen under various scenarios - nor what will be the best outcome - without first running tests. If I did then I would be deluded. And I don't trust my limited skills at maths to accurately predict probabilities theoretically. The computer simulation is far more accurate than me. When playing straights we would win before a cycle length of 25 -
if there were no table limits because a repeat has to happen as per the Pigeon Hole Principle. So if we break that down into mini-games of CL1-4 via Quads then from what basis are you, bayes and turbo able to make such condescending remarks such as "it's to be expected" or "you are just proving probability works" or "you will never escape the house edge"? This isn't so much about escaping the house edge, but knowing the best outcomes in different situations and escaping the table limits whilst progressing towards a repeat that has to happen. Probability can tell us a lot - but it's overrated in the sense that a lot of you guys think it has the power to tell us that all systems will fail unless they use VdW. Similarly, people think that Derren Brown can read people's minds simply from using NLP as the sole explanation to his magical powers. The fact is: his shows are staged with stooges.
Wasn't trying to be condescending. Sorry you see it that way. Carry on my good man! (Trying to be lighthearted here!).
Quote from: RMore on Jul 03, 06:51 PM 2016
But let's move on from there. Let's look at the numbers themselves - the ones that result from the transformation. It seems to me that there are actually two streams of data that can be analysed here. The series of numbers inside each string, and the flow of cycle lengths as each string completes. This makes it a sort of matrix if you will, a 2-dimensional animal that is writhing and straining against the constraints imposed by the cage in which we have placed it - but cannot ever escape. We may not ever be able to tame this beast but we can constrain it.
Rog, isn't there 3 streams here instead of 2...?
*Individual quads
*Cycle lengths
*Defining quads
Can we use the history of one to predict the fate of another? I hope to test that out in a couple of days time.
Bad result again... :yawn:
When defining quad is quad 4 then which quad will hit on spins 2,3,4 (spin 1 is the defining quad 4 result carried over from the previous cycle)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 2: 2750 (25.) 2850 (26.) 2794 (25.) 2727 (25.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 3: 2088 (25.) 2180 (26.) 2034 (25.) 1997 (24.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 4: 1066 (26.) 1066 (26.) 969 (23.) 1049 (25.)
Yes I guess so. You've added a new one - the flow of defining quads. My guess would have to be that this one would be pretty close to 25% for each quad and the flow would most likely look like any flow from a 25% probability. But in terms of how it relates to the other 2 flows? Mm - unsure of that. But on the surface, I would have to guess that it won't result in anything startling because I can't see any relationship between this one and the other 2. But of course it is only by digging into it that we can find out for sure. My advice though would be not to get your hopes up too high.
Thanks - but I don't know how you can see a relationship between quads and cycle lengths - but by the same token - not between defining quads and cycle lengths or defining quads and quads? Without testing such hypothesis where does your logic/intuition come from? How are you able to instinctively recognise 1 combination being part of a transformation process - but not another?
Ugh - my brain is getting foggy! I think I need some sleep. I can see that there is a relationship between the quads contained in a string and the cycle lengths. If the cycle length is 1 then the defining quad absolutely must be the same as the cycle before. If the length is 2 then there is a 75% chance that the defining quad is the same as the one before - and so on. But I can't see how the flow of the defining quads, by itself, is related to either the cycle lengths or the quads contained in a cycle. But perhaps I'm just not seeing it. It's got nothing to do with intuition. It's got a lot to do with what I am capable of visualizing right at this moment.
Quote from: RMore on Jul 05, 10:33 AM 2016If the cycle length is 1 then the defining quad absolutely must be the same as the cycle before.
Sure - I can't function when I am tired!
"If the cycle length is 1 then the defining quad absolutely must be the same as the cycle before."
But by the same token:
If the cycle length is 1 then the quad must be a repeat of the previous quad before.
AND
If the defining quad is 1 then quad 1 must have repeated in the last 4 spins.
AND
RMore and Falkor both share an African grandmother!
So everything has a relationship - but how you are visualizing something significant between one combination over another needs a different explanation I feel. I guess dependency must exist between all of them to some extent? Of course it's knowing how to capitalise on that. Variance and the house edge always seems to win out in the end so am unsure yet how Priyanka's parallel games could be significant over others. Before, whenever I've tested dependency, it was different over different data sets: sometimes appeared dependent - other times gave a different result to what was expected. I wonder if within cycles we can find empirical evidence of consistent dependency across all data sets? If so would it result in edge or variance/deviation? The problem is: I could make the statement if stream 1 has such and such criteria then stream 2 has a 70% chance of such and such outcome. We can already say that 3 quads has a 75% chance of hitting. So it's difficult to understand. I guess the payout odds need to be better than the ratios - or the negative results to be outweighed by the positive. But that surpasses the limits of my intelligence (or knowledge?). Where can I get a crash course on why we can predict certain probabilities above 50% albeit without gaining any edge? Whose got some reading material for me?? :D
Latest test:
Maximum Cycle Lengths in a row over 43763 cycles
Max Cycle Lengths in a row: 8 10 8 0
Cycle Length 4 result never came thru... must be a bug...
Maximum Cycle Lengths in a row over 43763 cycles
Max Cycle Lengths in a row: 8 10 8 4
4 in a row!? That's hardly a dead-run situation is it? :twisted:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 05, 11:39 AM 2016
Maximum Cycle Lengths in a row over 43763 cycles
Max Cycle Lengths in a row: 8 10 8 4
4 in a row!? That's hardly a dead-run situation is it? :twisted:
Where's bayes, general, iggiv or turbo to say "4 in a row - I could have told you that! But all systems lose in the long run; don't you know?" :girl_to:
OK it seems we can't use 1 previous cycle and 2 previous spins to predict whether we should play for CL2 or CL3 - CL2 seems to always be dominant. Priyanka must therefore decide to play for CL3 under some special trigger based around long term stats - perhaps to do with these parallel streams and associated dependency that has been alluded to.
Also, even though somebody told me to "look inside the cycle", it seems we cannot predict anything on a spin-by-spin basis - only by looking at the cycle event as a whole.
I think I've figured out the best way to play this...
The VdW way is to pause after a loss; the non-VdW way is to carry on playing until the cycle is won...
We could begin our attack with the first bet on the defining quad - hoping to catch all those single length cycles - but as Rog says there's more chance of catching the other 3 quads instead (1 chip each street; zero left alone).
Once we get a win on the other 3 quads (first bet) this will then springboard us for an attack on the most likely Cycle closure: CL2. Here we can parlay our bets with 3 chips per quad and cover the zero too - 4 chips on the defining quad.
Long term stats should hopefully enable us to nail down with greater accuracy the more likely specific quads we should be targeting inside the cycle - and also when we should switch tactic to CL3 instead of CL2! Here we should bet slightly less than CL2: 2 chips per quad; 3 chips on the defining quad; 1 chip on zero.
In the rare events of losing to CL4 we should increase the span of the biased game by playing for 2 repeats or more! This part needs to be tested and figured out in terms of optimum play and correct weighting of bets.
One thing that I find really appealing about the quad cycles is that they are short. A loss is not bank-breaking. If there is an edge then progression should not be necessary. But even if there isn't an edge then perhaps a limited progression will do the business - on the basis that recovery should be fast since the cycles are short and the stats tell us that most wins occur on 2 and 3. Also that a good percentage do complete on the first spin and the outlay for that bet is just one quad (3 chips).
Just a little ambiguity with what you wrote though.
QuoteWe could begin our attack with the first bet on the defining quad
Yep - got that.
QuoteOnce we get a win on the other 3 quads (first bet)
Um - the first bet is on just one quad isn't it?
Rog, I said I was considering the first bet to select just one quad (the defining), but having given much thought to it we should play more like Priyanka and based on your recommendation too: skip the first attempted closure on CL1 by instead betting the other 3 quads. Our attack on the cycle then begins proper on CL2 after getting a thrust from that first bet on the other 3 quads... soon we will be in orbit around Jupiter. I think that extending to 2-4 repeats will still keep the cycles short enough to not be caught by the law of large numbers?
Ah right. OK. Even though I have had a sleep I still seem to be mentally slow at the moment. Re-reading what you wrote I now see what you were saying.
Rog, I only scraped a C in English at GCSE level so your tolerance of my lousy and not-so-clear explanations is appreciated - but don't let that affect my job application with you! :thumbsup:
Priyanka usually starts out betting for CL2:
| 1 | 411 | 9 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 21 | 3 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| 3 | 133 | 25 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 16 | 2 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 6 | 1 | L |
Here Priyanka switches from betting CL2 to CL3, so something in one or both aforementioned streams necessitated that decision:
| 2 | 3243 | 15 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 30 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 24 | 3 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
Here Priyanka switches to betting specific quads, so something in one or both aforementioned streams necessitated that decision:
| 2 | 4122 | 18 | 2 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 9 | 1 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 10 | 3 | L | Bet quads 1,3,4 |
| | 34 | 4 | W | |
| 1 | 21341 | 4 | 1 | | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | 24 | 3 | L | |
| | 30 | 4 | | Bet quads 1,2,3 |
| 3 | 1343 | 24 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | 32 | 4 | W | Bet last 2 quads |
| | 13 | 2 | L | |
| 3 | 3423 | 27 | 3 | | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | 14 | 2 | W | |
| | 36 | 4 | | Bet last 3 quads |
| 3 | 3243 | 22 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4 |
| | 34 | 4 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
The final switch above is most likely related to this statement:
"You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it. What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below.
Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.690 (page 47)
I am going to dump all these stats here as I'm only keeping a select few as I move into the next series of tests...
Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)
Defining Quad - same or different based on current cycle length
CL1 (same): 10920 (100.00%) (different): 0 (0.00%)
CL2 (same): 8111 (49.77%) (different): 8185 (50.23%)
CL3 (same): 4173 (33.72%) (different): 8201 (66.28%)
CL4 (same): 1074 (25.74%) (different): 3099 (74.26%)
Defined by 1 to X 55% 15% 15% 15%
Defined by 2 to X 15% 55% 15% 15%
Defined by 3 to X 15% 15% 55% 15%
Defined by 4 to X 15% 15% 15% 55%
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (in the next 4 spins):
Defined by 4 to X: 1610 (15%) 1705 (16%) 1548 (14%) 6046 (55%)
When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length X):
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100%)
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17%) 724 (18%) 654 (16%) 1997 (49%)
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22%) 726 (24%) 635 (21%) 1049 (34%)
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25%) 255 (24%) 259 (25%) 273 (26%)
Cycle Lengths - same or different to previous cycle length
CL1234 Totals (same): 12616 (29.%) (different): 31146 (71.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (30.%) (different): 30471 (70.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (40.%) (different): 19551 (60.%)
Cycle Lengths - overall general stats
CL1234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 2: 16296 (50.%) 3: 12374 (38.%) 4: 4173 (13.%)
Cycle Lengths - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL1234 Totals (same) 1: 10920 (45.%) 2: 8111 (33.%) 3: 4173 (17.%) 4: 1074 (4.%)
CL1234 Totals (different) 1: 0 (0.%) 2: 8185 (42.%) 3: 8201 (42.%) 4: 3099 (16.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 1: 0 (0.) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 1: 10920 (36.%) 2: 8200 (27.%) 3: 7708 (25.%) 4: 3643 (12.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 2: 8200 (42.%) 3: 7708 (39.%) 4: 3643 (19.%)
Cycle Lengths - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL1234 to same 1: 2693 (25.%) 2: 6055 (37.%) 3: 3481 (28.%) 4: 387 (9.%)
CL1234 to different 1: 8226 (75.%) 2: 10241 (63.%) 3: 8893 (72.%) 4: 3786 (91.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL2/234 to same 2: 8096 (50.%) 3: 4666 (38.%) 4: 530 (13.%)
CL2/234 to different 2: 8199 (50.%) 3: 7708 (62.%) 4: 3643 (87.%)
Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL2/234 to same 2: 8096 (37.%) 3: 4666 (29.%) 4: 530 (9.%)
CL2/234 to different 2: 13700 (63.%) 3: 11694 (71.%) 4: 5076 (91.%)
If previous Cycle Length is 1,2,3 or 4 then what percentage for the next Cycle Length to be 1,2,3 or 4
CL1 to 1: 2693 (25.) 2: 4010 (33.) 3: 3209 (28.) 4: 1007 (11.)
CL2 to 1: 4151 (25.) 2: 6055 (33.) 3: 4528 (27.) 4: 1562 (11.)
CL3 to 1: 3001 (24.) 2: 4676 (33.) 3: 3481 (27.) 4: 1216 (11.)
CL4 to 1: 1075 (26.) 2: 1555 (33.) 3: 1156 (27.) 4: 387 (11.)
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL1 to CLX (same): 2693 (45.%) 2000 (33.%) 1046 (17.%) 256 (4.%)
CL2 to CLX (same): 4151 (46.%) 2988 (33.%) 1564 (17.%) 392 (4.%)
CL3 to CLX (same): 3001 (44.%) 2320 (34.%) 1171 (17.%) 323 (4.%)
CL4 to CLX (same): 1075 (45.%) 803 (34.%) 392 (17.%) 103 (4.%)
If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL1 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2010 (41.%) 2163 (44.%) 751 (15.%)
CL2 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 3067 (43.%) 2964 (41.%) 1170 (16.%)
CL3 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2356 (42.%) 2310 (42.%) 893 (16.%)
CL4 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 752 (42.%) 284 (42.%) 284 (16.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL2/234 to CLX (same): 4152 (46.%) 2989 (33.%) 1565 (17.%) 393 (4.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (same): 3002 (44.%) 2321 (34.%) 1172 (17.%) 324 (5.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (same): 1076 (45.%) 804 (34.%) 393 (17.%) 104 (4.%)
If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL2/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 3068 (43.%) 2965 (41.%) 1171 (16.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 2357 (42.%) 2311 (42.%) 894 (16.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (diff): 0 (0.%) 753 (42.%) 765 (42.%) 285 (16.%)
Which Cycles are closed by which Quads in terms of most recent
CL1: always by defining quad otherwise cycle length has to be longer
CL2: last quad 8185 (50.) defining: 8111 (50.)
CL3: last quad 4105 (33.) 2nd to last: 4096 (33.) defining: 4173 (34.)
CL4: last quad 1069 (26.) 2nd to last: 1015 (24.) 3rd to last: 1015 (24.) defining: 1074 (26.)
When defining quad is quad 4 then which quad will hit on spins 2,3,4 (spin 1 is the defining quad 4 result carried over from the previous cycle)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 2: 2750 (25.) 2850 (26.) 2794 (25.) 2727 (25.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 3: 2088 (25.) 2180 (26.) 2034 (25.) 1997 (24.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 4: 1066 (26.) 1066 (26.) 969 (23.) 1049 (25.)
Maximum Cycle Lengths in a row over 43763 cycles
Max Cycle Lengths in a row: 8 10 8 4
The first of the new tests was to wait for CL2 x 4 in a row and note down the stats, hoping for an increase in CL3:
Cycle Lengths: 71 (23.) 114 (37.) 91 (30.) 32 (10.)
There was none!
Holy shit, the ratios seem so darn accurate :ooh: :ooh: - but with a larger sample size they tend to stay fixed at one percentage the entire time - it's like seeing the law of large numbers happen at a microcosm over a few hundred spins instead of a few million!
I got CL3 to go up to 34% when playing @ less than 28.3%:
Cycle Lengths: 67 (24.) 104 (37.) 96 (34.) 17 (6.)
That 28.3% has to be very accurate before the sample size becomes too large to have any effect - so I guess the idea here is to reset the stats every 10 cycles or so as per Priyanka's suggestion:
2. Second is the constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
I mentioned you can bring in 2 or 3 constants together. What those constants that has to be brought together is your work. May be these two will work, but i dont know. You dont need to bring in more constants to gain edge. Even one constant is sufficient. To get a playeable method in a casino environment you might need to look at more opportunities.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)
Rog, please help us out here, fella! When to go for CL3?
It's too early to say whether we have what it takes to gain edge or predictability over CL3... but that busybody known as variance sure as hell ain't gonna give us any trouble - at least as far as cycles are concerned! I've already sent variance on it's way - but you guys haven't said your last goodbyes yet and I know you wanted to, right?
This game defo seems beatable using Cycles, and I'm currently pondering a few different ways of trying to gain edge in a non-variance zone - other suggestions are encouraged! Here's what I've come up with:
*Just bet for CL2 alone with a progression upon losing
*Just bet for CL2 and CL3 alone with a progression upon losing (only 4 major losses in a row max and bets are parlayed)
*Re-package cycles in a Russian doll: play cycle lengths till a repeat, carrying over the defining cycle length. I guess these outcomes will also be not equally likely - probably more CL1s!
*Play a Law of the Third strategy based on Cycle Length and Same/Different (defining quad) till the ratios stabilize at 25%,37%,28% and 10% then reset the stats.
*Just bet for CL2 and CL3 alone with a progression upon losing (only 4 major losses in a row max and bets are parlayed)
But we would lose on CL4 > CL1 > CL4 > CL1, etc.
Priyanka said that each cycle length event has constant odds, but this is somewhat misleading, as we can manipulate those odds by entering the game at a "tipping point"?
Here I reset Cycle Lengths (temporary) whenever Same is greater than Different or CL2 is greater than the rest.
Cycle Lengths (normal) is what the cycle lengths would have been if not constantly being reset.
Another snapshot of these stats, Cycle Lengths (biased), is taken when (CL3 - CL2 > 5).
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/narm5cg6t/tipping.png)
So if we wait for CL3 to go ahead by 6 then we can convert CL2 odds from 37% to 41%. And I'm sure this can be improved upon after figuring out the best tipping point and optimum time to reset the stats. This is just a very preliminary test to demonstrate that the odds - within this cyclic framework of constant ratios - are not necessarily fixed.
However, Priyanka doesn't seem to use any cycle length tipping point for knowing when to switch to a bet on CL3. It's possible that she alternates from CL 2 > CL 3 > CL 2 > CL3... the reason? There is a 70 odd % chance that the next cycle length will be different to the previous; perhaps we can rely on this basic stat to guide us with entry into CL3? (I certainly haven't found any other genuine trigger yet except waiting for the aforementioned tipping point)
BTW, to get to those normal Cycle Length percentages only takes about 500 cycles max - tested and confirmed:
Cycle Lengths (normal): 1068 (24.51%) 1620 (37.17%) 1248 (28.64%) 422 (9.68%)
From then on it remains at the same percentages as per Priyanka's comparison between 500,1000,2000 cycles.
Waiting for a tipping point doesn't seem practical.
I am struggling to find any connection between the two aforementioned streams: which cycle lengths to play (other than CL2) and which individual quads to play other than progressing towards CL2 or to closing off the cycle (based in part on the defining quad). I don't think there's any significant pattern or dependency to be found between the quads stream as the CL stream at this basic level of play that is going to drastically change our way of playing or give us any edge? So I have no choice but to give up on this 2d animal matrix.
Again, where are these "opportunities" with quads for CL3 that RMore spoke of in terms of dozen cycles................??? :question: Why play the 2nd best event instead of the best event always?
"...then as the next dozens appeared we could change our attack from length 1 to length 2 when the opportunity presented itself because, and here is the stat, length 2 is statistically more prevalent that length 1 and so is the better choice when a dead run possibility appears, or even when you have both on review waiting for an opportunity. Right? There are only 3 length ones, 3 length threes, and 12 length twos. So it is better to swap your game to the 2's if that opportunity appears rather than hang out for the completion of a 1."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)
Let's take a step back and view the fundamental mechanics of cycles, why we've chosen this method, and how we are meant to play it.
We've created a biased game using cycles and the defining element. This then gave us some constant ratios in terms of events that are not equally likely based on the cycle lengths. The cycles part gives us consistency and the defining element part gives us events that have higher ratios than others. We then discovered that the Same defining element, CL2 and CL3 have the best ratios. Based on stitching/parlaying bets we found out that we can play for CL2 or CL3 with better payout odds. I haven't actually confirmed yet which is the better of the two:
CL2: 37% + 35/9 payout
CL3: 28% + 55/10 payout
Let's say CL2 is the best option? Since we are meant to play based on an event where we have this predictability - not at the individual spin level where we can say nothing - then we should stick to the best opportunity/option and bet ONLY that event (CL2). At this level of play there is NOTHING to tell us that CL3 is a better opportunity. The Cycle Length events are not equally likely and are mostly constant in terms of their ratios. CL2 is consistently a better option.
So how can we improve on CL2: 37% + 35/9 payout and find a better opportunity? Well, we can either scrap Quads and look at the neighboring Dozen or Line cycles - or if are to stick to playing Quads then we have only 2 more options left as I see it: VdW and the Russian Doll!
VdW can wait till later. Now we know that the Cycle Length stats tells us which quads to play in order to try to make up a particular CL. To use a metaphor, it's a bit like the quads are overseen by their superior Cycle Lengths who tell them what to do in order to please the king (CL2). The Quads are subservient to the Cycle Lengths and both operate at a different hierarchy. So if we want to know when to play CL3 then we need to meet his boss! This is where we can wrap up Cycle Lengths into a Russian doll in order to form Outer Cycles and Inner Cycles. This should have a whole new set of stats associated with them and dictate when we should play an array of different Cycle Lengths - including CL3 - possibly it will tell us how to play the individual quads better. That's our only hope here in this hopeless situation besides VdW.
Likewise, the Defining Quads could also be wrapped up in a Russian doll. That could tell when to play 2 or more defining quads as being the most likely to close a cycle or series of cycles!
There's also another stream I've thought about; let's use these dozen cycles as an example:
22
2133
3122
233
322
211
11
11
1232
If we remove the dozens that were used to define the cycle then we are left with the rejects as I call them:
2131
1232
213
1-3 new quads would be added to the fray after each cycle completes. Could they be used as some kind of parallel game? Would their chances of forming specific cycle lengths be better or worse than the primary stream?
Opportunities like the above - if they offer any improvement - can only present themselves deeper into a set once we have enough occurrences in terms of repeats of repeats.
The last post from you is a good read falkor
Pryanka. .... there people claiming your fake , fony, .....
Can you play some more? That would clear everything up nicely. Would be much appreciated by the forum community.
:)
Welcome back Priyanka! 8)
Quote from: denzie on Jul 08, 08:41 AM 2016
Pryanka. .... there people claiming your fake , fony, .....
Can you play some more? That would clear everything up nicely. Would be much appreciated by the forum community.
:)
Same could be said for Steve, right? When will he play more to prove more? Some just can't handle when the spotlight is no longer on them... which is why a few staples here have left. J, TG?
There's nothing left to prove - Priyanka shared much more than most realize. Maybe a bit too kind, as 'rrbb' has stated.
No idea about TG. .... I wish he continued with his thread here. Would jealousy be the reason? Well I'm not gonna lose my sleep over it.
And Ken.....where do I start....lol
jealousy isn't the issue here but more failure. All his stuff failed. Together with his friendly attitude. Well he can talk his same bs on other forums now. He is a joke .
RESULTS ARE IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what an AMAZING result it is: Roger Federer More takes victory in the outer court to win this year's Roulette championship against next year's champion, Van der Waerden, at an uncontested 4 sets to nil: 56, 31, 11, and 2 !!!!!!!
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/xh4l45iej/outercycle.png)
Let's hear it for them, folks: BIG IT UP for Roger and the people's coach: Priyanka - sponsored by Edge Cycles!!!!!!!!!
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/oihbn06th/final.png)
Defined by Same = 65%!!!!
(link:://bettingtips365.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wimbledon2015-Trophies.jpg)
Falkor you are one hell of an attention whore lol.
:girl_to:
Falklor if we now variance borders and they are so constant do you think it could be possible to apply some MM and win even without an edge?
Have you ever investigated that as an option?
Cheers
Dunno Drazen mate... I don't really understand the concept of how edge obtained... something to do with ratios vs. payout odds vs. losing combinations. Priyanka tried to explain it once, but there's still quite a lot of things about this game that's beyond me. I am going to mess around with some more stats before I try and bet anything - in case I lose my fun play money - might affect my real play money next time I go casino! :-* I don't want any bad personal permanence against my good name.
This new overlay tells us to always play for cycle length 1 and bet the defining quad - in this case quad 4:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/a8xhgeq4r/image.png)
Perhaps a progression on single quads will be enough to gain edge by the above stats alone?
I haven't posted much on this topic, but I have spent a great deal of time myself looking at different ways to bet cycles. So far, I don't see an advantage either
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 08, 08:39 PM 2016
Dunno Drazen mate... I don't really understand the concept of how edge obtained...
My humble opinion is that something still must be missing. Or at least isnt shown in the obvious correlated way in this topic. Here we have a shell but designs for jet engines are dropped around the corner.
When I buy a laptop I ll start tamper with those. Good thing is that Priyanka is with us and carefully watching :)
Stay well
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 08:20 PM 2016
OK, I sussed it!
The stats only tell us about the next cycle event - not individual spins as far as I can tell yet!
So in the Priyanka tradition of stitching bets we have the following options:
Cycle Length 1
Bet last Quad (3 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/3
Cycle Length 2
1. Virtual spin
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/6
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
Cycle Length 3
Part virtual
OR
1. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) = 11/9
2. Bet opposite of last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 3 chips each) = 35/9 parlayed
3. Bet last 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 6 chips each) = 67/9 parlayed
With 67/9 payout odds for Cycle Length 3 this explains clearly why we want increased constants for CL3 followed by CL2! And that's why CL1 is ignored - because it increases our chances of CL3 and CL2? Before, CL1 was more prevalent, albeit with lesser profit potential.
The parlay bet has been hinted at several times - but must have deliberately been left out of the video.
What was I on? My brain must have short-fused that time...
Cycle Length 1Bet last Quad (3 Streets @ 1 chip each) =
9/3Cycle Length 2Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) =
9/3Bet last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 2 chips each) =
12/9 parlayed
Cycle Length 31. Bet the other 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 1 chip each) =
3/92. Bet opposite of last 2 Quads (6 Streets @ 2 chips each) =
12/9 parlayed3. Bet last 3 Quads (9 Streets @ 2 chip each) =
9/9 parlayedOdds; wins/losses out of 10; Profit
CLI1: 3/9; 22.5 22.5; 0
CL2: 9/12; 44.4 56.7; -12.3
CL3: 9/9; 25.2 64.8; -39.6
CL1 (breaks even) is better than CL2 and CL3!? I might have to run away from this game soon... got more important things to do like sort out my photo albums from 10 years ago!
And I might have to start listening to TurboGenius instead of Priyanka! :twisted:
Quote from: Drazen on Jul 09, 03:56 AM 2016
My humble opinion is that something still must be missing. Or at least isnt shown in the obvious correlated way in this topic. Here we have a shell but designs for jet engines are dropped around the corner.
When I buy a laptop I ll start tamper with those. Good thing is that Priyanka is with us and carefully watching :)
Stay well
I guess the jet engine must be VdW, in the non-random world, which likes to be fed CL2 and CL3 data from the random world depending on the situation. And we know that the CL2 and CL3 data is constant in the random world. That will be my final test at the end of the month.
I too will be running a final test-to-beat-all-other-tests at the end of the month. I will run my test on Sunday, July 31, at 8 pm. In the meantime, i hope everybody is really really nice to me.
Sarcasm? :lol:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 09, 03:54 PM 2016
Sarcasm? :lol:
No, satire. It's going to be an amazingly yuge test and i hope people will be nice to me in the meantime.
Yeah, VdW is a headache and my next annual leave is end of July... I'm trying to beat the game based on all the other principles that Priyanka taught first.
The Russian doll I created was for the defining quads - I need to wrap up the cycle lengths at some point in their own Russian doll too.
Right now I have just increased the span of the biased "defining quads" game to 2 repeats and will see how the stats change compared to the standard 1 repeat based on the 1 defining quad: (example: if defining quad is 4)
CL1: 0 0 0 261
CL2: 86 57 84 206
CL3: 82 59 56 79
CL4: 29 23 24 16
So we only play the first 2 spins only. If the cycle length is > 2 then we increase the span to 2 repeats...
Perhaps you should try it the TG way
Interesting stats here:
Defined by 2 then 1:
CL1: 89 0 0 0
CL2: 88 24 14 17
CL3: 49 19 19 15
CL4: 12 19 13 11
CL5: 2 2 4 3
When increasing the span to the 2nd repeat we should play for Quad 1 for the first 3 spins, and Quad 2 for spins 1-2 only. Chips should be weighted 2:1 I reckon.
Defined 2 to 2 has more results concentrated on quad 2 compared to previous test:
CL1: 0 138 0 0
CL2: 34 133 18 36
CL3: 20 67 19 32
CL4: 21 27 15 11
CL5: 5 10 5 4
Here's a first look at my defining element strategy (WIP) using only flat-betting and a maximum of 2 repeats per cycle:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/9kauscag5/quads.png)
Obviously, there's no edge yet - but I'll be looking to progress these cycles through multiple repeats based on the previous defining quads - till an actual win occurs to close off the extended cycle.
Download: link:s://:.sendspace.com/file/c2r2oi
For Cycle Length 3 (2nd most common to CL2) we don't have a suitable bet in terms of the defining element - so perhaps we could bet the last 3 quads to try to close it off and eliminate the need for expansion.
I'm testing out some cycles strategies and the graphs begin going north and then go south so I guess even this cycles framework hasn't escaped the law of the large numbers contrary to what Priyanka said?
Here's the criteria for the test:
Outer Cycle Length = 1
Inner Cycle Length = 2 or 3
Spin = 1 or 2
The above stats were flagged up in the short term as most profitable in terms of betting the defining quad.
In both data sets I used it started out high then went low.
Perhaps a new Russian doll has to be brought in whenever there's a repeat of a repeat in order to stay ahead? Does that mean every time I start a new game I will always go ahead at first?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 08, 06:26 PM 2016
RESULTS ARE IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what an AMAZING result it is: Roger Federer More takes victory in the outer court to win this year's Roulette championship against next year's champion, Van der Waerden, at an uncontested 4 sets to nil: 56, 31, 11, and 2 !!!!!!!
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/xh4l45iej/outercycle.png)
Let's hear it for them, folks: BIG IT UP for Roger and the people's coach: Priyanka - sponsored by Edge Cycles!!!!!!!!!
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/oihbn06th/final.png)
Defined by Same = 65%!!!!
(link:://bettingtips365.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wimbledon2015-Trophies.jpg)
The above was wrapped up based on the Defining Quad; for Outer Cycle Lengths I am getting similar results to original:
31.55718879 39.82544786 23.56453836 5.052824989
Edit: they are different! More CL1 than CL3!
Outer Cycle Length
32.3840147 (same) 67.6159853 (different)
Cycle Length 4 has dropped to 5%! I am going to get a final confirmation on those percentages... there might be more strategies possible with this Russian doll... but I fear the law of large numbers.
6764 8744 5150 1065
31.13750403 40.25226718 23.70759103 4.902637757
So the new strategy to play cycle lengths as revealed by the order above:
If inner CL3 then play for CL3 again, but if CL2 then play both CL2 and CL3 to try to go for an Outer Cycle Length 2 closure.
If CL1 then play for CL1,2, and 3 to go for an Outer CL3 closure. It's unlikely to go to length 4 on the outside.
Could potentially look at combining that with what the other Russian doll revealed re: the defining quad:
Outer Cycle Length = 1
Inner Cycle Length = 2 or 3
Spin = 1 or 2
(Or just try to close with defining quad ASAP).
If the Law of the Large numbers is to be taken seriously then the above strategy is only valid for about 10 inner cycles and 3 outer cycles max? So that would be about 30 spins?
OK, this this is a new way of thinking and playing in order to overcome the law of large numbers - Star System eat your heart out! :love: And this is without considering VdW.
Level 1: We should play for CL 2. If we win then we play CL2 again.
Level 2: When we lose a CL2 game we then switch to a series of inner cycle games till we close 1 outer cycle. If we win then we reset back to CL2.
Level 3: If we lose at the outer cycle level then we can play a series of inner cycle games multiplied by 2-4 outer cycles (about 30 spins in total as established previously). If win reset to level 1.
Level 4: Another Russian doll would need to be found otherwise we go back to level 1 but increase the number of units.
^^Groundbreaking - agreed? O0 I think Priyanka needs to give me a pat on the back for that one. :thumbsup:
great work on cycles im sure Priyanka is clapping
Could this be the 2D matrix that RMore was referring to...?
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/vnppgbjdh/matrix.png)
Is there some playability here in trying to fill this up re: Law of the Third style? I know that after some time of attempting to increase predictability using the stats the graph begins to turn south - even without the zero in play. However, I am going to look at the stats in more detail as I generated them for 1 million spins based on inner cycles and outer cycles:
3 1 2 4 1 4 4 2 4 2
1 1 1 4 1
1 2 2 2 4 1 2
2 3 3 2 4 1 2 2 3
3 4 3 2 2 2 1
3 1 2 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2
4 2 1 4 3 2 3
4 2 1 4 3 2 3 3 2
4 3 3 2 3 2
3 1 4 1 3 3 2 3 2
1 3 2 1 3 3 3 1
1 3 4 3 3 3 3 1
3 3 1 3 1
3 3 1 3 1 1 2
3 1 1 2 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 2
1 2 4 1 3 1 3
1 1 1 1 3 1 2
1 4 1 2 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 2
...
I'm running through some stats in more detail - hope there is bias but no curve fitting! Beginning with the first inner cycle result and trying to predict the 2nd game:
1 > X
11665
17717
12828
4301
46611
2 > X
26108
39831
29447
9782
105168
3 > X
14714
21937
16628
5672
58951
4 > X
1634
2463
1868
591
6556
Obviously, the above is as expected for Outer Cycles (2 > 3 > 1 > 4) and with no bias from just 1 previous game - but no curve fitting either.
Spin to Spin, or in this case, inner cycle to inner cycle there's no predictive bias at all it seems in terms of the length:
12 > X
4516
6576
4968
1657
17717
13 > X
3125
4923
3707
1173
12928
14 > X
1106
1594
1212
389
4301
However, there seems to be bias with regards to the final Outer Cycle length:
14 Inner Cycles > Close (Outer)
2: 1495 (35%)
3: 1902 (44%)
4: 904 (21%)
4301
12 Inner Cycles > Close (Outer)
2: 11092 (63%)
3: 5650 (32%)
4: 975 (6%)
17717
That better not be curve fitted! >:D
These are both exactly the same - proof enough there's no curve fitting:
13 > Close
2: 6832 (53%)
3: 5168 (40%)
4: 928 (7%)
12928
31 > Close
2: 7891 (53%)
3: 5762 (40%)
4: 1061 (7%)
14714
We got bias even after 1 game when it comes to the closure of an Outer Cycle: :love:
1 > Close
1: 11665 (25%)
2: 19419 (41%)
3: 12720 (27%)
4: 2807 (6%)
46611
2 > Close
1: 39831 (38%)
2: 40540 (39%)
3: 20780 (20%)
4: 4017 (4%)
105168
3 > Close
1: 16628 (28%)
2: 24371 (41%)
3: 14851 (25%)
4: 3101 (5%)
58951
4 > Close
1: 591 (9%)
2: 2395 (37%)
3: 2529 (39%)
4: 1041 (16%)
6556
23 > Close
2: 19480 (66%)
3: 8646 (29%)
4: 1321 (4%)
29447
24 > Close
2: 4622 (47%)
3: 3784 (39%)
4: 1376 (14%)
9782
34 > Close
2: 2124 (37%)
3: 2511 (44%)
4: 1037 (18%)
5672
A beautiful 90%! :love: :girl_to:
123 > Close
3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)
4968
321 > Close
3: 5038 (91%)
4: 506 (9%)
5544
124 > Close
3: 1188 (72%)
4: 469 (28%)
1657
134 > Close
3: 731 (62%)
4: 552 (47%)
1173
234 > Close
3: 2112 (76%)
4: 658 (24%)
2770
A reminder of the global average for outer cycles:
68715 (32%)
86725 (40%)
50880 (23%)
10966 (5%)
217286
With Inner Cycles unwrapped from its outer cycle Russian doll there's really not much to go on at all; however, I am going to rerun these stats based on the previous few defining elements and see what that reveals for both inner and outer cycles.
Inner Cycles (Global Average)
1: 109448 (25%)
2: 164988 (38%)
3: 123155 (28%)
4: 41081 (9%)
438673
1 > Close
1: 27201 (25%)
2: 41110 (38%)
3: 30725 (28%)
4: 10242 (9%)
109278
2 > Close
1: 27704 (25%)
2: 41687 (38%)
3: 30963 (28%)
4: 10348 (9%)
110702
1 > X
1: 27201
2: 27659
3: 27263
4: 27155
109278
12 > X
1: 6921
2: 6933
3: 6931
4: 6874
27659
12 > Close
2: 13854 (50%)
3: 10347 (37%)
4: 3458 (13%)
27659
14 > Close
2: 13542 (50%)
3: 10256 (38%)
4: 3357 (12%)
27155
123 > Close
3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)
6931
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 15, 07:24 PM 2016
A beautiful 90%! :love: :girl_to:
123 > Close
3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)
4968
Let's have a look at what this means:
We first get a cycle length of 1, i.e. 22
Next a cycle length of 2, i.e. 232
Finally a cycle length of 3, such as 2312
Note: the 1,2,3 games above can happen in any order.
Now we have a 90% chance of another cycle length of 3, such as 2344
2232332 = 90% chance of 2344 or 2144 or 2312, etc.
Everytime we wrap up repeats in another Russian doll we gain in predictability:
Compare Outer to Inner to see the difference that one layer makes:
123 > Close (Outer)
3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)
123 > Close (Inner)
3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)
Falkor, your time wasted. Study Manrique teaching like Pryanka, much more benefit.
Quote from: dimsun on Jul 16, 01:18 AM 2016
Falkor, your time wasted. Study Manrique teaching like Pryanka, much more benefit.
Whose "Manrique"? I cannot find anything under just that name in the context of what we are doing here.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 15, 07:58 PM 2016
Let's have a look at what this means:
We first get a cycle length of 1, i.e. 22
Next a cycle length of 2, i.e. 232
Finally a cycle length of 3, such as 2312
Note: the 1,2,3 games above can happen in any order.
Now we have a 90% chance of another cycle length of 3, such as 2344
2232332 = 90% chance of 2344 or 2144 or 2312, etc.
Everytime we wrap up repeats in another Russian doll we gain in predictability:
Compare Outer to Inner to see the difference that one layer makes:
123 > Close (Outer)
3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)
123 > Close (Inner)
3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)
Anyway, I like to add that the above is comparable to the Pigeon Hole Principle regarding straight up numbers:
We know that by spin 25, roughly, we will get our first repeat on the numbers (usually after spin 7).
If we wait till spin 24 then bet those 24 numbers we are going to have at least a 90% chance of winning; hence, if we wait for 123 on the Quads then the last bet has a higher percentage for a close on the cycle - is essentially a repeat.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 16, 12:22 PM 2016
Whose "Manrique"? I cannot find anything under just that name in the context of what we are doing here.
Search harder he dead now, Priyanka use Manrique principles for way play.
Quote from: dimsun on Jul 16, 12:31 PM 2016
Search harder he dead now, Priyanka use Manrique principles for way play.
Here's the first post I found:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=93.0
Doesn't look like much useful info there? Just very vague. Whereas, look how informative Priyanka's posts are in comparison!! :)
One question. ...
Do you think anyone still understand what you are talking about ? :P
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 16, 12:40 PM 2016
Here's the first post I found:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=93.0
Doesn't look like much useful info there? Just very vague. Whereas, look how informative Priyanka's posts are in comparison!! :)
Can point horse to water not make drink.
Quote from: dimsun on Jul 16, 12:44 PM 2016
Can point horse to water not make drink.
It seems he passed away in 2008 - but there's no topics of his on VLS or here. Some guy called Swarm has quoted him - but Manrique's original posts proper appear to no longer be available. If you have a link to some archived articles of his then please post, otherwise I must return to the task at hand: Quad Cycles.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 16, 12:56 PM 2016
It seems he passed away in 2008 - but there's no topics of his on VLS or here. Some guy called Swarm has quoted him - but Manrique's original posts proper appear to no longer be available. If you have a link to some archived articles of his then please post, otherwise I must return to the task at hand: Quad Cycles.
Hard find posts English, most Spanish, look Spanish forum. Much translaton required. Hard me, English not first language.
Quote from: dimsun on Jul 16, 01:04 PM 2016
Hard find posts English, most Spanish, look Spanish forum. Much translaton required. Hard me, English not first language.
Thanks, but the sample you posted in the other topic doesn't seem helpful, so I will have to pass up on that as I am making good progress here with Quad Cycles - even though I doubt I have what it takes to gain edge. Priyanka's teachings were more informative and practical, but her coverage of parallel games/creating dependency was sadly inadequate IMO and she failed to discuss payout odds vs. ratios - particularly in the context of events - which I feel shouldn't be ignored if we are looking to gain edge. It's like an ancient traveler visiting Egypt, describing the local customs of the natives, but failing to mention pyramids.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 16, 01:16 PM 2016
Thanks, but the sample you posted in the other topic doesn't seem helpful, so I will have to pass up on that as I am making good progress here with Quad Cycles - even though I doubt I have what it takes to gain edge. Priyanka's teachings were more informative and practical, but her coverage of parallel games/creating dependency was sadly inadequate IMO and she failed to discuss payout odds vs. ratios - particularly in the context of events - which I feel shouldn't be ignored if we are looking to gain edge. It's like an ancient traveler visiting Egypt, describing the local customs of the natives, but failing to mention pyramids.
Manrique teach about cycles. Priyanka teacher very much play like Manrique teach.
Quote from: dimsun on Jul 16, 02:07 PM 2016Manrique
Interesting! Maybe we can find some good topics amongst these then:
link:s://:.google.co.uk/#q=Manrique+ruleta+ciclos
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/yv8g27zvv/Presentation1.png)
Next constants to be tested: Defining Quad (up to previous 4) and Defining Cycle Length (up to previous 4)!
I also plan to test tracking for 2+ repeats, etc.
According to my calculations for CL1:
Inner Cycle
Ratio: 25%
Spin 1 (virtual): any quad
Spin 2 (bet): same quad as previous
Win: +9; Lose: -3;
Total Won: 2.25; Total Lost: -2.25
Result: 0 (break even)
Outer Cycle
Ratio: 25%
Cycle 1, Spin 1 (virtual): any quad
Cycle 1, Spin 2 (bet): same quad as previous
Win: +9; Lose: -3
Cycle 2, Spin 1 (virtual): any quad
Cycle 2, Spin 2 (bet): same quad as previous
Win: +36 (parlayed); Lose: -3
Total Won: 9; Total Lost: -2.25
Result: +6.75 (%? Edge?)
Any mistakes or is that correct...? :question:
I think the result means +6.75 units every 10 attempts (25% won; 75% lost).
I tested, but I made 1 mistake. :( Betting on both the first cycle and second cycle means the ratio becomes half of 25%, so I need to figure out if there's another way of taking advantage of outer CL1 retaining the full 25%.
your a man of much stamina! hope you get to your goal
Thanks Tom!
With Outer CL1, the 25% is to predict that the length of the 2nd cycle will match the length of the 1st cycle, so that we end up with an outer cycle length of 1; however, we cannot predict what length the first cycle will be - at least not with the one constant utilized here: it could be 1, 2 or 3 most likely (sometimes 4). So I think the best we could do is miss out spin 2 of the first cycle then go for CL2 with a 50% ratio - possibly it might be better (or worse) to wait for spin 4 before betting for CL3 with a 76% chance of getting it. Once we have a win on the first cycle we can then parlay that for a matching 2nd cycle.
That's just an example. We wouldn't normally play CL1 as there's better potential for stitching bets with lengths greater than 1.
Anyhow, I hope the next test will give us greater predictability over the first cycle as I've introduced the previous 4 defining quads (also the previous 4 defining outer cycles):
quad 1, 2 (3, 4, 5), cycle length, 4th defining quad, 3rd defining quad, 2nd defining quad, last defining quad, outer cycle length, (outer defining cycles: 4,3,2, last)
4 3 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 4
1 3 3 2 0 0 1 3 4 2
3 2 2 2 0 1 3 2 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 2
2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 1
2 4 1 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 4
4 2 1 3 1 4 2 2 4 1 2 1 4 4 3 0 0 2 4
1 3 3 2 2 4 1 3 4 2
3 4 4 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 2 2 0 2 4 2
First test:
Previous 4 defining quads: 1,1,1,1 to Cycle Length:
8343 (45%)
6287 (34%)
3058 (17%)
743 (4%)
18431
Constant ratio or curve fitted....? :question:
4444 > Cycle Length
8301 (45%)
6245 (34%)
3088 (17%)
737 (4%)
18371
Constant! O0 :thumbsup:
Actually, I found out we can only use the previous 3 - the most recent defining quad is only known after the current cycle completes that we are testing.
111 > Cycle Length
8343 (25%)
12694 (38%)
9312 (28%)
3169 9%)
33518
So there's no predictability here in terms of the Cycle Length.
413 > Cycle Length
607 (26%)
845 (37%)
649 (28%)
207 (9%)
2308
Shit! There's no patterns here at all...
111 > Spin 2
8343
8486
8378
8311
33518
Spin 2, spin 3 - independent of previous defining elements.
111 > defining
18431 (55%)
5131
5026
4930
33518
1 > defining
60479 (55%)
16436
16179
16184
109278
No extra bias from multiple defining elements over previous cycles.
21 > defining
8963 (55%)
2491
2463
2456
16373
Only the most recent defining element counts! So that means the previous cycle is the most important in "unlocking magic" with the next cycle (earlier ones have no impact in this test).
However, we know that from increasing the span to 2 repeats, each defining element starts to affect things...to be tested in full sometime soon.
So that's a pretty big disappointment - but I suspect we may need to look at another aspect of that stream; let's say we have the following cycle:
12344
The 44 part hasn't helped us in this test.
But the 1234 part may help or the 123 part may help - as possibly hinted by Priyanka!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 17, 05:16 PM 2016
Shit! There's no patterns here at all...
111 > Spin 2
8343
8486
8378
8311
33518
Spin 2, spin 3 - independent of previous defining elements.
111 > defining
18431 (55%)
5131
5026
4930
33518
1 > defining
60479 (55%)
16436
16179
16184
109278
No extra bias from multiple defining elements over previous cycles.
21 > defining
8963 (55%)
2491
2463
2456
16373
Only the most recent defining element counts! So that means the previous cycle is the most important in "unlocking magic" with the next cycle (earlier ones have no impact in this test).
However, we know that from increasing the span to 2 repeats, each defining element starts to affect things...to be tested in full sometime soon.
So that's a pretty big disappointment - but I suspect we may need to look at another aspect of that stream; let's say we have the following cycle:
12344
The 44 part hasn't helped us in this test.
But the 1234 part may help or the 123 part may help as this may have possibly been hinted by Priyanka!
i feel like when you post something your following post is an OH SHIT that wasnt right LOL
slow down!!!!
how do you have this much time?!
i hope you find what u r looking for
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/yv8g27zvv/Presentation1.png)
Reference: global averages for comparison with below tests
Same tests on the outer cycles... mostly affected in the same way, but some stats are shuffled about due to the fact these cycles are secondary - not as a direct result of the previous defining elements.
111 > Cycle 2
3354 (25%)
5081 (38%)
3677 (28%)
1215 (9%)
13327
111 > Outer Cycle Length
3354 (25%)
5603 (42%)
3578 (27%)
792 (6%)
13327
111 > Defining Cycle Length
7165 (54%)
3556 (27%)
2240 (17%)
366 (3%)
13327
11 > Defining Cycle Length
13328 (54%)
6686 (27%)
4203 (17%)
672 (3%)
24889
12 > Defining Cycle Length
6616 (53%)
3402 (27%)
2195 (18%)
328 (3%)
12541
34 > Defining Cycle Length
279 (19%)
530 (36%)
329 (22%)
347 (23%)
1485
I guess those last 2 stats could be useful in adding additional bias to our secondary Outer cycles game: we already knew the likelihood of which outer cycle length to play for - now we can guess which inner cycle length is going to close the outer cycle. But again: this doesn't help us with the primary inner cycle game and winning our first cycle. We really don't have much to go on there (yet), but I haven't given up.
TBC: it appears the previous defining quad AND the previous cycle length can both be used TOGETHER to predict each spin........!!! :o >:D :ooh:
Quote from: RMore on Jul 03, 06:51 PM 2016
It seems to me that all your hard work in the various ways of looking at the cycles is just confirming that internally the laws of probability are working as expected. There would seem to be no strange distortions occurring anywhere no matter which quad you choose to break down or follow. We must conclude therefore that if we want to develop a strategy based on this structure we must do so around the numbers that flow naturally from that overlay on the series of outcomes. And that's what this is, really. Simply an overlay on the flow of outcomes that transforms one series of numbers into another. Hence it is a transformation process.
But here we have imposed a carefully constructed structure such that it results in a series of discrete strings of numbers - that is, a string begins and ends rather than continues on endlessly. Furthermore it is constructed in such a way that the string ends NECESSARILY rather than arbitrarily, so that while there is an endless supply of these transforms, each transform is complete unto itself.
Bottom line - I do think there is power in this type of transformation, but exactly how to capitalise on that is difficult and presently eludes me. Some would say this is because there is no possible advantage here no matter the "power" that I speak of, but I am not so sure. I think we do need to get a little creative and think outside the box a bit more. Simply running a series of statistical simulations is really doing nothing more than confirming that probability rules. The thing is, we already know this and so your effort in analysing the data, while admirable, is possibly wasted. Well - not entirely because I guess it has, at least, confirmed that probability is alive and well and functioning just fine here.
But let's move on from there. Let's look at the numbers themselves - the ones that result from the transformation. It seems to me that there are actually two streams of data that can be analysed here. The series of numbers inside each string, and the flow of cycle lengths as each string completes. This makes it a sort of matrix if you will, a 2-dimensional animal that is writhing and straining against the constraints imposed by the cage in which we have placed it - but cannot ever escape. We may not ever be able to tame this beast but we can constrain it.
Probably not much help but that's how I see it - at the moment anyway.
Tackling the animal in a cage...
(link:://officialhuskylovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Dog-with-its-head-stuck-in-a-Cage.jpg)
I guess we could be dealing with 3-dimensional animal instead?
(link:://:.fonds-decran.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3d-Cage-Wallpaper-1920x1200.jpg)
FALSE ALARM: previous defining element(s) coupled with previous cycle length(s) are independent of individual quad results at spin level.
The previous cycle length cannot predict the next cycle length - but the one most previous defining quad CAN affect the next defining quad.
Next test: compare individual spins of previous cycle (going back to just 1 cycle?) with the current cycle.
Data is generating now over 1 million spins:
spin 1,2,(3,4,5), cycle length, 3 previous defining quads, current defining quad, 3rd previous set of spin data, 2nd previous spin data, previous spin data
4 3 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 3 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1
3 2 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3
2 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2
2 4 1 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2
4 2 1 3 1 4 2 2 4 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4
1 3 3 2 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 1 3 1
After this test I am going to first strip out the winning quad then I am going to strip out both occurrences of the winning quad.
Theres the false alarm post again
Im not hating on you BUT what are we supposed to do with this information......??? Hmmmm?
RG, we cannot change the payout odds other than from stitching bets, so we are looking to increase predictability instead - first on the inner cycle then on the outer cycle. The outer cycle ratios are dependent on the inner cycle results, so this could be considered a parallel game.
How about bet with a parachute progression? Bet the dominant dozen...if no hit in 3 spins, bet the dominant quad for 4 spins...if no hit, bet the dominant double street for 6 spins...etc, etc
Start back at dozen if a new high is reached. Raise bets only after a hit
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 18, 06:06 PM 2016
How about bet with a parachute progression? Bet the dominant dozen...if no hit in 3 spins, bet the dominant quad for 4 spins...if no hit, bet the dominant double street for 6 spins...etc, etc
Start back at dozen if a new high is reached. Raise bets only after a hit
Interesting original ideas, Scarface! What does "parachute progression" mean? I heard this term used before.
You suggesting we track dozens, quads and line cycles simultaneously - or in sequence/succession?
Those 3 events hover around the 50% mark - lines are 47%. I guess that moving to deeper sections of the board acts as a progression instead of increasing the chips - perhaps this is what's meant by "parachute progression"? I have used this progression before, but not within a cycles framework nor on a single dozen or line, etc.
It's a neat idea - but not sure how often we would encounter a losing streak that kills the BR. Hmmm.... ok... this is something to try and code next week ahead of VdW.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 18, 12:18 PM 2016
Data is generating now over 1 million spins:
spin 1,2,(3,4,5), cycle length, 3 previous defining quads, current defining quad, 3rd previous set of spin data, 2nd previous spin data, previous spin data
4 3 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 3 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1
3 2 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3
2 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2
2 4 1 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2
4 2 1 3 1 4 2 2 4 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4
1 3 3 2 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 1 3 1
After this test I am going to first strip out the winning quad then I am going to strip out both occurrences of the winning quad.
Sorry folks, once again no patterns - everything seems independent - not sure what RMore could have possibly found between the quads stream and the cycle length stream besides the dominant/defining element ratio? :yawn: :question: I can find no dependency there whatsoever....
There is a dependency between cycle lengths and quads - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it translates into an advantage right off. Clearly the cycle lengths are dependent on the quads - the cycle length is totally dependent on which quad comes up right? If the defining quad comes up on the first spin then the cycle length is 1. If that doesn't happen then if the defining quad or the one that came next comes up on the second spin then the cycle length is 2. And so on. So the cycle length is totally dependent on the quads.
The question is: how can we translate that useful information into an advantage? That is the problem that vexes me also. It seems to me that it has to be a matter of temporal displacement - or, in more sensible terminology, WHEN is the most appropriate time to bet. Perhaps we need to simply choose a bet, say for example the one we have seen Priyanka use which is the cycle length 3, and try to find the best time for that bet to be implemented.
I don't have the answer Falkor - sorry if my earlier posts led you to that conclusion. I didn't intend for that to be the case.
I think both terms "dependency" and "advantage" are problematic here. Sure - the cycle lengths are generated based on the quads - so could be considered dependent (is dependency always bi-directional?) On the other hand, events that are dependent on others don't always give "advantage"; for example, if we play for CL1 (25%) on the inner cycles then follow up with a CLI (25%) on the secondary cycles game then we reduce an already low ratio (1/4) to even an even lesser one (1/8) - hardly considered advantageous. The problem with quad cycles is that we know the 2 aforementioned streams are "dependent", but nothing is flagging up in the test results to prove this dependency. Knowing WHEN to bet CL3 (without aid from Russian dolls) is exactly what I was expecting from the test results - or in the opposite direction of dependency - when to bet specific quads. Priyanka has bet CL3 and specific quads seemingly independent of any information coming from parallel games, so where are her triggers coming from? I would have thought that the cycle length stream alone would have been sufficient in determining this, but not even coupled with the quads stream am I able to push those CL ratios beyond their defaults in the same way that we can push the ratios of the secondary outer game. The only options left then are "tipping the balance", i.e. playing the waiting game till the running totals on different quads/cycle lengths - i.e. the tally - begins to deviate from the global average. I'm not happy with that method. Perhaps the transformation from quads to CL isn't meant to tell us anything about individual quads - only collectively. So that might explain why we cannot predict individual quads - but I would have thought we would at least have a way of knowing when to bet CL3 in the opposite direction of dependency? Again, the test results indicate nothing other than the default global averages (CL2 is always king) and the defining element - it's like they are separate entities - but we know better. The only idea I have left is the break down, say CL2s, into different types:
122 (CL2: spin 2 and spin 3)
212 (CL2: spin 1 and spin 3)
Priyanka appears to bet CL3 after a CL3 - though not 100% of the time - so that doesn't appear to be the trigger (unless part of the parallel game).
| Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | | | |
| | 23 | 3 | | |
| | 28 | 4 | | |
| | 17 | 2 | | |
| 2 | 3422 | 16 | 2 | | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 24 | 3 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| | 30 | 4 | W | Bet last 3 quads |
| 3 | 2343 | 23 | 3 | W | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
| | 15 | 2 | W | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| 3 | 323 | 25 | 3 | L | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads |
Now, if I plug these figures into my test results then CL2 is still king - not CL3! Is Priyanka just giving VdW the correct food it requires - or is she seeing a different trigger (just on the primary cycles)?
Here's the criteria I filtered:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/3xvrdgwhx/data.png)
CL2 instances: 1192
CL3 instances: 911
Is there something more granular in the opening cycle that could possibly tip us to CL3? I don't think so... Even the outer cycle stats predict 41% for CL2 over 25% for CL3 after the previous cycle is CL3!! The only inescapable conclusion is that Priyanka is playing for CL3 because VdW is dictating her strategy.
Incidentally, she opens up these "unlocking magic" sets with CL3 again before moving to CL2. But again: I remind everyone that CL3 is inferior under most conditions - particularly during the opening of a set.
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Quad | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | | | | |
| | | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | |
| | | 34 | 4 | | |
| 4 | 3144 | 29 | 4 | | |
| | | 21 | 3 | | |
| | | 17 | 2 | | |
| D | 3 | 4323 | 25 | 3 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 1 | 311 | 1 | 1 | L | |
| | | 25 | 3 | | Bet opposite of last 2 quads |
| D | 3 | 133 | 27 | 3 | L | |
| | | 36 | 4 | | |
| D | 4 | 344 | 29 | 4 | | |
| | | 11 | 2 | | Bet last 2 quads |
| | | 22 | 3 | L | |
| S | 4 | 4234 | 35 | 4 |
Oops, I meant to put previous cycle length = 3 into the filter BUT the results mostly always the same: CL2 wins in most scenarios.
CL2: 3677 instances
CL3: 2702 instances
Also, I forgot to state that in the unlocking magic sets Priyanka waits for 2 cycles to complete before commencing betting.
I was thinking that the Defining Element is a strange constant that is dependent on the closure of a cycle and doesn't show up easily in stats. It seems that betting the defining element repeatedly within an individual cycle on, say, spins 2,3,4 will not utilize it's effectiveness; it only offers an advantage when bet ONCE per cycle (event) based on predicting the correct cycle length first and foremost. Can't bet one without the other? :question:
Next test results now generating over 1 million spins re: increasing the span to 2 and 3 repeats every cycle...
Repeat 2: spin 1 (spin 2,3,4,5,6,7,8), repeat #, previous 2 defining quads, current defining quad, previous cycle length, current cycle length
Repeat 3: spin 1 (spin 2,3,4,5,6,7,8), repeat #, previous 3 defining quads, current defining quad, previous 2 cycle lengths, current cycle length
3 3 2 0 1 3 4 2
2 2 2 3 0 1 3 2 4 2 3
2 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 4 4
3 3 3 2 4 1 3 4 4 2
4 2 3 4 4 2 1
3 3 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 1 4
2 4 1 2 4 1 1 4 3
2 4 2 3 4 1 1 2 4 3 3
4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
4 3 4 2 2 1 4 3 3
1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 3 4
3 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 6
1 3 4 4 1 1 1 6 1
First test: do the cycle lengths keep their ratios when followed by a span increase of 2 then 3 repeats?
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/im2jisb7p/data.png)
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/hx2oc905n/repeats.png)
CL1: 31215 (25%)
CL2: 47336 (38%)
CL3: 35605 (28%)
CL4: 11768 (9%)
Looks good to me! :)
Revealed here for the first time.... *drum roll please* :lol:
CYCLE LENGTHS - REPEAT 2
CL1: 31561 (25%)
CL2: 33229 (26%)
CL3: 28501 (23%)
CL4: 18902 (15%)
CL5: 9656 (8%)
CL6: 3400 (3%)
CL7: 675 (1%)
CYCLE LENGTHS - REPEAT 3
CL1: 31391 (25%)
CL2: 30450 (24%)
CL3: 24899 (20%)
CL4: 18017 (14%)
CL5: 11070 (9%)
CL6: 5978 (5%)
CL7: 2716 (2%)
CL8: 1059 (1%)
CL9: 298 (0%)
CL10: 46 (0%)
CL1 > REPEAT 2
CL1: 8022 (26%)
CL2: 5757 (18%)
CL3: 5798 (19%)
CL4: 5028 (16%)
CL5: 3925 (12%)
CL6: 2010 (6%)
CL7: 675 (2%)
CL2 > REPEAT 2
CL1: 11934 (25%)
CL2: 11776 (25%)
CL3: 10475 (22%)
CL4: 7752 (16%)
CL5: 4009 (8%)
CL6: 1390 (3%)
CL3 > REPEAT 2
CL1: 8730 (25%)
CL2: 11183 (31%)
CL3: 8963 (25%)
CL4: 5007 (14%)
CL5: 1722 (5%)
CL4 > REPEAT 2
CL1: 2875 (24%)
CL2: 4513 (38%)
CL3: 3265 (28%)
CL4: 1115 (9%)
REPEAT 2 CL7 > REPEAT 3
CL1: 156 (23%)
CL2: 252 (37%)
CL3: 200 (30%)
CL4: 67 (10%)
This is more constant than Pi and Fibonacci put together! :ooh: The cosmic microwave background radiation seemingly has no effect...
Still no control over individual spins except: we know that in general we need to track less quads (only those that are 1 away from the next repeat).
The same paradox exists about the defining element. We don't know which spin it's likely to occur on - though somehow I figured out before it was on spin 1 and 2 - but unless we know the final cycle length we cannot really guess the spin for the defining element. Confusing as hell.
DEFINED BY 1 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2
Defined by 1: 871 (19%)
Defined by 2: 2951 (63%)
Defined by 3: 444 (9%)
Defined by 4: 439 (9%)
DEFINED BY 2 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2
Defined by 1: 1768 (10%)
Defined by 2: 12213 (69%)
Defined by 3: 1829 (10%)
Defined by 4: 1839 (10%)
DEFINED BY 2 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3
Defined by 1: 946 (8%)
Defined by 2: 9418 (77%)
Defined by 3: 929 (8%)
Defined by 4: 920 (8%)
DEFINED BY 3 THEN 3 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 3 > REPEAT 3
Defined by 1: 928 (8%)
Defined by 2: 953 (8%)
Defined by 3: 9202 (77%)
Defined by 4: 921 (8%)
DEFINED BY 1 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 3 > REPEAT 3
Defined by 1: 34 (8%)
Defined by 2: 74 (17%)
Defined by 3: 294 (66%)
Defined by 4: 42 (9%)
DEFINED BY 3 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 1 > REPEAT 3
Defined by 1: 298 (63%)
Defined by 2: 98 (21%)
Defined by 3: 45 (9%)
Defined by 4: 35 (7%)
DEFINED BY 3 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3
Defined by 1: 208 (7%)
Defined by 2: 2103 (72%)
Defined by 3: 332 (12%)
Defined by 4: 239 (8%)
I don't quite understand these stats, but it seems 75% of cycles for both Repeat 2 and Repeat 3 end in the first 3 spins. So if we only consider closes in the first 3 spins the situation seems to improve the more repeats we play for in terms of the defining quad...
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL1
5185
7956 (34%)
5146
5311
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL1
4688
8005 (36%)
4615
4688
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL2
3237
6015 (38%)
3200
3190
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL2
2667
6016 (43%)
2609
2699
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL3
1072
3876 (54%)
1066
1108
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL3
763
3956 (63%)
751
767
Those stats appear to be showing something significant because if we consider the first 4 spins the predictability begins to decrease:
DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL4
700
2515 (55%)
665
678
link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwnvTTEC00o
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 21, 11:42 AM 2016
link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwnvTTEC00o
Yeah, I saw that, but don't really know how it fits into all this. What is being demonstrated here - or does it have any relevance to what's been discussed previously?
I've been having great difficulty evaluating ratios and payout odds together for events that are 2 spins or more. For 1 spin it's easy:
| Spin 2 - CL1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 9 | -3 | 25 | 0.25 | 75 | 0.75 | 2.25 | -2.25 | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Spin 3 - CL2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | 50 | 0.5 | 50 | 0.5 | 3 | -3 | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Spin 4 - CL3 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | 75 | 0.75 | 25 | 0.25 | 2.25 | -2.25 | 0 |
For other multi-spin events I am going to have to use the simulator - but what seems clear with cycles is that stitching bets is not profitable here; Priyanka did once state that stitching bets doesn't always work in our favor, so flat-betting will be the order of the day.
Do spin 3 or spin 2 events have better profit/loss results compared to single spin events? TBC...
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016
Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?
Lets see whether this sparks some interest to take it forward further. While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.
500 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%
1000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%
2000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.
Does it give you any pointers or advantages? Do you see any link to the videos. Oh yeah, I like playing puzzles. Those who want to ignore can ignore. Bye until I get the next urge to post.
I might have to give up on this game soon, as it's too difficult to understand! :yawn: These profit/loss results are all over the place despite the percentages and win/loss count averaging out in the end. How on earth can we detect edge or know if we have it???
This is simply from betting CL2 continuously over 2 different data sets...
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/6qc4byy5x/cli2.png)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/mnaw8oqk5/cli2b.png)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/fit2znjat/cli2c.png)
Houston, we have a problem!!! :ooh:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/d5780pg0l/cli2d.png) (link:s://s32.postimg.org/y4bmpg1it/cli2e.png)
So nobody has anything to say about this then??? :question: I thought this might be a key time for Priyanka (or one of the few who knows what works) to "throw a bone"? You wise, intelligent, ones disappoint me sometimes. What would Manrique do - help a student in need or give the silent treatment?
Could the above be a case of Dispersion? And does this have anything to do with Pryanka's recent "see-saw" video and/or Dimsun's "The Perfect Loser"?
"Dispersion
What is it??
Is when something start to happend less than the expected.
how that affect me?
At some point , no matter what you do , you will experiment , this moments on gambling , moments when whatever you are betting is coming less than the expected , when that happened you will start to lose.
Can i dodge the dispersion? I mean I can escape from it?
No you can't , no matter what you do , you can change the table , comeback tomorrow , next year , change the ball , change the dealer , change the roulette , play at rgn or online or on the table again , and she will follow you.
What? ???
Yes
One moment! then I will fight the dispersion there is many systems out there that can win using progressions , increasing the amount of chips after some loses , to make up for those periods , where there is dispersion....
Is not that bad that dispersion.
Actually they can tame the dispersion , but only for a little while , she always end up , being stronger than any system like that , there is even persons that call themselves professionals because they are taming the dispersion using models like that. they can last years winning and then in a few months lose all the winnings and their total bankroll.
I can't belive that! , but dispersion has to have a limit so we can control her.
No she has no limits , no matter how big is the amount the dispersion you saw , you can always see it bigger.
Then ?
Then we have to wait for him.
Who ?
Her opposition.
GGasoft"
source: link:://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/dispersion-killing/msg14338/#msg14338
Is Priyanka's use of virtual wins/losses in the old Quads video analysed by RayManZ an application of VdW or Dispersion killing?
"At the moment, I go virtual if I don't get a hit within a cycle, then re-enter after a virtual hit, using a mild progression. If miss 3 cycles, I'll still wait for another virtual hit before re-entering, but will now bet the very minimum until I get 3 hits that meet with the statistical expectations of the bet selection I am placing. After this, I'll return to my mild progression (using Lanky's divisor), but will be ready to repeat the above process if the hits don't come (or even quit for the day)."
source: link:://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=3428.5
the Falkor goes deeper and deeper!!!
Quote from: Tomla021 on Jul 23, 10:54 AM 2016
the Falkor goes deeper and deeper!!!
Yeah, I'm thinking that this edge may still be possible by stitching bets for better payout odds - usually over multi-spin events. However, variance and dispersion seems to get in the way of detecting the edge as they seem to be 2 different forces at work. For example, let's say you got paid 5 chips for every 1 chip you bet on Red, you can still come out negative if dispersion got it's way and you had 10 blacks in a row.
Stitching bets is possibly something new that Priyanka brought to the table that Manrique may not have been aware of?
They say that stats cannot help us overcome dispersion (negative variance). Winkel is said to leave a GUT set when the trot is not performing as it should - this is the same concept as waiting out the losses as per "dispersion killing". Both Priyanka and winkel are trying to work around dispersion using similar techniques of facing the losses and waiting for the winning streak to return.
As a younger generation to Manrique, winkel and Priyanka perhaps my brain can offer something new here that all these great masters have missed? :wink: Don't forget: I already discovered parachute progression independent of any teachings here. I already cracked the other mysteries of life. Can I crack this one? Rather than trying to go with dispersion perhaps we can try to keep one step ahead. The constant here is "change" - but the stats don't stay the same either - so I think we need to rely on the law of the third (that's what we use every time we start a new session), the changing stats, and making our sessions longer (not shorter). In the end I think growing ratios and better stitched payouts will prevail over dispersion. But I could be wrong.
Go Falkor, go! Klap klap! :thumbsup:
OK, I finally figured out where my calculations were going wrong, and found the edge we've been looking for...
Normally CL2 breaks even over 1 spin:
| Spin 3 - CL2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | 50 | 0.5 | 50 | 0.5 | 3 | -3 | 0 |
If we stitch this from the previous spin we get +0.12 edge every 10 cycles:
| Spin 2 - CL2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 15 | -9 | 38 | 0.38 | 62 | 0.62 | 5.7 | -5.58 | 0.12 |
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/3ud4a5vaj/stitched.png)
False alarm... if the ratio is 37.5% then that edge is just breaking even instead. Also I just did CL3:
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 12 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 2.666666667 | 23 | -9 | 28 | 0.28 | 72 | 0.72 | 6.44 | -6.48 | -0.04 |
That's breaking even too! Perhaps with a better ratio, like during the outer cycles game, multi-spin events might take on more profit than a single spin event in the same scenario - otherwise by default CL1, CL2 and CL3 perform the same and are no better than single spin events.
You can also play for CL4 by betting the opposite of the last 3 quads (the single quad that hasn't appeared):
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 12 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 87 | -9 | 9 | 0.09 | 91 | 0.91 | 7.83 | -8.19 | -0.36 |
Break even or less again - so definitely overated! :lol:
The simulator is looking interesting for CL3... there is more of a "see-saw" effect! And it's just gone above +4,000 - but the draw-down was never lower than -1,000. :ooh:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/ncjk3p51h/scratching_head_monkey.jpg)
(link:://:.planetfigure.com/data/attachments/97/97271-e7f50197ca891d3c271d62f2fb0f60cb.jpg)
Almost at +5,000 now.... WTF!? Is this edge or variance? Where did my calculations go wrong? :-X
It got to +5000 at one stage, but finished just short of +4000 - next "see-saw" would have probably gone to +6,000? There's defo a wave-like behaviour observable... more defined with multi-spin bets that are stitched at least compared to the previous test I ran.
Running over 2nd data set now...
hope you figure it out falkor -your tireless
That finished +2000 (max = +3000)! That's the first time I've ever had both my data sets finish in a positive... there wasn't really any draw down over 100,000 spins. So I think it's edge! :)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/488h9q3fp/edge.png)
But where's the calculations to show it's edge?
HOLY SHIT!!! CL4 makes the MOST profit of all!!!!!!!!!! :ooh:
Already on +6000 quarter of the way through the test... this can't be variance....
Edit: May have spoke to soon... I think the swings are more wild... set to finish similar to CL3 I think. :P
+6700!!! :o
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/ab01moa7p/edge4.png)
Come and join the club, innit... :love:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/n70c5hquz/Aeon_Cycle_Shop.jpg)
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 12 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 87 | -9 | 9.54 | 0.0954 | 90.46 | 0.9046 | 8.2998 | -8.1414 | 0.1584 |
Cheers! :thumbsup:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/8g3xidj2d/cheers.jpg)
bingo!!!!!!
Is that a god damn cinnamon stick in a mojito
I think its tea RG----I know its the weekend and everything appears to look like beer
Lemon (Lime is better), Ginger, Mint, Cinnamon - but I prefer black tea instead of the stick!
Total Profit/Loss
0.1584
X
43753 cycles
=6930.5
PRETTY GOOD! O0
Alright
WELL
You need a mojito falkor.
Go snake one down
Keep your body alkalized guys... filter water + lemon/lime... zero sugar/carbs... basic salad veg.... baby salad/kale... fermented pickles in salt water... kimchi/sauerkraut.... keffir milk... meat... good fat... coconut oil, extra virgin olive, sesame, ghee... pine nuts... sesame seeds.... turmeric.... probiotic yoghurt.... berries... no transfats, including vegetable oil. No carbs above 10g per 100g.
Lucifer, I beg you... please give me this 16% ratio on CL4! I would really like that a lot I would... >:D
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/jwucojcgb/image.png)
if it keeps up your on to something.
as far as diet vinegar is also good!
I eat an all natural diet
Avocados
Spinach
Turmeric and ginger
Organic chicken
Then satuday alcohol
Watch out with the alcohol mate... ever had a bad acid stomach? You may wake up one night and feel heartburn after drinking alcohol. You then might take an antacid to relieve the pain - otherwise your stomach will continue to burn out. Eventually after repeat abuse you will end up with a stomach ulcer - or worse still: a lump will suddenly appear at the back of your throat and you will start choking on food. Simultaneously a swollen lymph node might appear under your arm or under your ear. Cancer cells may begin to grow in your esophagus that mimic stomach cells - ready to protect against the next heavy shower of acid - but by then your body cells are already mutating out of control and for the majority of people there's no comeback.
| Spin 2 - CL2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 3 | -9 | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 15 | -9 | 37.38 | 0.3738 | 62.62 | 0.6262 | 5.607 | -5.6358 | -0.0288 |
CL2 failed on both data sets - and it shows in the above results based on the ratio I was getting (37.38%)
I think CL3 and CL4 are champ - under default conditions that is!
These payout calculations are predicting nothing less than the Holy Grail...
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/8fzmv2057/Presentation1.png)
| Spin 3 - CL3 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | | | | | | | |
| 3 | 11 | 9 | 1.333333333 | 12.7 | -6 | 37 | 0.37 | 63 | 0.63 | 4.699 | -3.78 | 0.919 |
| Spin 3 - CL4 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 48 | -6 | 13 | 0.13 | 87 | 0.87 | 6.24 | -5.22 | 1.02 |
+1 units per cycle on average!?
We will have to run the simulation to find out... what will the outcome be... place your bets now... HG or will the next sim results turn everything we thought we understood about cycles and stitching bets on its head?
What a test we have lined up here... time to separate the men from the boys! :thumbsup: O0
Damn, there was a mistake in my calculations, but CL4 still looks promising:
| Spin 3 - CL4 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 42 | -6 | 13 | 0.13 | 87 | 0.87 | 5.46 | -5.22 | 0.24 |
Let's power up the LHC...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 07:37 PM 2016
Lemon (Lime is better), Ginger, Mint, Cinnamon - but I prefer black tea instead of the stick!
Total Profit/Loss
0.1584
X
43753 cycles
=6930.5
PRETTY GOOD! O0
That was last time, so now I am calculating that the next sim will finish in greater profit still:
0.24
X
43753 cycles
=+10,500 units!
However, all CL1 cycles will be missed out, so there will be less cycles played (75% of 43753).
Therefore:
0.24
X
32815
=
+7876
This is on track guys.... takes about 15 minutes to load up the results in my web browser.... but it's on track..... the ratio is 12.8% though!
Pryanka will soon be vindicated as this is looking like the HG... but where the hell does VdW come into it... how is that going to help.... and when do we get our lesson on dispersion killing?
"There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited?"
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
The ratio was on the low side... 12.71%... 0.24 becomes 0.1 but this is still a result in the positive....
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/ozrrddsa3/latest.png)
Falkor....
Although I have to admire your drive....i really dont have a clue what you are talking about. Seriously.
Its kinda manic to read. (No disrespect intended)
Could you explain it as if you are explaining it to my Mother.
( my mother doest read this forum...so I am safe)
Lol Turner....your not the only one. He lost me some time ago :o
All I see is he got an edge and 2 posts later it's gone. But talking about determination :thumbsup:
I am going to update Random Thoughts - A Simplified Overview soon, which will hopefully make things clearer... sorry. For now I will summarize:
*Each cycle is an event comprising 1 to 4 spins.
*You can play cycles in many different ways and over a differing number of spins based on the event you are playing.
*If you play only 1 spin you will break even using my method of calculating/evaluating ratios (each cycle length has a fixed ratio) vs. payout odds.
*New revelation: if you stitch bets over several spins during the course of the event (a cycle) then you will gain edge! (but not for CL2 under default conditions)
My latest brainstorm (never seems to end!): :twisted:
Could we we play for both CL3 and Same or CL2 and Different (etc.) - albeit with a whole new set of ratios ? ? ? ? ?
(link:://s32.postimg.org/aewuq8yth/spreadsheet.jpg)
(link:://media.tumblr.com/06527cab0ecec50ee70d7b5c3a597a5a/tumblr_inline_mm2l7iZWgS1qz4rgp.jpg)
Actually, that last test just failed on a 2nd data set... the ratio went down to 12.10%... and at this ratio we are doomed... but dispersion killing may help...
| Spin 3 - CL4 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| # Quads Bet | Streets Payout | # Streets Bet | # Units per Street | Win | Lose | Win Ratio (%) | Win Ratio | Lose Ratio (%) | Lose Ratio | Win Total | Lose Total | Total Profit/Loss |
| 2 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 6 | -6 | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 42 | -6 | 12.1 | 0.121 | 87.9 | 0.879 | 5.082 | -5.274 | -0.192 |
Most of the entire data set was below 12% even, in the 11% range... but it wasn't up and down... it looked fairly predictable and stable from the outset, hence we need a dispersion killer algorithm. But when it comes to the outer cycles game, Russian doll 2, we going to smash it big time(!) - you get me though!? 8)
Remember this discussion? It looks like it's related to dispersion killing:
"rrbb I said spend some time on it, not trying every system in the world with VdW and posting why it will not work. You had this great conversation with Priyanka at the start of this thread. She did explain why it will not work as it is. Something else is needed. Otherwise, forget it. And no, you will never find it by chance!"
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.705 (page 48)
"OK, I reckon we might gain EDGE if we bet on the opposite colour for first bet (if the Ws are greater than 50%)?"
Why only first bet? You are getting there mate.
(link:://i61.tinypic.com/wkpj79.jpg)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3)
FFS....lol
My mother thinks the aliens have landed
Seriously, with these multi-spin event based on PHP (and VdW) we can ride on the waves! :smile:
Pick your Non-Random component then let's go surfing! :D
(link:://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net/s3/digital-cougar-assets/AusGeo/2014/01/06/36411/surfing_at_noosa.jpg)
I am currently testing CL2 (same) - but there might be some dependency between both sets of ratios depending on how the cycle lengths and same/different are performing? So I need to run some more stats...
We might be looking at a 4D link here instead of 2D or 3D?
Strange bet this one... betting opposite of defining x 2 leaves several options open after 2 wins, including just stopping there:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/plh0cqmyd/strangebet.png)
"X person: Master Manrique whats your secret to win?
Manrique: Dispersion Surfing....."
"Apples and pears. Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them â€" but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one."
"Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances."
How do we ride on the imbalances from playing cycles?
I think we need to look back at RayManZ's analysis of Priyanka's Quads play in terms of virtual wins/losses:
Number Quad Cycle quad W/L Bet Why?
29 4
3 1
9 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
26 3 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
4 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
27 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
32 4 W Bet 3 - 4 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
18 2 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
1 1 No bet
7 1 1 Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 VL No bet Virtual loss.
24 3 3 Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
5 1 W No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
7 1 1 VW Bet 2 - 3 - 4 Virtual Win. End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
28 4 W Bet 1 - 4 We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
15 2 W Bet 1 - 2 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
31 4 L No bet We lost. Wait for a virtual win.
30 4 4 No bet ??? No ideal why we dont make a bet here…
14 2 VW No bet Virtual win.
29 4 4 VW Bet 1 - 2 - 3 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
31 4 4 L No bet Here we lost our bet. Now we wait for a virtual win.
36 4 4 No bet
35 4 4 No bet
5 1 No bet
11 2 No bet
20 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
23 3 3 No bet
1 1 No bet
9 1 1 No bet No bet. We wait for the virual win.
27 3 Bet 1 - 3 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
19 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
7 1 W Bet 1 - 3 We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads
15 2 L No bet Lost
10 2 2 Bet 1 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
16 2 2 L No bet Lost
12 2 2 No bet
10 2 2 No bet
4 1 No bet
26 3 No bet
16 2 2 No bet
15 2 2 No bet
22 3 No bet
31 4 No bet
25 3 3 No bet
9 1 Bet 2 - 4 Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.
11 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
23 3 3 W Bet 1 - 2 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
25 3 3 L No bet
14 2 Bet 1 - 4 Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
2 1 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
5 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 ??? Why bet? We did not have a virtual win here.
29 4 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
20 3 W Bet 1 - 3 - 4 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
2 1 1 W Bet 2 - 3 - 4 End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
24 3 W Bet 2 - 3 We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.
16 2 W Bet 1 - 2 - 3 Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.
12 2 2 W END
Priyanka first loses playing for CL2 on the 2nd bet. No further bets were placed till the next cycle, so we can only assume the cycle was considered lost as an event.
*Now we bet the last two quads (lost)
Come next cycle the following bet was still carried out and is not the same bet that lost previously:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (win)
Priyanka re-attempted the following, albeit virtual, as this is what lost two cycles ago and hasn't yet been compensated for:
*Virtual: Now we bet the last two quads (VL)
Come next cycle the following bet was still carried out as before:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (win)
Priyanka re-attempted the following, albeit virtual, as this is what lost on two previous cycles:
*Virtual: Now we bet the last two quads (VW)
As before the first bet continues to be played:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (win)
The one virtual win of the previous seemed sufficient to surf back on a winning streak, i.e. she never had to wait for 2 virtual wins to match the 2 former virtual losses - one was enough:
*We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.
A few bets down the line Priyanka loses again on the same bet as before and waits for a virtual win:
*Now we bet the last two quads (lost)
Surprisingly, she suddenly halts with the opening cycle bet that she would otherwise always play. Perhaps this is because she already had 7 wins in a row and was expecting a loss? Otherwise it could be something to do with VdW?
*Virtual: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (VW)
CL2 closes promptly with the virtual win she was waiting for:
*Virtual: Now we bet the last two quads (VW)
Then Priyanka is back to betting the opening bet of the next cycle, so it's even less clear now why she missed this out before:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (lost)
The next series of bets are not played - neither real nor virtual it seems, including after 4 cycles ending in CL1 and one cycle ending in CL4. After a CL2 is tracked, however, Priyanka resumes play waiting for a virtual win on the end of cycle opening bet that lost 10 spins prior:
*Virtual: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (virtual win)
Priyanka proceeds with the 2nd bet of the cycle even though the opening bet was virtual. Would this still apply if the bets were stitched instead of flat? So this dispersion algorithm is broken down over individual spins that make up the complete cycle event.
*Now we bet the last two quads (win)
Now back to playing normal:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (win)
*Now we bet the last two quads (lost)
The next opening cycle bet now loses, so by rights we should be waiting for a virtual win on the opening "other quads" bet as well as the "last 2 quads" bets, respectively.
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (lost)
Next a series of bets are missed again, including post 5 CL1s and 1 CL3!? According to my stats for CL1, this should give a 3% increase for CL2 when played in an secondary outer cycles framework. It was hinted that this bet has to be waited out, but for what reason? Part of Dispersion killing or VdW? Why the CL3 this time and the Cl4 last time? She continues again - only after a 2nd CL3 is tracked - makes no sense!?
*Virtual: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (virtual win)
Now, for some reason, she doesn't wait for a vitual win on the "last 2 quads" bet, but bets opposite; I suppose it could be considered equivalent to waiting for a virtual loss, but supposedly its based on matching the previous cycle (CL3):
*Bet opposite of last 2 quads (win)
*Bet last 3 quads (win)
Back to the opening cycle bet:
*End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (lost)
The previous bet lost, so the cycle should be considered lost, but Priyanka interrupts it by "switching" tactic (VdW based?), it seems, and going for a CL3:
*Bet opposite of last 2 quads
*Bet last 3 quads
She finishes by playing a series of CL3s, including the first opening bet without a virtual win. Seems to defy logic and is contrary to a scenario at the beginning of the set where she left out the opening bet for no reason. We do know, however, that VdW is used here besides dispersion killing, but it may be impossible to figure out most of the above mysteries.
post deleted - I was mistaken. There is no dependency between cycle length to cycle length.
Priyanka published new video. Maybe that can help.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=dNWygC4ApEY
Cheers
QuoteDEFINED BY 1 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2
Defined by 1: 871 (19%)
Defined by 2: 2951 (63%)
Defined by 3: 444 (9%)
Defined by 4: 439 (9%)
DEFINED BY 2 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2
Defined by 1: 1768 (10%)
Defined by 2: 12213 (69%)
Defined by 3: 1829 (10%)
Defined by 4: 1839 (10%)
I did some more testing on expanding the quads to 2 and 3 repeats.
Going from repeat 2 to repeat 3, the first situation increases to about 68% and the 2nd situation increases to about 75%. However, the combinations become more numerous. Praline's application on Cycle Lengths instead of Quads is far superior, I must say.
Defining Element (same/different) + Cycle Length both seem to work in parallel. You could potentially wrap them both up in outer cycles and then play as a parallel game.
The most common outcome has been touted as CL2 - but actually it's CL1 (same) to be more precise!
I was just looking back at the stats of my inferior span increase on the Quads - Praline, in a stroke of genius, figured out we should really apply this to the cycle lengths instead of the quads - and I just confirmed that mine was indeed a losing proposition.
CL1 (same) on 2nd repeat is 25%
CL1 (same) on 3rd repeat is also 25% - so doesn't grow.
CL3 (different) on 2nd repeat is 10%
CL3 (different) on 3rd repeat is 7% - so doesn't grow but actually diminishes for crying out loud!
That's because the combinations become more numerous - defeats the object of cycles: to limit the combinations.
Thanks again Praline!
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 14, 12:52 PM 2015stringing 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.
25 - 1 unit on red. Win.
27 â€" Place both units on blck. Loss.
7 â€" 1 unit on red. Win.
29 â€" 2 units on black. Win. We got the win at odds of 3/1
4 â€" 1 unit on red. Loss
18
27 â€" 1 unit on red. win
10 â€" 2units on blck. Win. We got 3/1 odds
14
28 â€" Won this sequence
34
27 â€" lost this one
6
16 - lost
12
20 - won
This is not a progression. This is not letting it ride. This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return. Now the possibilities are endless and everyone can create opportunities based on their comfort and style of play. You can create dozens, quads, splits, all possible odds through stitching together these components.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 25, 11:49 AM 2016While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL.
Stitching bets together. Does anyone really understand what this means, and how to do it? There isn't much discussion on it, so I have a feeling most of us don't know, and didn't find it that important at first. Cycles and VdW were a lot more exciting to explore.
However, I think this is one of the most important element in Priyanka's play, and it is necessary to create dependencies between two stream of events.
"stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens"
In the above example where red and black were stitched together to give odds of 3 to 1, what did Priyanka create? Dozens? Because of the 3 to 1 odds?
How would we be able to create quads by stitching ECs together? Could we stitch dozens together to make double streets?
I know, apart form myself and a few guests no one really reads these threads anymore, but if you understand how exactly this stitching work, please do share with me. I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks now, but can't figure it out. I understand the above example with R and B as it is quite simple, but the question is, how do we decide what to stitch together, and how does that benefit us.
I think it means that EC have odds 1/1 for a 1 spin event (guessing whether red or black will appear very next spin).
However, if we play for, say, EC Cycle Length 2 then we are playing for an event that is 2 spins.
If we know that CL2 is more probable then we try to get more than just the first spin right or the 2nd spin right - we are confident we can win the entire 2-spin event. And the CL stats we might have generated would only apply to the event as a whole - otherwise the probability needs to be re-calculated for a reduced sequence (of just 1 spin).
So... to bet for an event that is 2 spins we can stitch each bet together as parlay:
-win on first spin then put all winnings onto the 2nd spin for max profit
-lose on first spin then the event as a whole is lost. Do not try to win 2nd spin because probability reduced during middle of event.
So we have to make decision about event as a whole and stick to it.
Depending on how much you parlay each time, the bet selection, and the number of spins during the event can result in different payout odds. And different payout odds for an EC stitched event could match the same payout odds of a different playing position. I'm sure if you played EC enough spins and won all of them you could get the same payout odds as a straight up number or split.
I'm not sure I can agree with you, but I need to read it a couple more times.
Can you ever be confident that you can win the next two EC bets? There were a lot of discussion on dozens and quads, and we saw situations when statistically something is more likely to happen, but I don't remember any EC stats were discussed when an outcome was more likely. VdW is different, that is not based on statistics. At least that's what I think.
I was too tired yesterday when I posted and asked a wrong question. Obviously if we create 3 to 1 odds with two EC bets, that's not a dozen, as the dozen payout is 2 to 1. A quad gives us 3 to 1.
This probably answers my question, and I believe in Priyanka's example play, quads were created.
If the bets were 1 unit both times, it would be dozens. As winning both bets gives us 2 to 1. Right?
QuoteCan you ever be confident that you can win the next two EC bets? There were a lot of discussion on dozens and quads, and we saw situations when statistically something is more likely to happen, but I don't remember any EC stats were discussed when an outcome was more likely.
Yes, I think is possible based on my last 6 months research and experimentation - but final solution not forthcoming. EC outcomes are equally likely, but when we create cycles we are "wrapping" them based on combinations of whichever EC outcome repeated first (HH, LL, HLH or LHL). We are not concerned about the exact sequence (4 possible) that resulted in the repeat, so we have limited them to a few combinations (only 2) of CL1 or CL2. The repeat has to happen in 1 or 2 spins so is non-random with a limit of 1-2 (spins). To create dependency I think we have to wrap it again to create outer cycles, which creates a dual Russian doll system of an inner non-random cycle working within an outer non-random cycle. There are at least 5 ways of wrapping based on different constants. Together inner cycles and outer cycles have defined limits of 2 spins and 2 cycle length events respectively. Next we combine with random/stats: must compare inner sequences with outer combinations. My mistake was to compare inner combinations with outer combinations. When an outer cycle completes we then have predictability over next outer cycle - possibly during middle of the outer cycle too before it's closed. But we don't want to predict the next combination - we want to be able to predict the next sequence, I think. Out of all the constants, perhaps the order element might be the most useful. Also, there is another constant I found called the pre-defining element (or previous defining element). And in my testing I found it useful to compare principle A cycles with principle B cycles.
QuoteVdW is different, that is not based on statistics. At least that's what I think.
I discussed this before around the time of the 1 year anniversary. I think it is a dominant detector. It's a nice concept to learn in the non-random repertoire for sake of completeness of concepts, but I am thinking for sake of simplicity the final solution need only include PHP?
QuoteI was too tired yesterday when I posted and asked a wrong question. Obviously if we create 3 to 1 odds with two EC bets, that's not a dozen, as the dozen payout is 2 to 1. A quad gives us 3 to 1.
This probably answers my question, and I believe in Priyanka's example play, quads were created.
If the bets were 1 unit both times, it would be dozens. As winning both bets gives us 2 to 1. Right?
Right. 2 spins = 1 unit each = +2
With parlay/stitching the 2nd bet is 2 units, so final profit is +3. Both spins are treated as one event.
I think these are all GOOD
HH
LL
HHH
LLL
HLH
LHL
HLLL
LHHH
LLHL
HHLH
HLLHL
LHHLH
HLHLH
LHLHL
And these are all BAD
HLL
LHH
LHHLL
HLLHH
LHLHH
LLHH
HHLL
LLHLL
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 25, 05:33 AM 2016To create dependency I think we have to wrap it again to create outer cycles, which creates a dual Russian doll system of an inner non-random cycle working within an outer non-random cycle.
Sounds way too complex to me. There must be an easier way, something you can quickly see and easily calculate in your head while looking at past numbers.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 25, 05:33 AM 2016I think it is a dominant detector.
Yeah, Priyanka did mention at the beginning of this thread that VdW is basically just betting on dominant in case of ECs. In the countless discussions it has always been considered as something essential. But if I remember correctly, even Priyanka referred to VdW as just one non random concept. To me, it doesn't look special, and it is no different from the 3 dozens repeating in 12 spins example explained to Drazen. Or I could say that one of the following outcomes (or events?) must repeat in 10 spins. RR RB BB BR
I could be completely wrong of course, and I'm not 100% sure, because rrbb wrote that even in the quad videos we should see VdW being used...
So going back to stitching, Can I say that if we are playing for RB for example and we bet 1 unit on R and 2 units on B, we can create a quad?
Both gives 3 to 1 return, hitting two ECs in a row has a probability of (18/36)
2, which equals to 1/4, same as hitting a quad.
It looks convincing, but what about my other example?
Again we play for RB, but betting 1 unit on R then 1 unit on B. If both win, we get a return of 2 to 1, which is the same as a dozen. However, hitting a dozen has the probability of 1/3, while the two consecutive EC wins still have the probability of 1/4.
Sorry I'm not a math wiz, but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and fully understand how the stitching supposed to work, and how I could be able to create different returns by stitching ECs, dozens, etc.
QuoteSo going back to stitching, Can I say that if we are playing for RB for example and we bet 1 unit on R and 2 units on B, we can create a quad?
Both gives 3 to 1 return, hitting two ECs in a row has a probability of (18/36)2, which equals to 1/4, same as hitting a quad.
It looks convincing, but what about my other example?
I wouldn't say we are going as far as "creating a quad", but creating an event that has the same payout odds as a quad through parlaying bets. A quad is defined more specifically by the area it covers on the carpet; ECs don't cover the same area.
What was your other example? Dozens to make Lines? I think you could probably create most payout odds depending on how much you parlay and for how many spins we define the event. Does it really matter about trying to achieve a particular odds that might - in the popular imagination - resemble a line or street???
QuoteAgain we play for RB, but betting 1 unit on R then 1 unit on B. If both win, we get a return of 2 to 1, which is the same as a dozen. However, hitting a dozen has the probability of 1/3, while the two consecutive EC wins still have the probability of 1/4.
Sorry I'm not a math wiz, but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and fully understand how the stitching supposed to work, and how I could be able to create different returns by stitching ECs, dozens, etc.
I think we would always go for maximum returns by putting all winnings back on the next spin all the while the event is in progress. It makes no sense to cut winnings in order to emulate your favourite playing position.
You're right, we don't actually create a quad, but we get the same odds while covering more numbers. It might have to do something with the below. Or not. I don't know yet, and I'm guessing none of us really understands this quote.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 10, 09:41 AM 2016Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 26, 05:57 AM 2016I think you could probably create most payout odds depending on how much you parlay and for how many spins we define the event. Does it really matter about trying to achieve a particular odds that might - in the popular imagination - resemble a line or street???
I think it does. Priyanka says that in order for PP to work in roulette, there must be dependency between the two games. If I remember correctly, she also wrote that if we are playing quad cycles as one stream, we need to create quads with ECs as a second stream. And since they are formed of the same element, they are dependent.
Now I am maybe misunderstanding what "formed of the same element" means, but my logic says that it means both streams have the same odds, but the bets are different. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's a bit hard to explain something I barely understand. :)
So if we were playing dozen cycles, it could make sense to create 2 to 1 odds with ECs as a parallel game.
QuoteDozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
I thought this might have referred to counting dozens in outer cycles or something, so that depending on previous outer cycle and finding a suitable entry point, each dozen would take on a different bias. In the end I could never figure out what it meant though.
However, what Ati is saying could instead be the correct interpretation: Pri's statement could be related to stitching bets.
QuoteI think it does. Priyanka says that in order for PP to work in roulette, there must be dependency between the two games. If I remember correctly, she also wrote that if we are playing quad cycles as one stream, we need to create quads with ECs as a second stream. And since they are formed of the same element, they are dependent.
Now I am maybe misunderstanding what "formed of the same element" means, but my logic says that it means both streams have the same odds, but the bets are different. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's a bit hard to explain something I barely understand. :)
So if we were playing dozen cycles, it could make sense to create 2 to 1 odds with ECs as a parallel game.
Interesting idea... I never thought of that before... thanks for sharing your interpretation of what Pri described in the past, as a lot of concepts have been difficult to understand due to lack of clarification.
What's the difference between the above and playing High-Low as one stream and Even-Odd as another stream?
And what is your understanding of "dependency" and it's relation to non-random?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 26, 12:05 PM 2016What's the difference between the above and playing High-Low as one stream and Even-Odd as another stream?
There is no relation between those two ECs.
These were posted exactly a year ago.
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 19, 04:35 AM 2015betting on all 3 ECs don't help on variance
Quote from: ati on Oct 25, 07:27 PM 2015Normally I would think that ok, let's play the arithmetic progression on 9 number sets for colors as one game, and do the same on hi/lo as another game.
[...]
it's obviously not the right way of combining games together
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 26, 06:44 AM 2015Spot on ati. So how can we make a relation. What if instead of colours and dozens, you have lows and highs and dozens. Are we able to derive any relation?
My answer is yes. Low contains the same lines as dozen 1 and two more. High contains the same lines as dozen 3 and two more.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 26, 12:05 PM 2016And what is your understanding of "dependency" and it's relation to non-random?
Well, based on what I understood from Priyanka's posts, the above is all the dependency we need. But I'm not entirely sure, because somehow we should be able to explore an edge just by playing colors. I have no idea what the suitable parallel selection would be for colors, or even/odd, or columns, etc.
rrbb tried to drop some hints when apples and pears were discussed, and he asked what other selection would give us a certain win in a 9 spin VdW cycle. But it seems we still don't have the answer.
I don't think dependency between two games is related to non random. Non random is necessary for us to not to think in individual spins, but rather in events, groups and cycles. Is there any constant statistical relation between individual spins? I don't know of any. But for non random streams there is proof that there are constant statistical relations.
My views might change as time passes. I'm a slow thinker, and I need a lot of time (sometimes even months) to read everything many times to be able to understand them or to be able to ask questions.
QuoteThere is no relation between those two ECs.
QuoteMy answer is yes. Low contains the same lines as dozen 1 and two more. High contains the same lines as dozen 3 and two more.
But High contains several odd and even numbers that are common between both - same with low. All 3 ECs have common numbers. Dozen 2 has a mixture of lines from High and Low. Certain columns have more reds or blacks than the other. How do you explain that they have no relation - yet the examples you post do have such a relation?
QuoteWell, based on what I understood from Priyanka's posts, the above is all the dependency we need. But I'm not entirely sure, because somehow we should be able to explore an edge just by playing colors. I have no idea what the suitable parallel selection would be for colors, or even/odd, or columns, etc.
Maybe Straight Ups?
Quoterrbb tried to drop some hints when apples and pears were discussed, and he asked what other selection would give us a certain win in a 9 spin VdW cycle. But it seems we still don't have the answer.
Straight ups again? Likely to repeat around spin 9.
QuoteI don't think dependency between two games is related to non random. Non random is necessary for us to not to think in individual spins, but rather in events, groups and cycles. Is there any constant statistical relation between individual spins? I don't know of any. But for non random streams there is proof that there are constant statistical relations.
I see. I also think individual spin is insignificant. My newest and most up-to-date understanding of Non-Random is that ratios and stats relating to events only hold true across all data sets when "anchored" by a keyframe based on a repeat. So all events and triggers should only shift when something repeats as the new point of reference resulting in constant ratios and stability. Could that be the essence of Non-Random?
Do past events effect future events? (events not spins!)
I think they do, right? Is that what dependency is? Or could it be 2 separate events that are part of 1 big event? I doubt parallel games is the best framework to understand dependency. Pri never touched on this subject enough, alas. But it was one of his main arguments why roulette can be beaten together with creating events that are NOT equally likely. Personally, I think the way to beat roulette is by creating an event that has 22 in a row maximum (different) and 32 in a row maximum (for same). That's more than what red and black can each do in a row during 100,000 spins! Did you come across that yet?
QuoteMy views might change as time passes. I'm a slow thinker, and I need a lot of time (sometimes even months) to read everything many times to be able to understand them or to be able to ask questions.
Same here! :) I'm thankful to one of Pri's students for helping me to think in the right way. I've now progressed to Noah's Ark - everything comes in pairs. I don't think Priyanka has published that yet - we await his bible.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 26, 06:19 PM 2016But High contains several odd and even numbers that are common between both - same with low. All 3 ECs have common numbers. Dozen 2 has a mixture of lines from High and Low. Certain columns have more reds or blacks than the other. How do you explain that they have no relation - yet the examples you post do have such a relation?
I don't know, maybe you are right, and there is a relation between those. Maybe we can find relation between any two bets, but it would make no sense to stitch any two together. As Priyanka wrote:
"Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not."
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 26, 06:19 PM 2016Maybe Straight Ups?
I highly doubt. It would be a very unbalanced game to bet 1 unit on EC, and occasionally 8 or whatever units on inside bets. I know Priyanka gave this example while discussing dependency between parallel games, as she wrote: "This is just one example." And Priyanka's examples never reveal what should be done, they rather just show which way to think. Also, around 55% of the time, there will be already a repeat after 8 spins.
There are endless possibilities in roulette, endless combinations, random numbers come in endless different orders. What we need to do, is find and set limits, so we can have control over the chaos. Cycles give us fixed combinations, statistical relations between cycles give us constant ratios. Dependency between two cyclic based non random game could give us....... edge?
I have a strong feeling that everything that we need is written on this forum, but it's so hard to put it together. Most people gave up early, I've also lost my patience a couple times, as I have already spent 1 year to work on this, and I often feel that I still don't understand anything. Reading about others success with black magic, :xd: it's tempting to throw the math away, but I would be much more satisfied and happy if I could win with math.
One of the last posts on the subject from Priyanka is I think a hot lead. I have highlighted why.
QuoteI have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.
There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it.
QuoteDependency between two cyclic based non random game could give us....... edge?
In sequence, in parallel or both ways...?
I don't know the answer, but very good question. I need to read everything again, but didn't Priyanka used the word
alternate between games? There was also that example of 100 steps in one of the threads, where both of two different outcomes would lose individually at the 100th step, but
alternating between the two outcomes can yield positive result. This would mean sequence is the right answer, and also there is this quote.
Quote
This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.
The emphasis is on the word THEN. So not at the same time? The second part of that sentence sounds a bit strange to me with my level of English.
I've been meaning to take up parallel games, and ati has joined a few dots as to how we might go about devising such a strategy:
*Stitching different cycles to the same payout odds, but with different bets, i.e. Quad cycles vs. EC Quad cycles or Dozens vs. Lines.
*Parallel - but alternating.
However, I think it's important to master our single stream cycle strategy first? Only once we have mastered predictability over each stream, as separate and sequential, should we consider alternating them in parallel for greater effect?
If we were practicing predictability over just dozens cycles as a single stream for potential concatenation further down the line with...hmmm... lines, would just playing for, say, CL2 (the king of dozen cycles) suffice? In fact, judging from what ati is describing I envisage a rather robotic system of 2 identical stitched bets each game on the dozens side to match one counterpart cycle representing the "king" of lines (CL3 or CL4?), so the only decision then might be when to switch game, and nothing else?
But with all Pri's videos there is nothing that even resembles a parallel game or parachute progression (another concept she supposedly uses based on payout odds). The closest we get is in the PP video when an EC bet - alternated against dozens and lines - is occasionally increased to 2 units. And this barely resembles what is being described here. In fact, what we seem to be witnessing above all, with Pri's videos, is careful precision on her single stream game, based on cycle length, defining element, and order...
- If CL2 appears we know the next cycle has more chance for CL2? (A repeat has to occur within 3 cycles, and they are not equally likely.)
- If CL3 appears followed by a sequence of other CLs, we know that 55% of the time the first CL to repeat will be in 2 cycles time after the initial CL3.
- If CL3 goes ahead of CL2 and CL1 then we know that CL2 has to recover the deficit.
- We know there is more chance of a cycle being defined as same compared to different (60%+ for dozens).
- And we know that orders come in clusters - often 2+ in a row.
If we can guess the cycle length then we know which spin to expect a repeat; if we can guess the order then we know which dozen is going to repeat (1st, 2nd or 3rd); and if the defining element matches the dozen we expect to repeat then... BINGO!
So then... perhaps plotting the above on a graph might show edge where X marks the spot - thereby leading to treasure?
Tonight is my first practical test for gaining edge towards a final solution. We have to play for repeats: when will a repeat happen and which option will it be? Will post results later. My strategy uses 3 inner cycles and 6 outer cycles + 2 constants. Should show clear profit on 2 different data sets over 100K spins each, but I could be wrong... this comes following MONTHS of studying intensely every day - often 12 hours on a Saturday or Sunday.
It seems edge only comes from creating dependency via outcomes that are not equally likely:
1) Sequence vs. repeat
2) Repeat vs. repeat (conversion to SD might help as well as different constants repeating within the same cycle)
3) Parallel game with common elements (not tested yet)
4) Outer Cycles - similar to above based on shared elements - but more in a matrix form..?
5) Multiple repeats - perhaps tracking for multiple repeats (2 or more) of the same cycle constant(s) can increase edge? (not tested yet)
6) CL > CL: apparently a magical relationship exists between 2 cycles (only cycles > EC), but so far I haven't been able to impact one cycle via the previous one. A solution may lie within the inner elements of the cycle - perhaps the unique parts left over that are not involved in the repeat process nor attributing values to the cycle constants.
I think the SD repeat is the most powerful in terms of impacting future events or creating dependency. CL22222 has limited power - but DDDDD has greater power since it can be built up from "alternating" other repeats where only the most immediate repeat counts as "same". The strong nuclear force vs. the weak nuclear force? :xd:
In our universe repeats are increasing and uniques are diminishing, so the more repeats we track the better chance of increasing our profit exponentially?
We discussed stitching bets and dependency between parallel games. What if we stitch together bets of two parallel games? They would become dependent...Would it make sense? I have a feeling it wouldn't, but might worth giving it a thought.
How about two parallel games using Dozen Cycles made up of the same payout odds - creating dependency - but minus any stitching?
#1def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL1 +2/-1
#1other - Bet Other Dozens = CL2/3 +1/-2
#2def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL2 +2/-1
#2last - Bet Last Dozen = CL2 +2/-1
#2last2 - Bet Last 2 Dozens = CL2 +1/-2
#2opp - Bet Opposite Last 2 Dozens = CL3 +2/-1
#3def - Bet Defining = CL3 +2/-1
#3o2 - Bet Order 2 = CL3 +2/-1
#3last - Bet Last Dozen = CL3 +2/-1
#3first2 - Bet First 2 Dozens = CL3 +1/-2
#3last2 - Bet Last 2 Dozens = CL3 +1/-2
#3firstlast - Bet First and Last Dozens = CL3 +1/-2
#2def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL2 +2/-1
The opposite bet for this is:
12... bet 2+3
or
31... bet 1+2
Hello all. Haven't been in here for a long time but I'm still interested to see how it is all going.
There are two aspects to all of this that seems to me to be key yet receive little attention. Don't want to subvert the current discussion but it seems to me to be going nowhere right now. And I think I know why. Feel free to disagree but let's discuss.
1. Game combinations. I think we all know what is meant by the term "game" so let's see if we can agree on some principles around this. From what I can glean from the discussion it would seem that Pri plays 2 games that are related in some fashion. One is a normal game that possibly is based around statistics in some way, and the other is a non-random game which is based around cycles. These games are linked or related in some way that causes or results in some sort of dependency between them. For example, perhaps with the quads one game is simply the repeats such as is described in reply 112, and the other is a cycle of non-random such as described in the dozens discussion (but applied to the quads).
2. Stitching. I think we have sorted out that this means a combination of bet types over 2 consecutive spins - or perhaps more but I think 2 will most likely be enough but this could be up for discussion. This is just what Pri sometimes refers to as different universes? Anyway, by somehow stitching together probabilities from 2 consecutive spins (and maybe on different chances?) a new probability number is generated. Somehow this also relates to the game choice mentioned above.
I think these are really important principles, possibly even fundamental. But because of the nature of these it is impossible to reverse engineer from a video what they are. Think about it - if a strategy has some rules that are based on the results of 2 spins, how on earth can you ever reverse engineer these rules from watching a video alone. The possibilities are bad enough when you are analysing the results and possible consequent bets from just one spin but when the rules encompass two spins? And you don't know what they are? - impossible. The possibilities are truly infinite unless some guidance is given to narrow that down. And a few wishy-washy comments that are non-specific can never achieve that (no offence intended Pri).
In essence therefore it is my opinion that we need to focus on the above two aspects, independently or together, and be specific about it. I want to know precisely which statistic we should focus on because, again, there are an infinite number of these. And specifically what non-random cycle should we concentrate on. Even given these two things the possible combinations are endless.
Oh - and how specifically do we stitch bets together across 2 spins.
thoughts?
Rog
Hi Rog,
Long time no see - hope you keeping well? I need to contemplate your last reply as there's a lot of information there to take in, so can I start with the last question first?
QuoteOh - and how specifically do we stitch bets together across 2 spins.
Well, I thought we would parlay the chips from the first spin, but I never see Pri increase her chips outside of the lines video (#2), so could it be to do with parachuting? This concept is normally applied across games or cycles; for example, bet previous defining element of EC; if lose bet previous defining element of dozens; then lines; then streets, etc. But I never see Pri doing that either. So...
Could these 2 bets over 2 spins be both stitching and non-standard parachuting at the same time?
1... bet 2+3 = bet other dozens
12... bet 1+2 = bet last 2 dozens
RMore, you describe an A game based on repeats/stats followed by a B game based on cycles/stitching.
QuoteThink about it - if a strategy has some rules that are based on the results of 2 spins, how on earth can you ever reverse engineer these rules from watching a video alone
Does that mean the results of the B game influence how we play the next A game?
if you know that same will have 60% hits why not try simply prevent <same> hittting that rate
Quote from: maestro on Dec 09, 07:44 PM 2016
if you know that same will have 60% hits why not try simply prevent <same> hittting that rate
I think there is no simple way of gaining positive or negative edge based around betting <same> as previous defining element, or same as previous sequence, since we don't know which cycle spin it's going to strike. If it was only 1 bet per cycle to hit <same> then we might be able to take advantage of that 60%, so I think we are better paying attention to any additional information RMore can provide us about the special concepts he described above...
See attached re: avoiding same - still comes out @ 66% over 10K spins to match double dozen break even.
I think this "stitching" concept is really important to the success of this approach. In an earlier post (in this thread) Pri said " It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. " This was in relation to PP. But ignoring the PP aspect for a moment, the statement is important anyway. Consider: two playing streams; dependence; "more likely"; and the last part "enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation".
Creating a strategy that encapsulates these concepts is absolutely key, I believe. This is where we should be focusing our attention. This "more likely" concept is why sometimes she loses as shown in her post on 2 days play. A few losing sessions is to be expected when your strategy is based on "more likely". But, as she said, this is of no significance overall because the edge, if there is one, will assert itself over the longer term.
We need to create 2 games, with some sort of dependence between them, that indicates somehow the situation where statistically we are more likely to win "now" as opposed to other times in the flow of outcomes. I recall in one of the vids where she played for a while and was slowly being eroded away until she put everything left in the bank on one bet and it won. Much like in blackjack where an AP will leverage up their bets when they believe the odds are "more likely" in their favour. It doesn't always work but over the longer term, if they are right about the more likely moments, then they will win.
It may be that the stitching Pri refers to is not, actually, across 2 spins. I might be wrong about that. But I'm sure I saw somewhere a reference to this type of stitching. Can't find it now though. But the point is, by stitching we can create an odd that is possibly > 0.5 - although that, by itself, doesn't create a positive expectation bet - nothing does in roulette. It's just an odds-on bet, that's all. But is that what is required? I would doubt that very much. Odds-on or not, all bets come down to -2.7% expectation in the end. UNLESS - we stitch across 2 spins. A combined bet if you like. But even then it could be argued that the sum of 2 negative expectation bets can never create a positive expectation bet. Well - what if it were multiplicative? Mmm. When do we multiply probabilities? Ugh - my head hurts!
As for PP - I still do not believe that PP in its theoretical sense can win in roulette. This is not for the reasons discussed earlier in this thread about independence. It is more simple than that. Rather, it is because PP requires one of the 3 games (A, B and C) to have a positive expectation. In other words, is a winning bet in a probabilistic sense. There is no such bet in roulette. Therefore a PP strategy cannot be created for roulette. So let's not waste our time discussing that. May I suggest that if people would like to discuss that we create another thread for that purpose.
QuoteI think this "stitching" concept is really important to the success of this approach.
It's really not clear what "stitching" is and which videos Pri has demonstrated such a concept. As I said there is contradictions and confusion based around increasing chips (never witnessed and never helped my game) and parachuting.
QuoteIn an earlier post (in this thread) Pri said " It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. " This was in relation to PP. But ignoring the PP aspect for a moment, the statement is important anyway. Consider: two playing streams; dependence; "more likely"; and the last part "enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation".
Creating a strategy that encapsulates these concepts is absolutely key, I believe. This is where we should be focusing our attention. This "more likely" concept is why sometimes she loses as shown in her post on 2 days play. A few losing sessions is to be expected when your strategy is based on "more likely". But, as she said, this is of no significance overall because the edge, if there is one, will assert itself over the longer term.
We need to create 2 games, with some sort of dependence between them, that indicates somehow the situation where statistically we are more likely to win "now" as opposed to other times in the flow of outcomes. I recall in one of the vids where she played for a while and was slowly being eroded away until she put everything left in the bank on one bet and it won. Much like in blackjack where an AP will leverage up their bets when they believe the odds are "more likely" in their favour. It doesn't always work but over the longer term, if they are right about the more likely moments, then they will win.
The easiest concept to understand here is "entry point", "more likely" and "positive expectation". These terms are all related to one thing: trying to find when one event will impact another event, so there is an increase in probability over the average expectation for that second event in the long term. You do not need to elaborate here, as this is fully understood. However, from my testing, all events seem to be independent of previous events; for example, I have never found any impact between one cycle affecting the next cycle, even though a magical relationship is meant to exist. The only impact I ever witnessed was during each cycle when the previous defining element and unique halves will influence what will be the next repeat - but never on the next spin. But even with predictability over the next repeating dozen event - or that CL2 is more likely than CL3 - greater wins will always be compensated by lesser payouts resulting in break even. Just to reiterate: there are more CL2s than CL1s in dozen cycles, but CL2 will cost a double dozen bet at minimum, only gaining 1 unit, whereas CL1 only costs 1 unit for +2 but is less prevalent. Playing CL2, CL1 or both together always results in break even regardless of which is more likely. There is no entry point for positive expectation in terms of payout increase even though every moment has a positive expectation for sequences based around CL2 in terms of greater occurrences.
The problem I've described above - more sequences vs. lesser payouts - doesn't appear to be helped by parallel games, either, and the dependency that exists between them, but this concept of dependency and the many types of parallel games that could be created and linked to each other by shared elements (or the result of one game used as input for the other) is tricky to consider in terms of it's many variations and what mechanisms are at work - yet is still a more simpler proposition compared to the vague and ambiguous description of "stitching bets". From my preliminary testing of parallel games it seems that we can create a dependent connection, but the same problem still exists regarding more sequences vs. lesser payout. Let me give examples of 2 types of parallel games:
1) I play a dozen cycle and it ends in CL2 defined by 1.
2) I play a line cycle and it ends in CL3 defined by 4.
Every dozen is made up of 2 lines, so there is some shared element there. However, regardless of what we do in game 1, game 2 remains independent. There is no additional impact for any particular CL or defining element on the lines based on the previous dozens game.
Here's another one:
1) Play for CL2 cycles only or play VDW
2) Take the wins and losses from game 1 and make new cycles out of them.
Let's say on game 2 we get:
WL...
We might have greater impact for another W if WLW is a "more likely" sequence than WLL (vice versa we would bet opposite). But again: the same problem exists where more sequences have a positive expectation, but the payout has a break even expectation. The alternative is to change the bet in the original game 1 from CL2 to CL1 when we encounter WL in game 2. But again, the long term result is break even.
So that just leaves stitching bets... I tried parlaying wins, but it seems 2 negative expectation bets indeed do not lead to a positive expectation in terms of payouts, so it doesn't seem like we can overcome the problem of unfair payout odds no matter what. The solution I am concentrating on right now is related to simultaneous repeats that have to happen together. If Pri does have a solution then I suspect it's related entirely and exclusively to understanding stitching bets, which happen to be the least understood besides most of the other concepts above that appear to be red herrings...
QuoteIt may be that the stitching Pri refers to is not, actually, across 2 spins. I might be wrong about that. But I'm sure I saw somewhere a reference to this type of stitching. Can't find it now though. But the point is, by stitching we can create an odd that is possibly > 0.5 - although that, by itself, doesn't create a positive expectation bet - nothing does in roulette. It's just an odds-on bet, that's all. But is that what is required? I would doubt that very much. Odds-on or not, all bets come down to -2.7% expectation in the end. UNLESS - we stitch across 2 spins. A combined bet if you like. But even then it could be argued that the sum of 2 negative expectation bets can never create a positive expectation bet. Well - what if it were multiplicative? Mmm. When do we multiply probabilities? Ugh - my head hurts!
Cycle = pigeon hole principle = stitching bets
Add some statistics
Add VdW = always bet dominant
And at the end you can add some smart betting plan.
So we have.
Cycles+VDW+Statistics+BETTING PLAN = POSITIVE EXPECTATION GAME
May I ask - how is cycle = stitching?
Also - what would you consider a smart betting plan.
In essence I agree with what you say, just not sure about a couple of things. Mostly it is just definition of terms really.
When you bet cycle, you actually make:
Related to quads
Cl1 1 bet
Cl2 2 bets
Cl3 3 bets
Cl4 4 bets
But there's no sense to bet for cl4 and not "conciliable" cl1. (We just removed apples from pears)
Smart betting plan, must be created in relation to statistics.
OK - understood. Looking at CL 2 and 3 only makes sense.
But - Stitching? Are you avoiding answering this one more specifically because it will give too much away? Or am I just too dumb to understand you?
No, you are not dumb.
I'm not very good in English, and I'm not sure if I'm right. But I can say for sure that I have more knowledge then falkor, on this thread (sorry falkor). If you make a correct question, I will try to answer it.
OK - thanks Praline. As I understand it the concept of "stitching" relates to putting together what would normally be considered separate bets to come up with a new betting odd. For example, a red/black combined with an odd/even. But this example doesn't really do anything interesting. Another example might be high/low combined with columns. But again, not that interesting. What is more interesting, and I assumed that this was what Pri was trying to get at (as I said before - could be wrong on that) is combining odds from 2 bets across 2 consecutive spins. Could this be CL1 and CL2 of a dozens cycle perhaps? But this would just be 2 separate bets. How do you "stitch" them so that there is a new odd in play?
Gotta go and play some Christmas music for an hour or so now so I'll be back later.
thanks.
Quote from: praline on Dec 11, 08:42 PM 2016
Cycle = pigeon hole principle = stitching bets
Add some statistics
Add VdW = always bet dominant
And at the end you can add some smart betting plan.
So we have.
Cycles+VDW+Statistics+BETTING PLAN = POSITIVE EXPECTATION GAME
Do we really need VdW though? How many of Pri's videos aren't using VdW?
Quote from: praline on Dec 11, 08:58 PM 2016
When you bet cycle, you actually make:
Related to quads
Cl1 1 bet
Cl2 2 bets
Cl3 3 bets
Cl4 4 bets
But there's no sense to bet for cl4 and not "conciliable" cl1. (We just removed apples from pears)
Smart betting plan, must be created in relation to statistics.
But there's different ways of betting CL2/3 right? It could be done as a single bet even.
Quote from: RMore on Dec 11, 09:22 PM 2016
OK - thanks Praline. As I understand it the concept of "stitching" relates to putting together what would normally be considered separate bets to come up with a new betting odd. For example, a red/black combined with an odd/even. But this example doesn't really do anything interesting. Another example might be high/low combined with columns. But again, not that interesting. What is more interesting, and I assumed that this was what Pri was trying to get at (as I said before - could be wrong on that) is combining odds from 2 bets across 2 consecutive spins. Could this be CL1 and CL2 of a dozens cycle perhaps? But this would just be 2 separate bets. How do you "stitch" them so that there is a new odd in play?
Gotta go and play some Christmas music for an hour or so now so I'll be back later.
thanks.
All I can think of is what I suggested before: "bet other dozens" followed by "bet last 2 dozens". Alternatively, spin 1 and spin 2 of the next cycle could each be "stitched" to the counterpart spins of the previous cycle to address some kind of horizontal and vertical matrix. However, I don't really see this as "stitching", but simply a sequence of individual dozen bets that results in exactly the same win/lose sequence patterns regardless of some spins being virtual or not. Again: it may appear that you are betting for an event (CL2), but really all that is happening is a sequence of 2 individual dozen bets/events.
Yep - precisely. That's my problem. I can't see any stitching going on and I do think this is key but just can't see how to do it in the context of this strategy.
Quote from: RMore on Dec 12, 06:36 PM 2016
Yep - precisely. That's my problem. I can't see any stitching going on and I do think this is key but just can't see how to do it in the context of this strategy.
Are some of the "stitches" virtual?
Indeed, it is possible.
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 04, 12:07 PM 2015
Ati - You are right and perfect. Now the follow up question that one should ask is we can clearly see there are imperfections here. Is there a potential for us to modify the bet sizes across these positions instead of 1 unit bet uniform to create an edge? I will let you ponder on that.
Priyanka,
I don't see that this question has been answered yet.
If you mean by "create an edge" with bets on Red Outside and straight up bets on Black Odd inside, then I would guess
that 8 units on Red and 1 Units on each Black Odd number would be what you want (total risk 16 Units)
(or any multiple of these numbers 16/2 24/3 etc)
Anyone can refer to the attached spreadsheet to experiment
Winning Spin Net
Red 0
Black Odd 20
Black Even -16
Green(0) -12
Quote from: stringbeanpc on Dec 18, 04:38 AM 2016I don't see that this question has been answered yet.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Thats a huge step in the right direction.
Thanks, stringbeanpc. I've been sharpening my Excel skills as of late so this should be helpful.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2016/12/18/temp_815020.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/UuzZ)
3Nine, you are welcome, good luck with your excel skills..
so true about the path being a spiral, not a straight line.
I am enjoying the "learning path"
Creating an edge? It looks like hedging bets; no? That red+black odd was only for 1 spin, right? Is that meant to be an example of stitching? And what is the purpose here?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 19, 05:54 AM 2016Creating an edge? It looks like hedging bets; no? That red+black odd was only for 1 spin, right? Is that meant to be an example of stitching? And what is the purpose here?
It is hedging. And it is an example. There is no edge in the method below, it is only an example in the right direction about stitching together bets. The example in the excel will lead to no edge if we remove zero from the equation and house edge if we consider zero into the equation.
Winning Spin Net
Red 0 - 18 possibilities
Black Odd 20 - 8 possibilities
Black Even -16 - 10 possibilities
18x0 + 20x8 -16x10 gives us 0.
However this is the line in which the thought process for stitching bets can progress as we look for options to bet less than 12 numbers with odds of dozen, less than 18 numbers with odds of even chance and so on.
example of stiching bets is....high +13,14,15,16,17,18......or low and 19,20,21,22,23,24
just above post was educated guess :sad2:
mumbi do you still play steves game...lol
@turner...turner my son smashed me on chess today...is only 8...so i am having few drinks now...
Quote from: maestro on Dec 19, 05:09 PM 2016
@turner...turner my son smashed me on chess today...is only 8...so i am having few drinks now...
@maestro, do you also play Go!?
had a friend of mine he did try to explain it to me and we had 17X17 board to play but we got drank in way we were doing it so thats about it...but is soooo complex game even it lokes stones and pockets only
So let's say we were expecting Dozens CL2... rather than bet the last 2 dozens:
Win: + 1
Lose: - 2
...we should instead "parachute" to a different playing position and hedge our bets so that we get:
Win: ++
Lose: 0
?
It's good that stitching has come up again in the discussion. The other day I was thinking that maybe I got the below quote wrong, and it's not creating different odds, but each of the four EC combinations should be considered as a quad.
QuoteWhile playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL.
1-9 Q1
10-18 Q2
19-27 Q3
28-39 Q4
LL
LH
HL
HH
Four different number combinations, and four different EC combinations. So if the last two spins resulted LL that could be EC quad 1, if LH then EC quad 2, etc.
However this is not how Priyanka originally explained the stitching, and I was not able to figure out how this could be playable, because we would have to bet both H and L, which is obviously doesn't make sense.
It would be nice if somebody could please go through Pri's videos and list which concepts are being used in each one, i.e. VDW (or not), stitching, parallel game:
link:s://:.youtube.com/channel/UCwzTwEVwnraYoM356gp4n7g
Random thoughts 16th Sep 2015
1 year ago461 views
1:45
Random thoughts 26102015
1 year ago180 views
Parrondos Paradox
2:05
My Ezvid Video
1 year ago71 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com
1:51
My Ezvid Video
1 year ago49 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com
2:41
Random thoughts 21 Jan 2016
11 months ago362 views
3:27
Random Thoughts 21 Jan Part 2
11 months ago195 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com Nothing magical
3:44
Random Thoughts 21 Jan Part 3
11 months ago193 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com Nothing magical
8:10
Random Thoughts 21 Jan Part 4
10 months ago338 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com Nothing magical
8:33
Unlocking magic 04 Mar
9 months ago165 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com Nothing magical
2:58
Unlocking magic 06 Mar
9 months ago175 views
made with ezvid, free download at link:://ezvid.com Nothing magical
2:49
The Journey - Part 1
5 months ago193 views
Its very useful to watch how the bets go up and go down... It is a see-saw.
1:08
The Journey - Part 2
4 months ago176 views
Hi Falkor,
to shortcut this work you could post the raw data (numbers,bets,result) as Exel sheets from the videos you already analyzed so far. I can import this data to Mathematica and analyze further.
Greets
forget about videos, use concepts from first sixpages of this thread.
How can you combine cycles, repeats and "conflict of interrests" ??
I think that the game "sudoku" is something very similar to (at least one) Pri`s methods.
Quote from: praline on Dec 21, 02:13 PM 2016
I think that the game "sudoku" is something very similar to (at least one) Pri`s methods.
Maybe you give us a link to this method you are referring.
TNX
Here's my new sub-project for Christmas... I am going to try to monitor different types of dozen repeats individually (and simultaneously where possible) to see if the first repeat situation ever improves in terms of:
*Cost via standard progression
*Number of placed bets
I'm not actually aware of any other way of testing first repeat potential - but welcome ideas?
So we start the test with regular dozens within regular cycles. Out of 500 cycles the worst set looked like this:
(link:s://s24.postimg.org/b7jj8k605/image.png)
So the first repeat took 8 placed bets comprising 4 x single dozen bets coupled with 4 x double dozen (max possible per spin!) bets, but we would need a progressions calculator to figure out the cost of that set and whether it reached table limits, etc.
That was only 1,000 spins, but for 1 million spins it will defo hit the table limits. But the question is: does the situation improve the more repeats and types of repeats we monitor simultaneously ala sudoku or simultaneous equations?
End goal: if the situation does improve then we could look at converting to a positive progression or finding ways of parachuting to different playing positions.
Bare in mind: this is about the first winning repeat, as for CL3 we cannot say which dozen will repeat. Some combinations of repeats can reduce the amount of times all uniques show - and could possibly contribute to first "winning" repeat potential or not.
I forgot to mention that we are always following single appearers.
So here's our benchmark... this was the worst set in 1 million spins...
(link:s://s30.postimg.org/lvdggfif5/worst.png)
(1 dozen + 2 dozen bets) x 9
We know that with every 2 dozen bets we need to triple up to recover losses... 7 is already past my budget - so 9 is out of the question not to mention all the single dozens as well.
But if we were playing for a repeat on the Defining Element:
2
1
1
...then the set would have been over after 3 cycles instead of 9. So can we improve on the above by moving to DE repeats?
Here we have negative edge... this was the worse set for DE repeats! :D
(link:s://s24.postimg.org/p2z8jrh11/worst2.png)
Before we had 17 losses in a row; this time we got 18 losses in a row. But before we had 8 sets of uniques without a winning repeat; now we have only 4 sets of uniques without a winning repeat.
Before we had 9 x 2 dozen bets vs. 9 x 1 dozen bets; this time we used 8 x 2 dozen bets vs. 11 x 1 dozen bets.
So I don't think there's any improvement yet; the first 2 repeat types tested singular seem almost comparable.
What if we started each set with a single dozen following a fresh retracking, as the above started with a double dozen? We might then be able to cut down those double dozens from 8 to 6.
So even with re-tracking we still need 8 double dozens unfortunately when it comes to the worst set...
(link:s://s24.postimg.org/4sr165red/Untitled_1.png)
Don't mean to pi$$ on your parade, but after 77 pages, are you any closer to having a system that is easy to explain?
Falkor,little off topic but...
if you see this scenario/order what would you bet for the next few spins, but
bet only one group and change the group to bet next according with
the distance you attack ( 11 , 22, 33 is dist 1 / 121,212,323..etc..
is dist 2 / 2332, 1221, 1231,3213..etc.. is dist 3...and so on... with
the distances between the same group):
Scenario
dozen(or any 12 numbers group)
1
2
3
1 dist 3
2 dist 3
3 dist 3
1 dist 3
2 dist 3
3 dist 3 can start to bet here or still wait...
3 dist 1/ dist 4
2 dist 3
1 dist 5, now bet for dist ?
Also if you choose to attack 2 dozens , which two
distances you would attack ...
cheers
Kattila, thanks for your reply. I've not tested distances/gaps yet - only dabbled with streaks - but one day I will experiment with what you are suggesting.
Back to sub-project 58... First repeat CL also seem comparable: 7 double dozens vs. 14 single dozens.
(link:s://s29.postimg.org/5lp76pvuf/CLstandard.png)
Notice: CL repeats above had positive edge, even though it was small edge and its worst session was comparable to the others (all negative edge based). Singular Order repeats is also comparable to the others - 3 x double dozens vs 21 x single dozens - but closer to our enemy, Break Even, compared to the rest:
(link:s://s29.postimg.org/j1mr3xt8n/order.png)
17 losses with RO, but 8 double dozens. Seems like positive edge ala Cycle Length repeats - Pri said we don't get variance when playing for repeats - but need to confirm via 2nd dataset.
(link:s://s27.postimg.org/fjm0qsx1v/image.jpg)
So that's a
minimum of 10 cycles to get a repeat! Going by, say, dozen repeats, we can calculate the cost to recover our losses:
| DOZEN REPEATS | | | |
| Dozens per bet | Units | Win | Lose |
| | | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | -5 |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | -8 |
| 2 | 9 | 1 | -26 |
| 1 | 14 | 2 | -40 |
| 2 | 41 | 1 | -122 |
| 1 | 62 | 2 | -184 |
| 2 | 185 | 1 | -554 |
| 1 | 278 | 2 | -832 |
| 2 | 833 | 1 | -2498 |
| 1 | 1250 | 2 | -3748 |
| 2 | 3749 | 1 | -11246 |
| 1 | 5624 | 2 | -16870 |
| 2 | 16871 | 1 | -50612 |
| 1 | 25307 | 2 | -75919 |
| 2 | 75920 | 1 | -227759 |
| 1 | 113880 | 1 | -341639 |
| 2 | 341640 | 1 | -1024919 |
So to play
Priyanka's Dozen Cycles we would need an astonishing
BR of 1,024,919 units - not to mention a big favour from the House to increase their
table limits to 341,640 x 2 =
683,180 units for the final 2 dozen bet!?
But guess what? Let's say you find yourself in the following scenario:
CL1 = 0, CL2 = 0, CL3 = 1
O1 = 0, O2 = 1, O3 = 0
Defining Element = 1,2 or 3 (doesn't matter which)
One of them (CL, Order or DE) MUST repeat on the very next Cycle! In fact, most times the repeat will be on the Defining Element, followed by Order 2. Least likely to repeat out of those 3 would be CL3 - but one of them constants, nevertheless,
MUST repeat!The maximum for any repeat to occur is 4 cycles (outer CL3) - but we expect a repeat to happen mostly on the 2nd cycle, i.e. the first cycle we bet on - influenced mainly by the defining triple combi carried over from the previous set/outer cycle:
| CL100 o100 d100 | >>> | CL110 o110 d101 | >>> | CL120 o120 d111 | | |
| CL010 o010 d010 | >>> | CL020 o110 d020 | | | | |
| CL010 o100 d010 | >>> | CL020 o110 d011 | | | | |
| CL010 o010 d001 | >>> | CL110 o110 d002 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d001 | >>> | CL110 o200 d002 | | | | |
| CL010 o100 d001 | >>> | CL020 o110 d011 | | | | |
| CL010 o010 d010 | >>> | CL110 o110 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL200 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL110 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL010 o100 d010 | >>> | CL110 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL200 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL200 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL110 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL010 o100 d010 | >>> | CL020 o110 d110 | | | | |
| CL010 o010 d100 | >>> | CL020 o020 d110 | | | | |
| CL010 o010 d010 | >>> | CL020 o020 d110 | | | | |
| CL010 o010 d100 | >>> | CL110 o110 d200 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d100 | >>> | CL200 o200 d200 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d100 | >>> | CL110 o110 d110 | >>> | CL210 o210 d120 | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL200 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL200 o200 d020 | | | | |
| CL100 o100 d010 | >>> | CL101 o101 d011 | >>> | CL111 o111 d111 | >>> | CL121 o121 d112 |
The defining combi has more chance of being defined the "same" as previous cycle - but contrary to singular DE repeats and anticipating DE to be the same over the course of any 3 "inner" cycle lengths (we cannot say which length the DE repeat will likely fall on) we now expect the defining element (representing the triple combi) to be no more than "outer" CL1 only.
Falkor, I admire your efforts but you may want to start fresh from the beginning.
Good luck.
3Nine what is this chart about?
Quote from: 3Nine on Dec 26, 07:10 AM 2016
Falkor, I admire your efforts but you may want to start fresh from the beginning.
Good luck.
But what more could we possibly want than immediate advantage of "defined by same" and a guaranteed repeat on the very next cycle...? :D This is so MR-like; no?
If anything, this is a demonstration of Pigeon Hole Principle
par excellence. Instead of waiting for 37 unique numbers to show and then not knowing which one will repeat, we know that a repeat will come by around 24 uniques max; therefore, the event comes quicker than expected - just not quick enough to keep below the table limits. However, by monitoring several simultaneous streams we can arrive at the first repeat quicker than ever.
You admire my efforts yet you undermine them at the same time with rhetorical statements like the above; if I've gone astray then why not be helpful and put me back on the right course? Of all the many hints coming from 3Nine, ati, RMore, Scarface (and others) there's never been a single eureka moment.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c
All this progress is entirely thanks to my own exhaustive testing based on nothing more than a seed planted by Priyanka through his initial disclosure of the Cycles framework together with it's collection of constants. I would also like to thank my friend from NY for inspiring motivation, ideas and regular discussion amidst all the smoke and mirrors.
Cycles is the main concept that Priyanka shared - and it can work without VdW. Most of the other concepts were addressed on the previous page - mostly a package of mini-concepts, such as entry point, but all with one aim in mind: finding impact. Tracking multiple repeats (= less dozens)... but that strategy is secondary to winning the first repeat, at least. That just leaves stitching bets - you know how I feel about that in terms of it's ambiguity - and finally: deficit recovery.
Deficit Recovery describes that in 10 dozen cycles we expect around 5 CL2s, 3 CL1s and 2 CL3s. If one has fallen behind then we expect it to recover - particular for CL2 (king of dozen cycle lengths). Well, my previous reply above describing (immediate) triple combi repeats just happens to be the perfect example of deficit recovery - using PHP!
| CL100 o100 d001 | >>> | CL101 o200 d002 |
| CL001 o100 d001 | >>> | CL101 o200 d002 |
Above we start with CL1 = 1 (first cycle of row 1) vs. CL3 = 1 (first cycle of row 2). Both recover as CL101 (= CL1 and CL3 both being equal) through an additional push towards being defined the same. So rather than trying to play for CL1 or CL3 to catch up, we simply play for repeats. So not only does this application of PHP take advantage of defined by same - not to mention speedy first repeats - but with it's many forces at work it also takes sound care of deficit recovery. O0
I don't understand a word of any of it, but The dedication is noteworthy
falkor where did you see that...>advantage of "defined by same"<....same hits with nothing but 0.324%,diff hits with 0.20% and anything else hits with the rest 48%
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 26, 01:42 PM 2016Cycles is the main concept that Priyanka shared
Yes it is. But it is nothing without using the other concepts. VdW is not one of them. But ofcourse stitching together/parachute/parrandos is one. I will try to make it a little bit more simple to understand.
Stitching is a very versatile concept. There is nothing prescriptive which can say whether a manner of stitching is right or wrong. It is left to an individual to figure out what best works for him or her and the right combinations. It can be done by combining two or more spins of same or multiple positions or it can be done by playing multiple positions within a spin. Again this combination can be done with varied betting amount in all positions are same betting amount. And understanding of this (you can name the concept what you like), cycles within a random stream and position of these numbers within a cycle will provide anyone with a powerful way to create parallel but dependent streams (Yes dependent) from the same random stream. I encourage someone who is interested in numbers to read about surreal numbers. It is a totally different game and very mesmerising.
See the following example from yesterday’s Wiesbaden table no. 1. Imagine there are three streams that are formed from one random stream â€" one the numbers themselves, second the dozens and third the line.
(link:s://i.imgsafe.org/39cef1f8e8.jpg)
Random thoughts? You talk about test runs of the odd million or so spins of the wheel, well, leaving the premise of (a) having the funds in your pocket, and (b) conveniently being in the only casino in the known universe that allows (unlimited) wagering amounts, to play this (hypothetical) number of spins, would take in excess of 8 years, playing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, etc, etc,etc!!,
I have yet to read anyrhing that leads anywhere towards making money at a roulette table, or even considers logistics, economics, or the effective charting of variables that differentiat each spin.
The point of this (essentially) guessing game is to master it just enough to make more money than you walked in with, and, possibly to make a littie more tonorrow or next week or whenever, but this endless and provocative procrastination has no bankable value, -none!
nice to see you around....John Conway used to say <numbers are games>.
I've not moved to parallel games yet - other than parallel repeats of close groups emanating from a single dozen cycles stream only - but I've attempted what I think may resemble stitching, albeit with strange results.
For dozen cycles we know that CL2 is king:
CL2 = 44%
CL1 = 33%
CL3 = 23%
If we put that through a Russian doll of Outer cycles, i.e. the first CL to repeat then we get the following after 10K spins:
| Predefined CL1 | Frequency | Outer CL totals | | Predefined CL2 | Frequency | Outer CL totals | | Predefined CL3 | Frequency | Outer CL totals |
| 11 | 277 | 277 | | 22 | 668 | 668 | | 33 | 92 | 92 |
| 122 | 178 | | | 212 | 252 | | | 322 | 73 | |
| 121 | 132 | | | 211 | 166 | | | 311 | 44 | |
| 131 | 56 | | | 232 | 165 | | | 313 | 43 | |
| 133 | 38 | 404 | | 233 | 70 | 653 | | 323 | 41 | 201 |
| 1322 | 39 | | | 2132 | 70 | | | 3122 | 33 | |
| 1321 | 37 | | | 2312 | 44 | | | 3212 | 25 | |
| 1232 | 30 | | | 2311 | 43 | | | 3211 | 19 | |
| 1231 | 23 | | | 2131 | 35 | | | 3123 | 13 | |
| 1233 | 19 | | | 2313 | 34 | | | 3121 | 12 | |
| 1323 | 16 | 164 | | 2133 | 30 | 256 | | 3213 | 11 | 113 |
Outer CL2 may be king - except for sequences starting with inner CL2 (668 OCL1 vs. 653 OCL2) - but it takes a 2 dozen bet to go from CL1 > CL2 (or CL3) = OCL2, hence CL1 > CL1 (OCL1) has twice as many occurrences because it's only a 1 dozen bet.
Anyhow, the OCL2 involves more inner cycles and spins than OCL1, so gives us more opportunity to stitch bets?
So let's say we want to bet for one of the entire sequences below:
| 11 | 277 |
| 122 | 178 |
| 121 | 132 |
| 131 | 56 |
| 133 | 38 |
I think I would like to attempt winning all 178 occurrences of Outer CL 122! So what I do is wait for inner CL1 to complete:
DZ 22 = CL1
For outer cycle and the above target sequence we now have our trigger:
CL1...
So we now want to bet CL2 followed by another CL2 = CL2 x 2 to complete CL122. And here's how I think we would "stitch" that entire sequence:
Spin 1: "Bet Other Dozens" (to previous defining) element = 2 dozens x 1 unit each
Spin 2: "Bet Last 2 Dozens (to close cycle as CL2) = 2 dozens x 1.5 units each
Spin 1: "Bet Other Dozens" (to previous defining) element = 2 dozens x 2.25 unit each
Spin 2: "Bet Last 2 Dozens (to close cycle as CL2) = 2 dozens x 3.375 units each
So to complete the entire event CL1 > CL2 > CL2 I have stitched 4 bets together (the probabilities could be multiplied on paper). If I lose (at any point during the 4 bets) then I only lose the initial 2 units wagered:
(link:s://s27.postimg.org/nf25kezpv/lose.png)
if I win then the profit is 8.125 (a new placement odd that Pri and co. were referring to?)
(link:s://s29.postimg.org/i6jo4el13/122.png)
So, by rights, if I play like that then I should win all 178 Outer CL1 > CL2 > CL2 sequences. However, I get vastly different results over different datasets... not sure why yet as I thought cycles are meant to have constant odds without variances. I don't think dispersion could explain +1000 vs. -1000 over different datasets of 100K spins? But anyway, the main question: does this qualify as "stitching" or not?
Quote from: maestro on Dec 28, 08:06 AM 2016
nice to see you around....John Conway used to say <numbers are games>.
Am not sure are you going to find this helpfull, but this guy is trying to explain that with some more or less known games.
Cheers
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 28, 09:48 AM 2016I don't think dispersion could explain +1000 vs. -1000 over different datasets of 100K spins? But anyway, the main question: does this qualify as "stitching" or not?
No. Because your playing selection is a dozen(however complicated your selection is using any attractive you would like to call it), your playing position is a dozen and there is no dependency created between your playing positions. It will naturally lead to house edge equation or lead to either side of spectirum depending on the spin sequence in the dataset you are using. Eve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.
Quote from: Priyanka on Dec 29, 02:14 AM 2016Eve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.
Are we neglecting /ignoring the part that we stitch and need 2 spins to give is the same odds of corner bet? What is the point of that? Getting back to back correct dozen bets (stitching a let it ride on a dozen) vs getting a correct corner bet have exact the same chance of happening and exactly the same payout. I don't see any benefit of stitching. At least in this example but I believe as a concept in general. Except if I haven't understand it correctly the meaning of stitching
That surreal numbers is too difficult to understand. Looks unnecessarily complicated... I'm sure they could explain it in laymen's terms if they wanted to.
QuoteStitching is a very versatile concept. There is nothing prescriptive which can say whether a manner of stitching is right or wrong.
QuoteIt can be done by combining two or more spins of same or multiple positions
QuoteNo. Because your playing selection is a dozen(however complicated your selection is using any attractive you would like to call it), your playing position is a dozen and there is no dependency created between your playing positions. It will naturally lead to house edge equation or lead to either side of spectirum depending on the spin sequence in the dataset you are using.
So, my example doesn't qualify as "stitching" because I failed to create dependency? But did I not "combine two or more spins"?
QuoteEve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.
That's what I did, right - let it ride on the dozen? So, regardless of creating dependency, did I successfully stitch or not? Please try your best not to sound like a politician - or like the maths guy trying to explain surreal numbers! :-p
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Dec 29, 05:20 AM 2016
Are we neglecting /ignoring the part that we stitch and need 2 spins to give is the same odds of corner bet? What is the point of that? Getting back to back correct dozen bets (stitching a let it ride on a dozen) vs getting a correct corner bet have exact the same chance of happening and exactly the same payout. I don't see any benefit of stitching. At least in this example but I believe as a concept in general. Except if I haven't understand it correctly the meaning of stitching
Pri said we can combine 2 spins of the same position, i.e 2 spins of dozens, right? So I hope the contradiction can be resolved... perhaps the definition of stitching as per Pri's understanding is not as basic as initially reckoned.
Here's the old post on stitching bets... seems pretty similar to what I did above? And where's the dependency here?
"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.
25 - 1 unit on red. Win.
27 â€" Place both units on blck. Loss.
7 â€" 1 unit on red. Win.
29 â€" 2 units on black. Win. We got the win at odds of 3/1
4 â€" 1 unit on red. Loss
18
27 â€" 1 unit on red. win
10 â€" 2units on blck. Win. We got 3/1 odds
14
28 â€" Won this sequence
34
27 â€" lost this one
6
16 - lost
12
20 - won
This is not a progression. This is not letting it ride. This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return. Now the possibilities are endless and everyone can create opportunities based on their comfort and style of play. You can create dozens, quads, splits, all possible odds through stitching together these components.
Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example. Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points? This would appear to be in the same context as stitching dozens together in a cycle to achieve a specific cycle length event. "
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)
Falkor - My apologies. I might have missed reading the following sentence from your post.
"If I lose (at any point during the 4 bets) then I only lose the initial 2 units wagered:"
Pri, I wish we could have a two-way conversation, I really do... I am divorcing my wife soon due to communication problems, so you can see how frustrating it is - even at work where all the deadbeats sit quiet and depressed in different corners of the office. Can you please just tell me which concepts and streams you use in your two "Journey" videos? I am guessing there are no line streams or parallel games involved nor VdW? Are you just using singular dozen cycles with CL+Order and Defining Element? I'm not asking for the grail - I would just like to know what concepts you've applied to making those particular videos if it's not too much trouble.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 29, 05:55 AM 2016Pri said we can combine 2 spins of the same position, i.e 2 spins of dozens, right? So I hope the contradiction can be resolved... perhaps the definition of stitching as per Pri's understanding is not as basic as initially reckoned.
Pri said we can combine 2 playing positions in 1 spin.
Quote from: praline on Dec 31, 03:22 AM 2016
Pri said we can combine 2 playing positions in 1 spin.
Yeah, that was in the 2nd part of the relevant sentence:
*Multiple playing positions
*One spin
In the first part of the sentence, however, she said we can stitch via:
*Same playing position
*Two or more spins
But I don't see how playing the same position in two+ spins does anything interesting? I risked 2 units for 8.125 profit, but even with that new odd placement, there's still no edge. So do we need to write that off? Is it worth me testing multiple positions in 1 spin, or should the whole thing be scrapped till the definition of stitching bets has been clarified further and all contradictions resolved?
"It can be done by combining two or more spins of same or multiple positions or it can be done by playing multiple positions within a spin"
QuotePri, I wish we could have a two-way conversation, I really do... I am divorcing my wife soon due to communication problems, so you can see how frustrating it is - even at work where all the deadbeats sit quiet and depressed in different corners of the office.
I am really sorry to hear you encountered such situation in your life. I was until recently also fighting with big life problems. Being desperate and depressed because of that. But it turned out all that was only because I thought so. Everything was in my head.
Then one day a total stranger sent me an e-mail and changes started to appear, like out of nowhere.
BTW have you ever heard of life coaching? I didnt had a clue what that was until recently, I met a brilliant life coach. I was brave enough to pay for the first session, although it seemed quite expensive at first. But just after the first session I saw significant shift within a week. First thing he taught me was how not to be clogged with thoughts. Only that brought me a certain relief. It seems to me you have so much on your mind and I think first you should get rid off those conspiracy theories and nonsense how Earth is flat... It will lead you pretty much to nowhere.
So if you are unhappy and would like to find a better way of thinking which might lead you to better performance in what you want to achieve in the end, you might consider in hiring one. Just a proposition.
QuoteI'm not asking for the grail - I would just like to know what concepts you've applied to making those particular videos if it's not too much trouble.
Are you sure you dont? It seems like you do at first, and hope that Priyanka wont get it like that also. I still see all concepts nicely exposed here.
It took me some time just to figure out how all this thread is brilliantly planned, from every concept introduced, to every reply written. If you think about it, it took her years for that, as some members nicely connected some hints from a few years back too. It is not hard to see the interweaving of ideas. So why should solving of the riddle took a short time? I often wonder that.
The only problem is we might or we might not solve it in the end. That is the hardest true to face with, at least for me.
So besides you and me to all who are still trying this (if any), I wish better success in the next year.
Cheers
Quote from: Drazen on Dec 31, 05:19 PM 2016I wish better success in the next year
Wish you all a very happy and prosperous new year. Sometimes I used to wonder what's in a new year it is just another day and night. But as a human I figured that fresh start is always nice and anything that gives us a fresh start even if it is just notional is always welcome. Cheers
It's often a really good idea to make a fresh start in a project. The new year provides a nice boundary in which to do this if you are, like me, still on the hunt. My personal approach to this new start in 2017 is this - simplify.
I note Falkor's inclusion of my name in one of his earlier posts suggesting that perhaps I am withholding information - I assure you my friend, I am no further ahead than you are in this search. And also, perhaps in contradiction to my own earlier post, I am coming to the opinion that issues such as stitching and other MM techniques are mere obfuscation - they are effectively MM techniques and these, by themselves, do not provide an advantage. They may (note MAY) provide efficiencies such as minimising losing runs, maximising gains in a positive run, and so on, but by themselves will not provide an advantage. So what we need to be focusing on is the technique(s) that DO provide an advantage.
Some would argue, quite vociferously too, that no such technique exists. But where's the fun in that? I must admit that while I am frustrated by lack of progress, I do enjoy the chase. I am hopeful that 2017 will provide me with some breakthroughs and perhaps I can actually move forwards on the trail to long term success.
So I echo Pri's sentiments and wish everybody a positive and prosperous new year!
All the best
Rog
Happy new year from me too!
Once again, I hope that this is going to be the year ;) I wish to improve my family's and my own life. I'm patient, but as Priyanka wrote once: "time is precious."
QuoteI am really sorry to hear you encountered such situation in your life. I was until recently also fighting with big life problems. Being desperate and depressed because of that. But it turned out all that was only because I thought so. Everything was in my head.
Then one day a total stranger sent me an e-mail and changes started to appear, like out of nowhere.
BTW have you ever heard of life coaching? I didnt had a clue what that was until recently, I met a brilliant life coach. I was brave enough to pay for the first session, although it seemed quite expensive at first. But just after the first session I saw significant shift within a week. First thing he taught me was how not to be clogged with thoughts. Only that brought me a certain relief. It seems to me you have so much on your mind and I think first you should get rid off those conspiracy theories and nonsense how Earth is flat... It will lead you pretty much to nowhere.
So if you are unhappy and would like to find a better way of thinking which might lead you to better performance in what you want to achieve in the end, you might consider in hiring one. Just a proposition.
Nice attempt at empathy, Drazen, but you are far from the truth. Keep practising hard though - you will be very good one day!
I have to disagree: being thoughtful is what leads to questioning reality and escaping our depressive zombie culture.
I would never pay for a life coach, lawyer or chiropractor - they are all con-men who will often fail to give a fixed price, duration and diagnosis/cure - the ones who feel they have a privileged position of power and authority. You could pay for a session at the church of Scientology even. But they are all simply cults/religions, where people have become corrupted by money and power. This is what leads to arrogance and ignorance. All consultants in the medical industry are the same - they are all arrogant and think they know best about health and nutrition as informed by the mainstream. Blocking out thoughts and emotions has IMO a detrimental effect on self-development.
You are part of the same culture, Drazen, so that's why you make arrogant statements like this
"I think first you should get rid off those conspiracy theories and nonsense how Earth is flat... It will lead you pretty much to nowhere."
Knowledge is the real power/healer here, and it's not to be abused, but shared. Knowing the truth is what leads to freedom and happiness. Staying in an abusive relationship is what wears us down with Narcs, Borderlines, and people with ego problems in general, who have the capacity for abuse; many of them are professional liers and manipulators. So it's about becoming more aware of the evil that exists in this world. Once you go flat there's no going back. So the more open-minded and thoughtful you are the more you can achieve enlightenment by escaping any ties to other people/groups, so there can be no guilt by association, and you can live a free life as an individual without any nasty surprises from those slaves enforcing the elite's agenda as propagated via their anthropology department though the mainstream media, etc.
Incidentally, some of the highest rates of "demons", i.e. personality disorders, in the world happens to be in India. Many are suffering from chronic feelings of emptiness, have lost their ability to feel empathy, their male/female identity in some cases even, and go around like predators looking for helpless souls to lock eyes on, and have their ego fed with narcissistic supply. They enter companies in high positions of power through their manipulation tactics, create havoc and destruction, then leave without any remorse or regret and continue their Godzilla war path elsewhere...
QuoteIt took me some time just to figure out how all this thread is brilliantly planned, from every concept introduced, to every reply written. If you think about it, it took her years for that, as some members nicely connected some hints from a few years back too. It is not hard to see the interweaving of ideas. So why should solving of the riddle took a short time? I often wonder that.
The only problem is we might or we might not solve it in the end. That is the hardest true to face with, at least for me.
So besides you and me to all who are still trying this (if any), I wish better success in the next year.
It's nothing to be proud of - there is no merit to deliberate vagueness, confusion and evasion - they are all forms of abuse. Wasting people's time with blocked communication and contradictions is no achievement, and will bring no legacy. The magicians in the movie, The Prestige, likewise use trickery, careful planning, ritualistic behavior - with a sinister goal in mind. Again, this is aimed towards self-importance, as they possess no real merit - nor do they know the cure to their personal problems, and feel worthless inside. Deception is not the answer.
I will be knocking this Random Thoughts on the head after Q1 2017, as there is insufficient information content to continue regardless of any delusions Pri and co. may have - the transmission of knowledge up till now has been sadly inadequate. And it's not my comprehension skills that are to blame; my concise reference documentation is on version 4 without a single eureka moment, and it's doubtful anybody will ever again put in the same amount of time/effort that I did on this project. Over the past year I've always given Pri the benefit of the doubt and never made any assumptions from the point onwards where Pri asserted his/her position through evidence. So my above statements are carefully informed through comprehensive testing and research. This topic needs me like my depressed zombie colleagues at work need me to stop them drifting into zombie-mode and keep them alert - the reason I got 5/5 for my appraisal - but soon I won't be here anymore, and this topic will die a death, as I need to re-direct my positive energy more towards my new years' resolution; therefore, I wish you a Happy New Year - may you all first discover enlightenment before anything else. Assumptions is a sign of stupidity, so try not to make too many this year - particularly when it comes to the Globe and whether Roulette can be beaten or not. Apologies I haven't been able to "find space" to offer Drazen any empathy, for soon I will be abandoning this to Pri and her aliases through lack of genuine all-round contribution. 2017 will take something better than string theory to join all Pri's concepts together, as there are no observable strands floating about in this parallel universe.
There's been plenty of people saying that this thread has been like finding gold at the end of a rainbow ... purposefully leading people down dead ends etc. To be honest, 90% of it is utter nonsense - rafts of long winded tripe
Hey ho, some just don't want to listen
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 31, 08:34 PM 2016Apologies I haven't been able to "find space" to offer Drazen any empathy, for soon I will be abandoning this to Pri and her aliases through lack of genuine all-round contribution. 2017 will take something better than string theory to join all Pri's concepts together, as there are no observable strands floating about in this parallel universe.
No need to apologize Giles. I understand. Empathy is not reserved for bitter lives full of suspicion in every possible part.
And leaving aside Pri-s ideas makes perfect sense here. You should be revealing the worlds conspiracies and find inner peace with it. I reckon revealing Pri-s riddle is much harder and less rewarding comparing to a good conspiracy theory which the world is full of.
Best
Falkor- I don't want to contain your enthusiasm. Why getting confused in the videos and get lost when the concepts has been clearly explained. I don't want to say what is the right or wrong way, because I know only my way and other ways may be right or wrong.
I shall share one final string in this whole piece and my way is not as complex as Russian dolls and outer circles. For this final string you need to look at the post by rrbb titled
Basically it is the ordinality of numbers. Ordinality for people who don't know is nothing but the order in which numbers are positioned in a set. Put it simply in the explanation of dozens consider the order in which the dozens appear as follows;
3,2,3,3,1,3,2,1,3,3,3,1,1
If you have to right it in positions it will read like
3,3,1,1,3,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1
Let us assume that repeat of the last two dozen is more likely than the dozen that is sleeping and combine it with cycles to say that you are more likely to see the defining dozen appearing again. That makes it clear that you should not play for cycles of 3 position or one should ignore 3 position when it occurs.
Look at the results.
0,0,0,2,-1,-1,-2,0,0,0,2,-1,1
This is one more step in the direction of how I play.
Thanks Pri. May I ask - I get a slightly different string for the positions. Only one small difference - I get "2" for the third position rather than "1". Have I got it wrong?
3,3,2,1,3,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1
Not sure how you derive the results string yet - need to study that for a bit. But just checking - does the correction above change it?
thanks
Rog
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 02, 05:21 PM 20173,2,3,3,1,3,2,1,3,3,3,1,1
If you have to right it in positions it will read like
3,3,1,1,3,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1
Old news - see reply #1 re: "Reverse Order" constant, which could be applied on dozens, Defining Element, Cycle Length, Order, gaps, streaks...
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18233.msg168401#msg168401
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 02, 05:21 PM 2017I shall share one final string in this whole piece and my way is not as complex as Russian dolls and outer circles.
Here's Pri's reply #694 to this topic:
"Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this."Pri talks in riddles and claims she doesn't use Outer Cycles, but the above ratio, 16-14-6, happens to be the Outer Cycles ratio(!):
Inner CL1 = 33%
Inner CL2 = 44%
Inner CL3 = 23%
Outer CL1 = 1165 = 40%
Outer CL2 = 1270 = 43%
Outer CL3 = 485 = 17%
14 = 39%
16 = 44%
6 = 17%
Therefore, Pri is misleading everyone with muffled hints that try to mess with our heads and lead nowhere, including the discouragement of using outer cycles as too complex, when in fact that could be the very key to creating dependency - but with inner cycles there is none. That's why this topic is filled with endless contradictions; any requests for clarification is ignored.
Let me show you the power of Outer Cycles/Russian Dolls that Pri appears to be mocking:
(link:s://s28.postimg.org/ux7r3pa3h/outer1.png)
The maximum cluster of inner CL2s in this sequence is merely 5 in a row, but as the "Defining Cycle Length" to dependent Outer Cycles it occurs double that frequency @ 10 times in a row:
(link:s://s28.postimg.org/sh5xpus0t/outer2.png)
Inner sequence (Outer relationship in bold): 3122
232 22
212 22
233 322 212 212 232 22
232 211 133 311Inner sequence (Outer relationship in bold): CL3
CL2 CL1
CL2 CL1
CL2 CL2 CL2 CL2 CL2 CL1
CL2 CL2 CL2 CL2What's more: the "Defining Dozen" of each Outer Cycle remains dominant throughout the next series of Outer Cycles in a row in terms defining most of it's inner Cycles for all lengths (1) as well as total occurrences (2).
Could you explain the postions thingy? I don't understand. Did i miss a post somewhere?
Quote from: RayManZ on Jan 03, 04:13 AM 2017
Could you explain the postions thingy? I don't understand. Did i miss a post somewhere?
Pls refer this post. It's discussed in detail.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.0
Will be glad to expand if the concept is not clear.
For all readers, pls pursue these concepts at your own risk. I promised I will not bloviate without proof and am reiterating this, pursuing this will only put a different take on playing roulette and may or may not lead to a winning game.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 03, 04:20 AM 2017
Will be glad to expand if the concept is not clear.
It would be wonderfull. If you have some time, please expand it a little. It's easy to create those releated streams but the part about repeats on those streams is a little unclear.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Dec 21, 11:48 AM 2016It would be nice if somebody could please go through Pri's videos and list which concepts are being used in each one, i.e. VDW (or not), stitching, parallel game:
"Unlocking magic 04 Mar" and "Unlocking magic 06 Mar" - this videos doesn't rappresent any great method with Edge, this is just the KEY to previous 4 videos.
Random thoughts Jan part 4.
Dozens
In this video Pri is telling us that the method she used in first 3 parts Can't be used with dozes (at least this is how I understood it)
Random thoughts 21 Jan part 1 and two.
Those are Pure Mechanical betting plan. Cycles, dominant, and conflict (IN MY UNDERSTANDING).
RANDOM THOUGHTS PART 3
SAME as part 1 and 2 but in the end she retracked cycles.
Also, it seems that virtual wins and loses are not in use. You Attack always when your betting plan permits you.
"The journey" and excel with dozens are a half magic for me.
I also made some tests with what I "think" Pri's betting plan is. (In random thoughts Jan 21 all parts). But sincerely I'm not satisfied with results and at some points i often get lost, prevalently if there are a lot of mix with cycle of lenght 1. If there's somebody interested i can post my tests. Always on paper and with horrible caligrafy, ofcourse.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 02, 08:10 PM 2017power of Outer Cycles/Russian Dolls that Pri appears to be mocking
Honestly, thats not my intention. I will be last to mock anything. I just said it is complex.
@Praline - I have reiterated a multiple times, there is no point in reverse engineering the videos if the concepts are clear to you.
Quote from: praline on Jan 03, 06:50 AM 2017It's easy to create those releated streams but the part about repeats on those streams is a little unclear.
I will try explaining it sometime tonight. Cheers
This has gone on for so long
You know what would be nice?
When _________, then bet _________.
The wasted time is insanity.
They should dish out readings of this thread to prisoners instead of capital punishment
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 03, 01:55 PM 2017- I have reiterated a multiple times, there is no point in reverse engineering the videos if the concepts are clear to you.
Yes, but actually some of concepts and their application, i understood only after reverse engineered your videos. For example, a "possible" application of vdw became clearer for me after reverse engineering.
English is not my first language, also I don't have any university or school degrees, so for me it's more simple to see and try than to read and understand.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 02:00 PM 2017This has gone on for so long
You know what would be nice?
When _________, then bet _________.
The wasted time is insanity
WHEN YOU "UNDERSTAND WHAT TO BET", THEN BET "WHAT YOU JUST UNDERSTOOD". :xd:
Quad's cycles betting plan
1.Bet dominant cycle
2.If in conflict with other CL we don't bet
If there is something unclear, feel free to read and reread a full explanation here
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0
Quote from: praline on Jan 03, 02:16 PM 2017
WHEN YOU "UNDERSTAND WHAT TO BET", THEN BET "WHAT YOU JUST UNDERSTOOD". :xd:
Clever
I was a believer for a long time
Now I get the stringing along feeling
Why would you want a handout?
After all, we are in the "System played only-no advantage play" section. ;)
Do you think Priyanka uncovered all of this in a day? No one is going to hand you what you're looking for. Do the work and perhaps you'll be surprised with what you learn.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 02:28 PM 2017Now I get the stringing along feeling
:xd:
I was looking for explanation of "stringing along feeling"
I hope this is not the case
Quote from: 3Nine on Jan 03, 02:32 PM 2017
Why would you want a handout?
After all, we are in the "System played only-no advantage play" section. ;)
Do you think Priyanka uncovered all of this in a day? No one is going to hand you what you're looking for. Do the work and perhaps you'll be surprised with what you learn.
Ohhhh I have.
To no avail
Even did sessions with him
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 02:52 PM 2017Even did sessions with him
With whome? What sessions?
Let me say it simply and nicely
If it was as good as some thought they wouldn't be posting so much
:yawn:
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 03:09 PM 2017
Let me say it simply and nicely
If it was as good as some thought they wouldn't be posting so much
:yawn:
Interesting assumption.
What do we have to show for this?
Thank you priyanka
I'm not being selfish. U did a lot here
But what is the method
Quote from: rrbb on May 13, 03:31 AM 2016
Do not worry, the discussed person "runs around like hen without a head" as the saying goes in dutch.
It is NOT possible to bump into a solution to the riddle by chance.
So for the rest: do with the info whatever you like, but please, please. Do not run around like a fool. Take your time, step by step. It is all logical. The basis is simple. No magic involved.
Only use simulations to gain insight i.e answer questions about behavior. Running simulations to test if an hypothesis works us close to foolishness.
Write down the simple principles, and once in a while go over them, and try to simplify them even more.
Do not think to complex like: "maybe when i do a VdW on the results of an VdW and then multiply it by..." Do not forget what you try to achieve!
(Btw a certain person who said that another method works even better than apples an pears really does not onderstand it! Believe me.
In this thread you will not find methods! There are principles, a different mindset and TOOLS.
Step by step, take your time, do not feel rushed
I understand that
I've went over cycles
Haven't found a way to use them
Ok guys. Good enough. No more posting on this. Apologies for my inkling to do a bit of posting again. I will continue to post but not opening this again. I am not ready to give when this, then that definition and if it's not allowed then it is alright.
Who has used these principles and how? That's what I'm asking.
Priyanka did a mod tell you it wasn't allowed?
I was giving my two cents, you can't handle that apparently.
I'm no Caleb. I can have an opinion and I thanked you for your posts
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 03:37 PM 2017I was giving my two cents, you can't handle that apparently.
RG - your posts are not the reason. But I think I am apparently and believe me unknowingly this time opened up a conversation and started hinting, when i said i wont. Thats the reason! Hope you understand.
Why are you against hinting
I'm just curious
Quote from: praline on Jan 03, 01:34 PM 2017
"The journey" and excel with dozens are a half magic for me.
Oh I think I can see what is happening here... You compare first and last dozen of the closed cycle as either same (S) or different (D)? I was going to try this myself, as I wanted to reduce the 3 outcomes ASAP before getting to the stage of wrapping into outer cycles. Have you tried alternating input from dozens and columns to form each cycle? And then suddenly we switch and take all our input solely from dozens or from columns alone for a period then we go back to alternating them again... same payout odds after all. Clever that. I wanted to discuss that with ati as he likes discussing ideas instead of events or people. Who would like to discuss the flat earth or the fact that the Freemasons are working for the Jesuits following their initiation ceremony with a noose wrapped round their neck by an actor representing the Vatican? Most of the Freemasons aren't even aware why they perform this ritual nor why their logo - the compasses and set-square is below the all-seeing eye - or the "33" (degrees) is contained within the pyramid. >:D
This is a message to all Freemasons:
"In other words, that the deepest secret of Freemasonry is “ᶠᶸᶜáµâ™¥áµ§â,'ᵤâ€, which appears to be Apocalypse to non-Freemasons and death to members that are traitors to the organization."
link:://postflaviana.org/freemason-rye/
Priyanka, don't disappear yet... come back! :love: :girl_to:
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 04:00 PM 2017Why are you against hinting
I am not against it :). But apparently that is against the forum rules. I dont want to be banned :)
"No "baiting", which is where you brag about how great your system is, but you don't share anything except perhaps obscure details that lead people along. The forum is a place for open sharing. If you "bait" people, expect to be banned."
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 03, 04:04 PM 2017Priyanka, don't disappear yet... come back!
Am not going anywhere.. always around...
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jan 03, 02:00 PM 2017
This has gone on for so long
You know what would be nice?
When _________, then bet _________.
The wasted time is insanity.
No one is forced to "waste" time. Finally a conversation was going on on the topic. No one is forcing anyone to open this thread. It's really easy not to click on it, but it seems some members get frustrated when they open this forum 50+ times a day to see if there are any new posts or if anyone has done the hard work for them. Maybe it's just me, but I can easily resist clicking on thread titles and reading posts that I don't care about. Like the fight between Steve and Turbo, the countless Ignatus threads, etc.
It is really hard to understand these concepts, some of us have spent hundreds of hours reading these posts and staring at excel tables, and we are still at the beginning. But I hope one day it will become clear, and I also hope that Priyanka will post something new every now and then.
I know you have. I admire that
It's just a bit odd that no one has posted a solidified method of play using the information presented
If they have I missed it
I have to add that in the end, maybe I will have to admit that I wasted all that precious time, but let's be patient for now and see what can be achieved this year. :)
From the 80+ pages of this thread so far, I guess that we can expect the record for procrastinational postings to exceed 100, 200 or more pages during the year.
I also predict that not a single, useful or workable "system" emerges from the years of megabyte wasting data that the various roulette forums extol!
Casino management worldwide drink to, and joke about, the endless stream of so-described.......... "WINNING@ROULETTE"
quasi-systems, plans, schemes, scams and assorted VB, (VisualBullshit) video "Proof-that-my-Secret-Computer" works, when it patently does not, (no matter how irritating SH gets)
There are literally hundreds of optional methods for playing this particular game, and guess what, they all work!
The hurdle that screws with players minds, is that "your" strategy may not align with the period when you are actually playing, and that is why reviewing and coding past event series means nothing, in relation to your expectations.
All the psycho-babble in the world, might get your quote in someone elses thesis, but will not put $$$$ in your pocket, no matter how long you are played on any forum thread.
so why you post on a roulette forum having these opinions? Just ignore them to begin with :yawn:
sometimes i post without fully articulating my thoughts
here is what i want to know
has this thread given anyone the knowledge and building blocks to create a successful method of play, or has over a year of this thread not led to anything?
dont want to share the method? thats fine. I just want to know someone made something from this
Quote from: ati on Jan 03, 04:43 PM 2017Maybe it's just me, but I can easily resist clicking on thread titles and reading posts that I don't care about. Like the fight between Steve and Turbo, the countless Ignatus threads, etc.
It is really hard to understand these concepts, some of us have spent hundreds of hours reading these posts and staring at excel tables, and we are still at the beginning. But I hope one day it will become clear
What the hell you mean you're wasting your time reading my threads?? You don't know the hard work behind it, obviously? Stop complaining :/ im not talking in riddles like priyanka, you see what you get with my systems, it's no mystery.
I don't like this thread, and i don't want to participate in it, it's pure nonsense. if you can't explain a system clearly, what's the point?
I respect your works and your dedication. What I was trying to say is that I don't open all of your new threads anymore, because I know I would not play those systems. I didn't use the word "waste" in that sentence, I just wrote that I don't care about new systems. In general, not just yours, I have nothing against you. Your name came into my mind when I posted, because you have started 698 topics so far. Sorry if I offended you.
I have lost enough money to give up on all systems, this cycle/non random/parallel game stuff is the only thing I see potential in. If I won't be able to understand it, I will forget about roulette.
Quote from: ati on Jan 04, 02:42 AM 2017
I respect your works and your dedication. What I was trying to say is that I don't open all of your new threads anymore, because I know I would not play those systems. I didn't use the word "waste" in that sentence, I just wrote that I don't care about new systems. In general, not just yours, I have nothing against you. Your name came into my mind when I posted, because you have started 698 topics so far. Sorry if I offended you.
I have lost enough money to give up on all systems, this cycle/non random/parallel game stuff is the only thing I see potential in. If I won't be able to understand it, I will forget about roulette.
But is the "parallel" part really needed though? Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough - but it transpires we don't actually need VdW. So the question is: could all the concepts discussed herein somehow be combined - minus any parallel streams and VdW - to gain edge?
@falkor....i never said that <Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough > :ooh:
Quote from: maestro on Jan 04, 05:46 AM 2017
@falkor....i never said that <Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough > :ooh:
Yeah, you threw us off that time! >:D I try to find your quote...
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.msg161585#msg161585
reply #352
So the new question is: can all these concepts work - minus VdW and parallel - to gain edge? What's the least number of concepts we can use to gain edge?
i said PHP cannot work,reason being is that you have to force roulette to produce only unique numbers in order to happen...about VDW i said nothing...
Quote from: maestro on Jan 04, 06:00 AM 2017
i said PHP cannot work,reason being is that you have to force roulette to produce only unique numbers in order to happen...about VDW i said nothing...
You not doing a good job defending yourself. The context of the discussion was whether PHP can work without VdW, and you said it cannot work. So don't try and get out of it, Mr.! If we took this to a court of law - you would win the case only because you are probably brothers with the judge!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 04, 05:35 AM 2017
But is the "parallel" part really needed though? Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough - but it transpires we don't actually need VdW. So the question is: could all the concepts discussed herein somehow be combined - minus any parallel streams and VdW - to gain edge?
I think that's the key. If we mean the same thing by parallel.
Priyanka has emphasized many times that 2 or more games need to played, because each individual game on its own is a loser. Below is the perfect example how two losing games played together can be turned into a winning game.
QuoteThere is a game where you need to take 100 steps. You start with £100. At the end of every step you take, you are allowed to choose one of the following options.
Option 1 : You lose £1 for every step.
Option 2 : You are allowed to count the money in your hand. If it is even you win £3. If it is odd you win £5.
Now if you keep on choosing Option 1, you will lose all your money at the end of 100th step.
If you keep choosing only Option 2, you will lose all your money at the end of 100th step.
Both options individually played will lose you money. But consider the option, where you start with Option 2 in the first step, Option 1 in the second step and keep alternating. You would have doubled your money when you have taken the 100th step. Fascinating right!
Of course the hardest part is to figure out what games should be played together, and when to bet what. Cycles and statistical relations can help avoid the variance for our bet selection, and can increase the odds. It was proven that the odds for each individual bets are the same, but we should not play individual spins. We must think in group of numbers.
If I got it all wrong, please correct me.
I stll think that VDW is just one example of non random bet selection, and it's not essential. A quote from a week ago:
QuoteCycles is the main concept that Priyanka shared
Yes it is. But it is nothing without using the other concepts. VdW is not one of them.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QAHzu_kAc (link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QAHzu_kAc).....you are funny guy
Ok guys. We know we need a parallel game right? We can use the positions for that:
For this example is use the quads:
number quad cycle define positions position cycle define
17 2 2 1 3 4 2
19 3 3 2 1 4 3
2 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 3
30 4 4 1 3 2 4
9 1 4 1 1 4 3 2 2
32 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 2
14 2 2 4 1 3 4
1 1 3 1 1 2 4 3 3
30 4 4 1 2 3 3 3 3
21 3 3 4 1 2 4
5 1 3 1 1 3 4 2 3 2 3
28 4 4 1 3 2 3 1 3
28 4 2 4 4 1 3 2 1
35 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
34 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
32 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
30 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
26 3 3 4 1 2 3
6 1 1 3 4 2 3 2 3
18 2 2 1 3 4 4
24 3 4 3 3 2 1 4 3 2 3
34 4 4 3 2 1 4
Now who can help me get this to something that is winning. I'm still missing some part of the puzzle.
QuoteBelow is the perfect example how two losing games played together can be turned into a winning game.
I think that's a bad example because it's not directly applicable to Roulette, right?
QuoteCycles and statistical relations can help avoid the variance for our bet selection, and can increase the odds.
Cycles have constant ratios, but they still seem to suffer from variance. My datasets always come out different even when based on the event of a cycle closure instead of spins. Increasing the odds... you must be referring to stitching bets to increase payout odds for an unofficial event? But what about increasing predictability? It does that too, right?
QuoteIt was proven that the odds for each individual bets are the same, but we should not play individual spins. We must think in group of numbers.
Groups or Events? Is there a concept based around groups? By groups you mean events that are not equally likely? But then they do happen to be equal in terms of cost vs. payout. A 2 dozen bet will win more than a single dozen bet (unequal), but the payouts mean they break even (or lose to the house edge) = equal.
QuoteI think that's the key. If we mean the same thing by parallel.
Priyanka has emphasized many times that 2 or more games need to played, because each individual game on its own is a loser.
Yeah, and I think there exists many different ways of playing parallel games that could confuse the meaning - some more difficult that others. The reason to avoid VdW and if possible, parallel streams, is to keep any method of obtaining edge as simple as possible to play in a real casino with less chance of making mistakes. I understand parallel games could be as simple as observational spins for 1 game, such as tracking multiple repeats (= less dozens), and then the 2nd parallel stream/game is the one we bet. Or we could be tracking 2 streams and playing both of them in an alternating fashion - or perhaps stitching a bet across both streams simultaneously or what not... But does all this mean that we cannot find edge using just one stream alone..? If so then why? Let me give an example of how we might obtain edge with a single stream game...
We play inner cycles wrapped by outer cycles. 121 11 1322 22 = outer cycle completed. The outer cycle is dependent on the inner cycle, and it could be described as a parallel game? But really we are just using a single stream of dozens, inner cycles, outer cycles, albeit with the "repeat types" flagged at different points along the stream based on relationships? So this could be described as dependency without a parallel stream. And we would always be betting in terms of repeats - not individual spins. We wait for an outer cycle to be defined by, say, inner CL2. That then becomes our entry point and we now have a bunch of constants to create a biased game: Outer Defining Dozen, Outer Defining Cycle Length, and Inner Defining Dozen (Pri said we just need a couple of constants if that). Outer is dependent on Inner in terms of defining cycle length, and the chances of the next outer cycle being defined the same are as follows:
| 2 > 1 | 269 | 16% |
| 2 > 2 | 1299 | 76% |
| 2 > 3 | 136 | 8% |
| 1704 | |
| | |
| 1 > 1 | 524 | 61% |
| 1 > 2 | 263 | 31% |
| 1 > 3 | 73 | 8% |
| 860 | |
| | |
| 3 > 1 | 68 | 19% |
| 3 > 2 | 141 | 40% |
| 3 > 3 | 145 | 41% |
| 354 |
Since we waited for outer to be defined by CL2, we've attained an entry point with the highest possible ratio of 76% for the next outer to be defined by another CL2 (same), which exceeds the probability ratio of a double dozen bet of 66% or an inner CL2 @ 44%. So we proceed to stitching the next outer cycle based on being defined by CL2 with other inner cycles being defined by the same dozen to reduce losses. The third constant - the all-powerful Outer Defining Dozen - could also play a part in the stitching.
So please confirm...
1) Is the parallel part indeed missing?
2) Is there any other concepts missing or are all the required ones there?
3) Could it gain edge providing the aforementioned concepts are played correctly?
Quote from: RayManZ on Jan 04, 07:54 AM 2017
Ok guys. We know we need a parallel game right? We can use the positions for that:
For this example is use the quads:
number quad cycle define positions position cycle define
17 2 2 1 3 4 2
19 3 3 2 1 4 3
2 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 3
30 4 4 1 3 2 4
9 1 4 1 1 4 3 2 2
32 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 2
14 2 2 4 1 3 4
1 1 3 1 1 2 4 3 3
30 4 4 1 2 3 3 3 3
21 3 3 4 1 2 4
5 1 3 1 1 3 4 2 3 2 3
28 4 4 1 3 2 3 1 3
28 4 2 4 4 1 3 2 1
35 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
34 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
32 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
30 4 1 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
26 3 3 4 1 2 3
6 1 1 3 4 2 3 2 3
18 2 2 1 3 4 4
24 3 4 3 3 2 1 4 3 2 3
34 4 4 3 2 1 4
Now who can help me get this to something that is winning. I'm still missing some part of the puzzle.
Please could we hold off for a bit till ati - and ideally Priyanka - have confirmed that a parallel game is absolutely necessary for obtaining edge (see my example above)? Or is it another case of VdW: it helps as an additional method to complete the Non-Random framework, but the other concepts can work without them?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 04, 08:14 AM 2017
Please could we hold off for a bit till ati - and ideally Priyanka - have confirmed that a parallel game is absolutely necessary for obtaining edge (see my example above)? Or is it another case of VdW: it helps as an additional method to complete the Non-Random framework, but the other concepts can work without them?
Only pri can confirm anything. I do know that you're looking in the wrong direction. Innner cycles? outer cycles? Pri said we should look at positions. That is a part of the puzzle. You have posted alot of information but i did not find anything usefull.
Pri has confirmed we should look at positions and use cycles. I'm trying to get this thread back on the right track. Something you did not do at all. The only thing all your data has confirmed is that there is a house egde.
Also i can't but that complex at all. How the hell can you play it if you use all kind a concepts together? It not posible. Think logical and simple.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Positions - meaning parachuting dozens, lines, numbers? But many of Pri's videos only feature dozens or only feature quads - and they won when designed to win and lost when designed to lose.
QuoteHow the hell can you play it if you use all kind a concepts together? It not posible. Think logical and simple.
I'm sure Pri said we should use most of the concepts - presumably that's why she went through so many? I doubt edge could be achieved with just one or two concepts, so what are the minimal conceptual requirements and can we at least miss out VdW and parallel, but still gain edge?
Oh I understand what RayManPS meant by "position", which previously meant type of official bet selection such as quad, dozen, line... he means how far back was the last dozen, cycle length, etc. This is another type of parallel game that we should ideally avoid as overly complex unless it's absolutely necessary to include them - TBC.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 02, 05:21 PM 2017I shall share one final string in this whole piece and my way is not as complex as Russian dolls and outer circles. For this final string you need to look at the post by rrbb titled
Basically it is the ordinality of numbers. Ordinality for people who don't know is nothing but the order in which numbers are positioned in a set. Put it simply in the explanation of dozens consider the order in which the dozens appear as follows;
3,2,3,3,1,3,2,1,3,3,3,1,1
If you have to right it in positions it will read like
3,3,1,1,3,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1
Let us assume that repeat of the last two dozen is more likely than the dozen that is sleeping and combine it with cycles to say that you are more likely to see the defining dozen appearing again. That makes it clear that you should not play for cycles of 3 position or one should ignore 3 position when it occurs.
Look at the results.
0,0,0,2,-1,-1,-2,0,0,0,2,-1,1
This is one more step in the direction of how I play.
This is what i mean with positions.
More details about it: link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.0
So we have cycles and a parallel game. The only question that remains is; How can we combine these things so we can get rid of the losses while keep getting winners.
Maybe we can use some statistics for this. If everything points out we would win. We bet.
From page 1! Sound familiar?!
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 16, 06:58 AM 2015This is just the first stepping stone. Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens, “A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
Quote from: 3Nine on Jan 04, 10:07 AM 2017
From page 1! Sound familiar?!
That's one of those questions/hints that doesn't lead to any eureka moments. I can attempt to answer it though. Let's say our cycle was defined by dozen 2, so we expect more chance that the next cycle will be defined by dozen 2 on the carpet. But that dozen 2 could close the cycle at an unspecified length, so when we try to guess which length to bet - or bet @ all lengths (and lose many attempts at trying) we end up at break even/house edge. So if we were to substitute the carpet defining dozen for a position based dozen or a parallel dozen of some kind, I think we are still heading for break even. So I think it might affect changes to distribution.
edit: post still wip...
Incidentally, "Defined by same" has been the most interesting problem since this topic began... I got some stats for Defined by Same in terms of regular dozen cycles...
| CL1s | 3794 | 33% |
| CL2d | 2608 | 23% |
| CL2s | 2582 | 22% |
| CL3d | 1675 | 15% |
| CL3s | 880 | 8% |
| 11539 |
CL1s + CL2s +CL3s = 64% same
Same is a 1 dozen bet, but Different is a 2 dozen bet, so we somehow need to re-calculate. To get defined by same on CL1 is a 1 dozen bet of 33% (same as normal).
Let's say we miss out CL1:
| CL1s | | |
| CL2d | 2608 | 34% |
| CL2s | 2582 | 33% |
| CL3d | 1675 | 22% |
| CL3s | 880 | 11% |
| 7745 |
Still 33% for same.
Miss out CL1 and CL2:
| CL1s | | |
| CL2d | | |
| CL2s | | |
| CL3d | 1675 | 66% |
| CL3s | 880 | 34% |
| 2555 |
Still 33% same.
So as individual spins it's always 1 dozen/33% for same, but together as 1 event it's 64%... how to take advantage of that?
Perhaps we need to stitch/hedge bets so that we always break even when it's defined by different instead of same?
Everyone disappeared again? I was going to talk about the "Defined by Same" problem in a bit more detail, as I believe it's the key to Pri's Non-Random strategy providing it even works and in spite of all the smoke and mirrors and criticism/discouragement/silent treatment I've received throughout the course of this topic.
EC Cycles - Defined by Same
HLH
H...
Ratio: 75% same
Non-Random Limit: 2 spins
Risk: 1 to 2 units
Reward: 0 to 1 units
Dozen Cycles - Defined by Same
1231
1...
Ratio: 64% same
Non-Random Limit: 3 spins
Risk: 1 to 3 units
Reward: 0 to 2 units
We have at least 50% predictability in both cases that the next repeat event is going to be defined the same as last cycle, but we've got no obvious way of expressing this through betting the entire "all-in-one" event to finish up as "same" without risking 1-3 units. I doubt there is the ability to stitch it, and unfortunately it seems not within our power to effectively bet for it in a cost-effective manner. So I think we need to try to improve on the situation somehow through workarounds even if we cannot find a direct solution to the problem, and I've got a few ideas... Firstly, "defined by same" is a misleading way of looking at the problem. The real problem can be expressed as simply as this:
HL...
12...
The previous cycle actually has nothing to do with the next repeat. The next repeat is dependent on whatever pre-defining element (H, 1) and Halves (L, 2) - let's refer to them both as "uniques" - have appeared before the repeat occurs or reaches it's Non-Random limit. So what started out as 75% for H to repeat or 64% for 1 to repeat is now split equally between H and L + 1 and 2, respectively. Parallel games most likely use the same concept; I guess they simply provide extra support for either the HL or the 12 to repeat - perhaps via the birthday paradox where "parallel" halves may impact them further. The other parallel games - though I've not tried them - keep track of prior repeats that may impact the current cycle in some other way; however, looking back at the previous cycle resulted in no impact and independence in all the tests I did. The only dependency I did find were coming from the aforementioned uniques occurring in a fresh cycle.
So there's a few problems with playing for repeats that we could possibly improve upon:
1) The entire repeat event starts out costly and is out of reach in terms of trying to effectively bet the entire thing even though we can predict > 50% what the result will be, and this continues as the halves/uniques drop in till the limit is reached and we reach stalemate. By then it's too late to bet the repeat for the very next spin - and the odds are always having to be recalculated for a reduced sequence. Looking at the Defining Order instead of Defining Element could potentially improve the situation - or better still using outer cycles then we have more flexible stitching available for betting unique Cycle Lengths:
CL1 CL2 CL2
CL2...
Each CL is dependent on the unique dozens that came before the closing repeat that sealed the event; likewise, each outer cycle is dependent on the unique CLs that came before that repeat. However, even with Outer Cycles and unique Cycle Lengths I still don't think we can effectively bet the entire outer cycle as one event starting with only 1 bet - but I think it would be an improvement still. Through outer cycles we do at least have secondary dependencies wrapped inside primary dependencies and multiple constants are overlapping in terms of their affected impact zone.
2) The repeat doesn't come quick enough. For dozens the limit is 3 spins, so we could speed up the repeat by converting to SD cycles.
12322123 = DDDSDDD
or
1231 = S
11 = S
1233 = D
(just compare first and last)
So we can express Dozen Cycles as SD cycles then the limit is reduced from 3 to 2, so the repeat has to come quicker. SD on Order looked the most promising. We also have Reverse Order/Positions as a single stream - RO on Order/Defining Order looked the most promising there. The limit could be reduced further by betting for simultaneous repeats on all constants, such as defining + order + CL, so that we are guaranteed a repeat on the very next cycle in some cases- whichever constant repeats first.
3) Each unique has an equal chance of repeating once it's appeared. This is a problem - particular when you reach the end of the limit - because once all uniques have shown we cannot say which has more chance of repeating. The solution to this is through creating Outer Cycles - not based on Cycle Length - but based on Order+CL as one to give 6 options: CL1o1, CL2o1, CL2o2, CL3o1, CL3o2, CL3o3; from left to right they are each more likely to repeat after one appearance. So if we reached Outer CL6, rather having stalemate we could bet the first option, the first three options or even the first 5 options to close the outer cycle and seal the next repeat with only a small chance of CL3o3 occurring. This is the opposite of trying to reduce the 3 outcomes to 2 SD outcomes - we now have 6 options. In standard Outer Cycles, CL2 is also a more likely event than CL1 or CL3, so that's why outer cycles defined by CL2 have a 76% chance of being defined same next cycle because CL2 will over power it's counterpart uniques in the fight for the repeat.
Together, all the above solutions create a workaround for the initial problem of playing for repeats. And that's all for now... feedback?
I didn't disappear, I just don't have much time to think about roulette these days. I'm very busy at work, and by the time I get home from the office(7-8PM), I'm usually brain dead. :)
Quote from: 3Nine on Jan 04, 10:07 AM 2017Quote from: Priyanka on September 16, 2015, 10:58:18 AM
“A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
From a mathematical viewpoint there is
no change in the relations of the outcomes of the distribution.
As far as I can remember (and see as a Non Mathematician) Pri argues mathematically.
->
Choose your dozen (lines, etc) as you like but keep the laws of probability in your mind.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 04, 09:01 AM 2017This is another type of parallel game that we should ideally avoid as overly complex unless it's absolutely necessary to include them - TBC.
Who decides what is overly complex ?
If one tries to find a way to the impossible it's not a good advice to avoid the complex.
Quote from: Herby on Jan 06, 06:27 AM 2017
Who decides what is overly complex ?
If one tries to find a way to the impossible it's not a good advice to avoid the complex.
Need explore simple solution first. If no success then move to more complex, i.e. parallel and VdW. For example, we can guarantee a repeat will occur next dozen cycle just from monitoring 2 constants based around 1 stream.
We can measure the dozen stream as cycles with Defining Element - supported by the first repeat on SD Dozens, i.e. 1231 11 = DDDS.
d100 dsd10 >>> d200 dsd20
d100 dsd10 >>> d200 dsd20
d100 dsd10 >>> d200 dsd20
d100 dsd10 >>> d110 dsd12
d010 dsd10 >>> d020 dsd12
d010 dsd01 >>> d011 dsd02
d001 dsd01 >>> d002 dsd02
d001 dsd01 >>> d002 dsd02
d001 dsd01 >>> d011 dsd02
d = Defining Element
dsd = SD Dozens
d001 dsd01 >>> d002 dsd11
Here start with DE = 3, SD Dozen = Different
Finish as DE3 repeat and SD DOZEN Same = 1, Different = 1 (no repeat)
So DE3 repeat but not SD Dozens, but next cycle always have a repeat no matter what. And no need to measure Order or Cycle Length. And there's 21 outcomes/sequences.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jan 06, 07:01 AM 2017Need explore simple solution first. If no success then move to more complex
I thought you throw away other ideas just for not to get the things too complex.
To understand your last shown idea I'll do a programming.
No, we only eliminate what doesn't work. We still keep complex ideas in case the simple ones fail - or that any advantage gained from complex methods warrant using them over the simpler ones - but the simple methods need to be explored first regardless.
I read Manrique used to say that everything is designed to break even and lead to house edge, so regardless of bet selection he would concentrate on dispersion and parachuting.
And I'm wondering: why is one kind of repeat better than another kind of repeat? And why is one type of parachuting, i.e. changing payout odds at similar cost, better than another type of parachuting?
Could somebody explain these statistics for me?
In the VdW theory we have 16 different AP's.
That gives us this:
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
But how does someone calculates this?
How do you get these AP's:
123
234
345
456
567
678
789
135
246
147
357
258
468
159
369
579
To these stats:
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
Does anybody knows this?
I must say I was thinking about that recently and considered revisiting VdW. When I counted each individual AP a few years back they all came in varying frequencies across different datasets - there was no pattern - but somehow we ended up with 50/50 every time.
No not looking for pattern ect. Stop that! That does not work...
I want to know how priyanka got these stats for all the AP's.
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
I think I know the answer now... I can simulate it... if I find answer then I let you know by email or something?
Should there be a formula for something like this?
We know we have 16 options. 16x16=256 is that the first one?
W=256=16x16?
I don't know? How can translating to formulas help? Is it to check simultaneous equations or inequalities?
W=256=16x16
Is that assuming all 16 APs are equally likely?
falkor cannot believe that you still banging your flat earth head about it...is so simple...if you see Priyanka sheet about cycles and your random stream is no zero numbers you will get something like that with only 3 states of system...0,"S","D"...you put them in colum like that
s
0
0
d
0
s
0
you will find out that 50% of the time repeat will happen on second spin...ex
0
s
so here will be either "0" or "S"
maestro, I'll come back to you.
Quote from: RayManZ on Feb 12, 09:23 AM 2017
No not looking for pattern ect. Stop that! That does not work...
I want to know how priyanka got these stats for all the AP's.
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LL |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLL |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LL |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LW |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 8 | 4+9 | 12 | | LLW |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LL |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LL |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 12 | LLLL |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | LLLL |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 9 | | | LL |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LL |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LW |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | LLLW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 12 | LLLL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LL |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | 10 | | | LL |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | | | LW |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 12 | LLLL |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | LLLL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | 4+9 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 8 | | | | W |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | | LLW |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | | LLW |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 3+8 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LW |
| 8 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 8 | 4+9 | 12 | | LLL |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 2 | | | | L |
| 3+8 | | | | L |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | | | | W |
| 1 | 4+9 | | | LW |
| 2 | | | | W |
| 1 | 3 | | | LL |
| 1 | 9 | | | LW |
| 1 | | | | W |
Quote from: maestro on Feb 12, 12:15 PM 2017
falkor cannot believe that you still banging your flat earth head about it...is so simple...if you see Priyanka sheet about cycles and your random stream is no zero numbers you will get something like that with only 3 states of system...0,"S","D"...you put them in colum like that
s
0
0
d
0
s
0
you will find out that 50% of the time repeat will happen on second spin...ex
0
s
so here will be either "0" or "S"
maestro, are you referring to VdW, Cycles or both used together? If just Cycles then which constant?
none of it...just the way sheet was done i dont know if is better or not or brings edge or not..see picture
Nice! :thumbsup: That's much tighter than my method... I bet it will result in edge! O0
Are we meant to play your 3 state method by stitching bets or does "stitching bets" refer to a separate method for gaining edge that doesn't require the concept used in the 3 states?
falkor is just observation i am not claiming is giving anything, do not get me wrong
Yeah, you naughty man, you've given away the Holy Grail! >:D Priyanka is going to be fuming at you!! :o
Really, if only I could understand you guys... I still can't figure out how we go from cycles to straights? Is it based on a parallel stream, such as positions, or not? Or is it simply about stitching?
falkor you better get medical check...
Well, I just tried for 3 hours to beat VdW, but failed... I cannot find any connection between AP and WL result that might lead to edge. There's no reducing wins/losses either. And I don't know how Priyanka was able to make the WL stats on paper. It's all one big mystery!
Well you could run the stats by hand...
It's just playing every posible scenario.
So:
111 = 1W
1222= 2W
112 = 1L
11222 = 1LW
ect...
In total there are 512 posible scenario's that end in a win or los.
I thought maybe somebody was clever enough to make a calculation for something like this...
RayManZ, I think it's too complicated... and I doubt knowing that formula can help us gain edge - it only reinforces the 50/50 result both through sim and on paper.
If there's no connection between AP and WL result then it's really not worth playing VdW because that only leaves traditional dispersion killing to avoid variance. The only other possibility is that it might work in parallel with cycles. (link:://rarekungfumovies.com/private/HLcyclesVdW.html)
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
I reckon we could play these as deficit recovery till they are in the following ascending order based on win total for each group:
W > LW > L > (LLW + LL) > LLL > (LLLW + LLLL)
Probably just the top 3 should suffice. We just play whichever main groups is trailing behind, as stitched bets, till they shuffle to that order. "L" parts will require opposite bets. The outcomes are not equally likely and the cost to play them as stitched groups is the same.
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 16, 06:58 AM 2015“A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
Yes and yes.
My 2017 answer to this question:
Distribution: a dozen on carpet, wheel or as changing numbers all have the same distribution/stats. I tested last 18 numbers as EC before and the stats were the same as normal EC.
Predictability: the above bet selection is irrelevant since predictability is based on seeing the game with a non-random lens: defined limits > dependency > bias
But then limits are not defined based on payout odds; they are defined based on fixed bet selections?
Perhaps all fixed/changing bet selections of same/different payout odds could have limits applied to them in terms of "same" and "different" - otherwise a repeat is only guaranteed on fixed bet selections?
BTW, "same" and "different" represents a parallel stream; as long as there's a limit imposed on at least one of the streams then I think anything is possible.
Falkor ....you are close to unlocking the code .
.man .....and soon i will buy a new porsche ...and have
FALKOR numbers plates....move over priyanka....roulette cc has a new rising star...yee har you beauty...you ripper .....GIDDY UP
I would never buy a car anymore... more stress than it's worth. Truth and understanding reality is the most important thing - not money. I've got everything I've ever wanted and my retirement is already planned - if I live that long.
I don't want fame or to replace Priyanka as the guru... but I just don't like having only myself to talk to on this amazing journey.
I believe that unlocking the code is only one test away, but I'm in no rush to fire up the simulator or head to Las Vegas and face all that adversity...
bigmoney, you can already afford to have number plates with my name on it...?
Hey falkor thats true i can afford the numbers with your name on it but i cant afford the porsche matey ...good luck ...buddy
Last test failed... :'( Dependency and bias is so difficult to find within the limit of regular, short, cycles. I swear it must be to do with perfect synchronization between streams so there is a common reference point... needs further investigation.
Here's my next test, but I'm the only one who understands it! :twisted:
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d3 | s4 | u2d1 | s4 | CL3o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 2 |
| s3 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s3 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o1 | s2 | u3d0 | s4 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o1 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 3 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o1 | s2 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o2 | s2 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o2 | s2 | u1d3 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | 5 | 4 |
| s3 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o2 | s2 | u2d3 | s4 | u2d1 | s4 | CL3o3 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 3 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o1 | s2 | u2d1 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 2 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o1 | s2 | u3d0 | s4 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o1 | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 3 |
| s3 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o2 | s2 | u1d3 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | 2 |
| s3 | u2d1 | s3 | CL2o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s3 | u2d3 | s3 | CL2o2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u2d3 | s4 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 2 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o3 | s2 | u1d1 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 2 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o2 | s2 | u2d3 | s3 | CL2o2 | s2 | u2d3 | s3 | CL2o1 | s2 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o1 | s2 | u2d3 | s2 | CL1o1 | 5 | 5 |
| s3 | u2d3 | s3 | CL2o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o3 | s2 | u1d1 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 2 |
| s2 | CL1o1 | s2 | u1d1 | s2 | CL1o1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | 1 |
| s3 | u3d0 | s4 | CL3o3 | s2 | u2d2 | s3 | CL2o1 | s2 | u2d3 | s4 | u2d3 | s4 | CL3o2 | | | | | | | 3 | 4 |
s = spin
The parallel streams must finish on the same spin # before retracking
u = uniques
d = defining element
o = order
CL = cycle length
Is that profitable
Quote from: bigmoney on Mar 10, 07:29 AM 2017
Is that profitable
I dunno yet... haven't had a chance to analyse the data. But I'm running out of ideas fast on how to impact regular cycles (up to 4 spins for dozens). The only events that fit inside 4 spins are SD/"positions" or something... I've been criticized, you see, for playing overly complex methods without enough betting opportunities.
Nope, that test failed, so I believe there needs to be defined limits in both parallel streams - not just one?
Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else
Then using a martingale progression.
And stopping the first win after the third one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally
BIG MONEY
Quote from: bigmoney on Mar 10, 03:17 PM 2017
Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else
Then using a martingale progression.
And stopping the first win after the third one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally
BIG MONEY
A theoretical opinion i am currently pondering goes something like this...
Betting on the known limits of cycles might have more to do with the grooming of a win-loss registry, in preparation for a progression, than actually trying to come out with more wins than losses flat-betting the cycles.
So, for example, if you can limit the W/L registry to no more than four losses in a row, and if this can be maintained with some reliability, then you could possibly apply some progression to it.
So, if the max is four, you may be able to marty up four or five levels before calling it quits, taking the loss, and starting over.
However, on the flip side of the coin, i would also apply a positive marty of same lenghth, before taking profit and starting over.
In either case, you are constantly applying a four or five step marting, win or lose. Five steps stop, start over...or something like that.
Quote from: bigmoney on Mar 10, 03:17 PM 2017
Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else
Then using a martingale progression.
And stopping the first win after the third one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally
BIG MONEY
Interesting... you got me thinking there about deficit recovery... I'll see what I can come up with. :thumbsup:
Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.
Quote from: praline on Mar 10, 05:24 PM 2017
Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.
I'll show some charts of the effect. It mostly amplifies a small signal so long as it is break even.
Quote from: rrbb on May 07, 01:55 AM 2016
Of course to be complete: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black for on average ±2.3 times per cycle" :question:
sorry, still sleepy: I followed Priyanka's advice and drank for world peace
What other? I can think of two other:
W/L
Change vs. Run
These are additional even chance games that could be played at the same time, all depending on the last spin. And so, measurable by VdW theory.
You could also add games based by comparing the last spin to spins one, two, three or four spins past, conjuring up several more games for each of the three games mentioned.
The result would be an increase in betting opportunities from +/- 2.3 per 9 spins, to one or two per spin.
Of interest would be the times when two bets appear on the same spin, or one bet when there's a situation when the VdW is deadlocked on some other game.
Would take more tracking than possible to implement at a B&M, but might be fun to put together to increase Excel skills.
I would explore something like this before incorporating the complexity of running a VdW on dozens as an additional game.
Quote from: praline on Mar 10, 05:24 PM 2017
Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.
Fooling around in Excel recently, i put together a lookup table that would allow to select any number of stepped progression variations...on an otherwise even chance strategy (disregarding zeros for test purposes). I found that none helped to win...mostly just amplifying the win/loss stream various, and unpredictable ways.
Have yet to look deeper into using a stream built on stepping-up/ratcheting successive bets. Theoretically, it would be useful in a follow-the-last scenario where the successive bet is a step higher. This would win if there were more "runs" than "changes", but i suspect the chop of changes would sink this idea.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 09, 07:14 PM 2017
Here's my next test, but I'm the only one who understands it! :twisted:
My next test will be on April 1st. Everybody bookmark this page and get ready for an amazing test to end all other tests.
If the test fails, i will report back.
If the test wins, you'll never hear from me again, and waited for nothing!
What is your test about? Does it include cycles?
Here's my next test:
DCL1 DCL3 LCL4
DCL3 LCL3
DCL2 DCL1 LCL3
DCL2 LCL2
DCL1 DCL2 LCL4
DCL2 DCL1 LCL2
DCL3 DCL3 LCL6
DCL1 DCL3 DCL2 LCL6
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 14, 06:04 PM 2017
Here's my next test:
DCL1 DCL3 LCL4
DCL3 LCL3
DCL2 DCL1 LCL3
DCL2 LCL2
DCL1 DCL2 LCL4
DCL2 DCL1 LCL2
DCL3 DCL3 LCL6
DCL1 DCL3 DCL2 LCL6
What are you testing
Spell this out
So everyone reading understands
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 14, 06:21 PM 2017
What are you testing
Spell this out
So everyone reading understands
You forgot to say please! :-[ :-X
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 09, 07:14 PM 2017Here's my next test, but I'm the only one who understands it!
Thats because it makes no sense.
Falkor, I hope you arnt misleading people to get attention.
I am a reasonably clever bloke. I read complex physics books and studied Maths units at degree level but I have never understood anything you type.
More so, you never listen when people ask you to explain. You just
type more tripere: You forgot to say please! :-[ :-X
You are "more often than not" winding people up
Quote from: Turner on Mar 14, 06:34 PM 2017
Thats because it makes no sense.
Falkor, I hope you arnt misleading people to get attention.
I am a reasonably clever bloke. I read complex physics books and studied Maths units at degree level but I have never understood anything you type.
More so, you never listen when people ask you to explain. You just type more tripe
You are "more often than not" winding people up
Yeah, and I don't like some people's attitude round here...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 14, 06:35 PM 2017
Yeah, and I don't like some people's attitude round here...
Which, again, wasnt an answer.
I am asking you nicely to stop being a smart arse and winding people up....or I will put you on Moderation for a spell
Quote from: Turner on Mar 14, 06:37 PM 2017
Which, again, wasnt an answer.
I am asking you nicely to stop being a smart arse and winding people up....or I will put you on Moderation for a spell
Yeah, and all I am asking is that people speak to me with a bit of decency; is that too much to ask? A simple "could you please explain what you are testing?" would've sufficed.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 14, 06:47 PM 2017
Yeah, and all I am asking is that people speak to me with a bit of decency; is that too much to ask? A simple "could you please explain what you are testing?" would've sufficed.
I would tend to agree
BUT we have asked if you could explain many times in past. It did not suffice.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 14, 06:48 PM 2017
I would tend to agree
BUT we have asked if you could explain many times in past. It did not suffice.
That's not what you did in the other thread. I told you dozen repeats have a limit and can help you beat the game and you respond with arrogant assumptions that it can't help. Now you've switched from making assumptions to showing an interest - but you ask in a demanding way. Maybe next time you'll get it right - in the correct format of a question - using your true third mask (instead of one of the other two). Until then I'll just ignore you so as not to get Turner's back up.
I did not make an assumption
I said a dozen has to repeat in 4 spins minus the 0 but that can't help us win. How can it? We don't know which dozen
Like we know in 3 spins a color will repeat guaranteed
It can't help
It's really simple guys. He can't explain it because he does not understand it. So, yes, he's just looking for attention.
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 14, 06:55 PM 2017
Yeah Falkor.......keep it up and you'll be moderated!!! :ooh:
Then...........if you don't watch it mister....you'll be banned.......for life!!! :yawn:
.......unless you change your username............well, not change it completely..........but just a few characters so that everyone knows it's still you.
Hope you learned your lesson. :sad2:
Threatening a guy who's already been banned with moderation.......This is truly pathetic!!! :lol:
Thank God you are here to point out what most arnt clever enough to see :question:
What would we do without your razor sharp wit and repartee?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 14, 06:56 PM 2017not to get Turner's back up.
Falkor....I am just politely telling you that generally you are erratic and no one understands what you are talking about
Dont you wish to know that? Arnt you trying to get some point across?
You arnt getting it across. No one knows what you are talking about
You are either oblivious to that fact or seeking to gain attention by posting what amounts to esoteric gibberish
Turner, have you been following this thread?
DCL1 DCL3 LCL4
DCL3 LCL3
DCL2 DCL1 LCL3
DCL2 LCL2
DCL1 DCL2 LCL4
DCL2 DCL1 LCL2
DCL3 DCL3 LCL6
DCL1 DCL3 DCL2 LCL6
Do you know what "CL" means? And can you guess what the "D" prefix and the "L" prefix is referring to? It's not globe earth rocket science.
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 14, 07:23 PM 2017
Now he's trolling Turner!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
(link:s://media.tenor.co/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/tenor.gif)
It's better than a game of chess... I've got Turner trapped in a cage like a game of Roulette... he can only make 3 possible moves like a dozen repeat: CL1, CL2 or CL3! Everyone place your bets!!! :twisted:
Falkor...no I dont know what it means. What does it mean?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 14, 07:34 PM 2017I've got Turner trapped in a cage like a game of Roulette...
Sorry...in a cage like a game of roulette?
How does that wotk exactly?
(link:://38.media.tumblr.com/7be7bd679b6b474ee3c809898e24b41c/tumblr_inline_njt6igxNdB1smpj2w.gif)
Quote from: Turner on Mar 14, 07:35 PM 2017
Falkor...no I dont know what it means. What does it mean?
(link:s://s23.postimg.org/xg9svj03v/05152e543c00cd450701e15368f426d27c2f2a_wm.jpg)
CL = Cycle Length; D = Dozens; L = LinesDozens have up to 3 cycle lengths:
11 = CL1
121 = CL2
1323 = CL3
Lines have up to 6 cycle lengths:
44 = CL1
433 = CL2
3423 = CL3
12452 = CL4
513244 = CL5
6123454 = CL6
So I'm simply testing Dozen Cycles alongside Line Cycles! :thumbsup: There appears to be several repeats of a Dozen before a Line cycle closes, but I have yet to properly run the test and analyse the data, so cannot comment too much at this stage...
It's now Turner's turn to get revenge on me! :wink:
Quote from: Turner on Mar 14, 07:39 PM 2017
Sorry...in a cage like a game of roulette?
How does that wotk exactly?
It means that Steve's outcome later may depend on what action you take first... You've only got 3 choices:
CL1 = put Falkor on moderation
CL2 = laugh out loud
CL3 = ...
So depending on what you do could affect what Steve does next:
CL1 = ban Falkor
CL2 = put Turner on moderation
CL3 = warn RG
CL4 = warn thelaw
CL5 = laugh out loud
CL6 = ...
The cage is 4x7!
Falkor, only your post was reported. I'm not aware of any other infringing posts.
I'll take CL1 thanks. The top one. You had two CL1's.
You two guys are too predictable - like Roulette! :xd:
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 15, 06:09 AM 2015
Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example.
Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points?
I put together a spreadsheet recently that tested one possible application of this idea, to stitch together even chance bets into some other number.
I tested putting two EC's together to come up with some weird four sided dice...basically, four unique patters made up of:
RB
BR
RR
BB
I'm assuming that any system that works with four elements would work with this binary numbering scheme.
If you bet on all four of these at the same time, you'd be betting 2 units on red and 2 units on black, every spin. No point.
So, i tried to come up with some selection process, and decided to repeat the last two patterns. That is, whatever the last two patterns were, i'd take the two remaining patterns, and bet on those over the next two spins. The idea is that the prior patterns have the best chance of repeating over the next couple of spins.
This test yielded no edge.
Does anybody have any suggestions for a four elements game?
Likewise, these binary stitching schemes can be built up to represent an 8 sided dice, a 16 numbered wheel, or a 32 numbered wheel.
If there is a Birthday Paradox, or Pigeonhole Principle that applies to these number specifications, that should also apply with these stitched-together numbers.
The next step up is an eight element game consisting of these pattern/binary-numbers:
RRR
RBR
RRB
RBB
BRR
BBR
BRB
BBB
And so on, doubling up for each 'digit' added.
Now lets see what a successful parlay would be worth.
First bet (of one unit) wins you 1 unit.
Second (parlay) wins you 2 units.
Third parlay wins you 4 units...
...for a total of 7 units, at the risk of one unit to begin with.
So the chances are 1 in 8 but the payout is 7 to 1.
I'm not sure what the exact computations are, but it is comparable to a line bet where the chances are 1 in 6 but the payout is 5 to 1.
So there may not be any advantage, ALONE, to use these artificially stitched-together numbers, unless...unless there may be some advantage to keeping all bets related to to a basic binary numbering scheme, or EC game.
Looking at a 32 numbered wheel, the payout would be something like:
1+2+4+8+16 = 31 for a game where there is a 1 in 32 chance of winning.
Can anybody do the calculations on this?
Is this better than -2.7% ?
Getting creative, i suppose it were possible to make patterns that exactly mimic any/every other bet on the roulette wheel/mat.
For example, what is the equivalent of one bet on a dozen, parlayed over two EC bets?
Is that equal to a "line"? idk
And if so, are there any Pigeon Holes that would to lines that would also apply to this parlay?
We are looking for phenomenon that offer 55%+ chances from some phase of a line bet. I have heard there are such situations.
Anyways, now, instead of working with unrelated EC's and unrelated line bets, we would be working with the same basic building block elements.
We could, for example, be running VdW's on all the EC's and cycles on all the dozens...leading up to the one line bet we are aiming to make.
Would this help at all? I don't know. But has anybody thought along these random lines yet?
RB
BR
RR
BB
Using the first four patterns above in some sort of parlay scheme, the payout would be:
1+2 = 3 for a game where there is a 1 in 4 chance of winning.
So, not very good at all.
But from my previous post, it does appear the odds get a little better, more comparable with European wheel bets...if not better, by the time you get up to 32/1 chances (five parlays).
If there are repeat systems that work with 37 numbers, maybe this would work just as good...or better?
Each session would be stretched out five times longer as it takes five spins to create one number with a 1/32 chance of winning.
Not good if it's not an improvement. Good if it is.
Let's see if i can build a parlay bet that has a 1/36 chance of winning, and find out what the payout might be.
By parlaying an even chance bet five times, i find out that i have a 1/32 chance of winning, for a 31 to 1 payout.
To get a 1/36 chance bet, it seems we will need to add a 32 number bet to the end of a five-step equal chance parlay.
Let's double check the math as this is my weakest link.
1/36 = .02777
1/32 = .03125
What do i have to multiply 1/32 by to get 1/36 ?
The answer is .02777 divided by .03125 = .888888
Which is equal to 8/9 or 32/36
So, if at the end of a five step parlay, we put down all 32 in the pot down on 32 straight numbers, then if we win we will have a payout of 35 plus we get to keep the winning chip:
35 (payout) + 1 (risk capital) = 36
This is exactly the same as betting once, on one straight number, and winning:
35 (payout) + 1 (risk capital) = 36
These calculations disregard the zero for test purposes.
If you add a zero to this game, there's a 1/36 chance the zero will come up, which is 2.7%.
If the parlay i describe increases exposure to the zero, then it is a worse bet. But if the exposure is not increased, then it's exactly the same.
Or is it?
Some people might think this is a more versatile, more granular bet.
To find out if the parlay bet with a 1/36 chance of winning has more exposure to the zero, we may be able to look at the "total action" multiplied by the house edge, or 2.7% in case of one zero.
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 = 63 units of "action".
As we can see, the exposure is almost twice as much as coming in and plunking down 32 units on a straight up number.
63 x .027 = 1.75 units expected loss
32 x .027 = .88 units expected loss
So, IF this is a more versatile, more granular bet, it's benefits must overcome whatever the house edge is: x 2. The en prison rule on Euro wheels helps a little, but there would still be an additional .66 +/- units expected loss starting with a base unit if one.
On the other hand, it would seem that a lot of action would be saved when the targeted number is more often than not disqualified early in the parlay sequence.
And on the other, other hand, we have to remember that the total action, to bet one (1) unit on 32 numbers all at once, is the same as risking one (1) unit on 32 different attempts to target one straight number. The "action" exposed in between is mostly house money, parlayed into more house money.
So it does appear to be the same in terms of chances, payout, and exposure.
The question: is it really more versatile?
Still, you need to bring in a parallel stream, otherwise no edge - as Pri told me many times.
Dozen Cycles + Line Cycles share common numbers. You seem to be picking up one stream of Pri's other parallel games that involves the same payout odds:
"I have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.
There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.225
Above is full context to stitching two ECs - as part of a parallel game with Quad Cycles.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 15, 07:37 AM 2017
Still, you need to bring in a parallel stream, otherwise no edge - as Pri told me many times.
There are as many as three, possibly four assumptions in this one statement, too nuanced to elaborate on, without veering off my current stream of thought.
Here you've brought in a parallel stream of lingo, running parallel to this thread, which, walking on the edge of knowing and unknowing, brings no edge.
You have assumed at least a couple of things about what Priyanka has said in the quoted post.
First of all, no edge was mentioned in the posted text, beyond "i'm sure there is some playability i can figure out", in regards the idea of running two parallel streams.
Second, you are conflating games with streams.
Dozen Cycles is a holy game.
Line Cycles is a highly worshiped game.
VdW on Dozens is a revered game (notice i spell Dozens with a capital D).
VdW on EC's is a beloved game.
In the quoted post, it was all "thumbs down" on the unholy alliance of running parallel GAMES, as beloved as those game combinations may be to our assumptions.
Instead, hope was given to running parallel STREAMS of equivalent bets, one stream made up of the usual bet, and the other made up of a custom combination of EC's and whatever else it takes to make an equivalent bet.
In theory, both of these similar bet streams will lose in the long run, just as both "Parando Paradox" bets lose in the long run.
The overall suggestion, going back to the first time "Parando's Paradox" was mentioned in this thread, is that perhaps there is a way to switch between these streams at opportune times, with either a third stream, or another game as a switching mechanism.
If this is the case, it may not make sense to run two parallel switching mechanisms, if that's what is meant by "all thumbs down" on running parallel "GAMES".
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 15, 07:37 AM 2017Dozen Cycles + Line Cycles share common numbers.
And so?
Combine these at your own risk according to your faith.
Currently, i am only building up equivalent bets. If there is a way to run these equivalent (losing) bets in parallel, and then switching between the two at opportune times, that would be a bonus.
Right now, i am only building equivalent bets. Has anybody in this thread ever done that?
Quads.
This term is used by Priyanka one way, and used by most others another way.
The most commonly understood use is a four-number bet that pays out 8 units for every unit put at risk.
Priyanka's "quad" is made up of THREE STREETS.
A street pays 11 units for each unit put at risk.
If you bet on three streets, the risk is three units to gain 11.
Two of the units will be lost, so the payout will be 11-2=9 units (at the risk of 3 units).
9/3 is the same as 3/1, which is also the calculated reward:risk ratio for the aforementioned parlay bet made up of two EC's:
RR
RB
BB
BR
Like the quadrants that Priyanka has sometimes spoken of, these each have a 1 in 4 chance of winning.
Theoretically, anything that would work on any 1 in 4 chance, would work with these.
Looking back at Priyanka's "Speedy Gonzales", it would seem possible to make a 1 in 4 chance float for a million spins, albeit with a progression and some serious draw-downs with continuous play.
Whether there is any relevance to that i have no clue, except it has been suggested that at one point, Priyanka had put some hope in the idea that running parallel streams of quads, and switching between the two, might offer some better odds.
Again, i am suggesting, perhaps for the first time in this thread, that there is a difference between parallel streams, and other (dependent) games that might function as switching mechanisms.
The idea is to run parallel streams, not parallel switching mechanisms.
Parallel
Using the aforementioned "quads" as an example, how might we run two parallel "streams" (also using the aforementioned parlance)?
First we could observe that it takes twice as many spins to accomplish anything using the EC format (RR,RB,BR,BB) than it does to accomplish something with Priyanka's original version of quads.
So the "cycle", whatever it may be, will be twice as long.
This seems like a mismatch to me that is not equivelent.
What seems more equivalent to me would be to run two consecutive streams of the one "quad", against one stream of the twice-as-long-cycle "quad" made up of EC combinations.
In some weird way, then, both cycles would be equally long, and so, more equivalent.
No clue how this could be useful, but it does seem to be a new way of thinking about these concepts, possibly more in line with what was MEANT to begin with.
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 02:02 PM 2017The idea is to run parallel streams, not parallel switching mechanisms.
Still - interesting read. And you are so right in the above statement. Parallel switching mechanisms should and will fall into the house edge and expectation hole as they will be independent bets. The idea is to run two parallel streams and inducing some kind of dependency between those streams. If they run as two parallel streams without any dependency then it will again succumb to the law of large numbers.
An example of what I mean by dependency is below. Again the key word is example. Taking the example of repeaters, if we run two streams one containing dozens and other containing lines, we can easily come to a conclusion that if repeater has not happened in dozen then it has not happened in lines as well. So that is a dependency as lines are a subset of dozens. Likewise there are other aspects we could use to create dependencies between two parallel streams.
Very interesting read Still.
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 02:02 PM 2017Parallel
....
What a hell are you talking about????
I don"t have a HOLLY GRAIL, and i don"t understand All concepts explained by Priyanka (female). But if you permit, i will ask you a question...
Going back to vdw...
What can proof or disproof VDW theorem???
I think that the answear will help to a lot of people. Also i would encourage all forumers to TEST before posting, because all those newcomers will read this misleading "sh"""t".
Cycles.
Now, suppose there was some weird rule that says that given four numbers, in five spins one of the numbers has to repeat.
That might be called a five-spin cycle.
Or, we could say that whenever 1 of 4 numbers repeats, THAT is a cycle.
And, perhaps, there is a better time to bet on a repeat than other times.
Given two aforementioned parallel streams of equivalent bets, maybe the time to bet on repeats in one stream, is a better time to bet on the other stream.
No clue as to why this might work, or if it would work, but it does give an example of how it may be possible to utilize two parallel streams, using a third strange game as a switching mechanism.
In keeping with the idea of dependency, i have not yet proposed any idea how the two aforementioned parallel streams could be dependent. Here's one suggestion:
RR >> 1-9
RB >> 10-18
BR >> 19-27
BB >> 28-36
This is an arbitrary assignment of dependency so as to create some sore of illusion of relationship.
No clue if it would work, or why it would work if it did, but it's a way of relating two parallel bets of equivalent qualities, and switching between them.
Because, Priyanka has blocked my pm"s. I will try to ask her a question here.
Priyanka, do you understand how we can apply PHP to roulette? your systems are all based on this principle? or better "on maximum being more then average"?
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 02:52 PM 2017
What a hell are you talking about????
I don"t have a HOLLY GRAIL, and i don"t understand All concepts explained by Priyanka (female). But if you permit, i will ask you a question...
Going back to vdw...
What can proof or disproof VDW theorem???
I think that the answear will help to a lot of people. Also i would encourage all forumers to TEST before posting, because all those newcomers will read this misleading "sh"""t".
So far, i haven't suggested anything suggested in this thread, going all the way back to the beginning, can gain any edge.
I am suggesting new ways to think about what has been discussed in this thread.
As for tests, they have been ambiguous so far.
Nicksmi tested VdW on EC's, betting every time there was a clear choice, and his test suggests the results are better than random.
Failkor has also done some tests, that either may have failed under big data, or a bug was later found in the code.
I haven't run any significant tests on VdW yet, so i think Nicksmi's data carry's the weight here.
Still, the significance of Nicksmi's data may not lie within just betting on VdW alone, but as i am suggesting here, using it to switch between otherwise equivalent streams of bets.
Again, no clue if it would work, but it is a more sensible way of looking at the discussion here, going back to the beginning.
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 03:00 PM 2017I haven't run any significant tests on VdW yet, so i think Nicksmi's data carry's the weight here.
I will refrase the question...
Can you mathematicly prove VDW theorem?
we dont need test we need understanding
Of course if your target is to figure out the way Priyanka plays HER systems, im out of discussion.
But if you want understand what are the basics and common in all her betting schemes GO back to first page.
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 03:10 PM 2017
Of course if your target is to figure out the way Priyanka plays HER systems, im out of discussion.
But if you want understand what are the basics and common in all her betting schemes GO back to first page.
Were you assuming i haven't read the first page, or every other page?
My target is to make a little more sense of some of the suggestions, and get off the unparallel track that Falkor wants to lead the thread down along.
Also to explore a little deeper a couple of the suggestions.
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 03:06 PM 2017
I will refrase the question...
Can you mathematicly prove VDW theorem?
we dont need test we need understanding
As far as theorems go, i don't prove things like that, but have heard that it is proven by scientists. A casual observation of it proves, to me, that it holds up.
As suggested, it alone is worthless, as it breaks even on the bets that it suggests, or possibly a little better if we believe Nicksmi's data.
I have not discussed VdW beyond this, so i'm not sure why you are pressing me for details.
My small tests suggests it is break even.
What i'm suggesting here is maybe it could be used as a tool to switch between two otherwise equivalent streams of bets that maybe bear some significant relation (dependency) to each other.
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 03:27 PM 2017i'm not sure why you are pressing me for details.
no more pressing.
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 03:27 PM 2017i don't prove things like that, but have heard that it is proven by scientists
FIND the WAY it was prooven
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 03:00 PM 2017Priyanka, do you understand how we can apply PHP to roulette? your systems are all based on this principle? or better "on maximum being more then average"?
Praline - one last time - am not going to suggest things that I have not put down clearly in the forum. Hence any answer I give here is going to be useless.
I have already put down here few systems with clear explanation and you can see for yourselves what they are based on. Also you can see for yourselves whether they have an edge or not. My humble opinion they all succumb to house edge.
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 03:30 PM 2017
no more pressing.
FIND the WAY it was prooven
I have heard that given four numbers, one of the numbers has to repeat in 5 spins, or 5 rolls of a dice.
1234
Now, one more spin, and one of these numbers has to repeat.
Is this not obvious to you?
In the same way, the things that are obvious about VdW are obvious.
What is there to prove?
Someone has suggested betting on VdW.
It's been suggested it is a break-even chance, offering no edge. Nicksmi's data suggests better-than-random, but maybe not enough to use as a stand-alone tool.
We know what direction Falkor wants to take this thread.
What direction do YOU want to take this thread?
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 15, 02:45 PM 2017
Still - interesting read. And you are so right in the above statement. Parallel switching mechanisms should and will fall into the house edge and expectation hole as they will be independent bets. The idea is to run two parallel streams and inducing some kind of dependency between those streams. If they run as two parallel streams without any dependency then it will again succumb to the law of large numbers.
An example of what I mean by dependency is below. Again the key word is example. Taking the example of repeaters, if we run two streams one containing dozens and other containing lines, we can easily come to a conclusion that if repeater has not happened in dozen then it has not happened in lines as well. So that is a dependency as lines are a subset of dozens. Likewise there are other aspects we could use to create dependencies between two parallel streams.
Very interesting read Still.
Hey, Priyanka, you have me on ignore too BTW besides praline so I couldn't PM you... I wanted to know whether the above was the same type of parallel game/parachute used in the CL3/Dead Heat situation described on page 7:
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 24, 07:51 AM 2015all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will make this dead-heats into winning combination.
Or can you please confirm if it's using positions instead? And in case your PM box is buggered or something my email is gilius2k15@gmail.com
Quote from: Still on Mar 15, 03:37 PM 2017What direction do YOU want to take this thread?
The direction that was given by Author of this thread.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 15, 03:31 PM 2017Hence any answer I give here is going to be useless.
Not for all of us.
There are 2529 forum members here. In past 8 years at least 7 of them gave us their own Holly Grail. How we thanked them????!!!!!
We spit them in the face... Good work guys! Very shit productive forum. Im out.
Quote from: praline on Mar 15, 03:47 PM 2017
The direction that was given by Author of this thread.
You mean like in the same way certain people-of-the-book follow the direction of the author of their religion?
Sometimes people think they are following some direction, but aren't, won't, or don't themselves.
VdW.
I have only one observation about VdW that has not been discussed, but may also be worthless as a stand-alone tool.
I noticed that whenever there is a 'dead-lock' situation where there could be two colors to complete an arithmetic progression (ar.prog, not to be confused with AP-advantage play), it was preceded by at least one ar.prog that has already "lost".
The earliest an ar.prog can lose is the third spin of the nine spins.
The most common spin for the ar.prog to occur is on the 7th spin, or maybe it's the 8th. But it could happen on the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th spin. (Need to double check but maybe it can't happen on the 6th).
Anyways, that leaves three to six spins to get to the possible ar.prog.
Leading up to the dead-locked ar.prog, there are usually two steps, maybe three, that are the only way to get to the ar.prog, if you were trying to parlay some sort of bet on the most likely ar.prog to happen.
That is, if you were trying to keep some sort of parlay alive by observing a loss, and then trying to predict that a dead-locked ar.prog is likely to occur, you would take two or three steps, either red or black, that would keep both chances alive as long as possible.
Once you reach the ar.prog, as we have observed, there is no certainty in and of itself, what color to pick. So it is not 'bet', if we are betting on the VdW itself.
This could be another worthless bit of information, but thought i would mention it, as it has not been mentioned yet.
VdW addendum...
I don't know the stats, but in the above scenario, if the dead-locked ar.prog appears (after a loss) more than 50% of the time, the observation i've made might be worth something. Otherwise, if it is a 50/50 chance a dead-locked ar.prog will appear, i don't see how clear choices leading up to it will offer anything either.
A "loss" is simply an ar.prog that promised to complete, but failed. It's only a loss if we were betting on it, which we may not want to.
Could ignoring some of the AP's lead to a better success rate (edge?)
Quote from: RayManZ on Mar 15, 06:07 PM 2017
Could ignoring some of the AP's lead to a better success rate (edge?)
I doubt it... what APs would you ignore? On the contrary, I think the only way is to parachute to another EC or straights after 1 AP or dead heat - or see if it's worth betting the 2nd AP (or ignoring that as we would usually do anyway).
Quote from: RayManZ on Mar 15, 06:07 PM 2017
Could ignoring some of the AP's lead to a better success rate (edge?)
I did a short test of just taking any clear choice that comes before a deadlocked ar.prog. Didn't come up with any clear edge. Anything is on, or off the table for testing for statistics.
But if I get the direction of this thread, the VdW, and perhaps any other "this-must-happen-in-X-spins" sort of "limit", is not used as a stand-alone tool to bet on.
Rather, the focus seems to be on how such a tool could be used as a switching mechanism, to switch between a couple parallel streams of similar or equivalent bets, or bets that are definitely related somehow.
One reason for converting at least one stream to a binary equivalent may be so you can run a VdW on it, not to bet on IT, but to bet on the other, when statistical analysis suggests it would be a good/better bet. Or visa versa.
I don't have a clue what related streams might work, if all the steams so far suggested as examples are not the winning combos.
So I suggest people come up with more creative ways to conjure up a couple of interesting dual, related *dependant* streams to chew on the statistics they may reveal...instead of trying to bet on the switching mechanism, or even the stream the switching mechanism is running on.
Custom Line.
Since lines have been mentioned so many times, let's see if a custom line can be made up of other bets, starting with EC bets.
A "line", as it is mostly termed in this forum, is a six numbered group consisting of two side-by-side streets. While each street pays out 11:1, the line pays out 5:1.
Meanwhile, there is a 1/6 chance a line will land.
Two consecutive EC parlay bets is too little (1/4), and three EC parlays is too much (1/8).
When doing math, i always start with a question like this:
What, multiplied by 1/4 = 1/6 ?
This way, we can do some quick algebra and divide the left side of the equation to isolate the unknown, "What".
First convert to decimal for the heck of it.
1/6 = .16666
1/4 = .25
.16666 / .25 = .66666666
That's two dozen.
So a line can be built with a parlay of two EC's, topped off by a double dozen. That could be two units on a single dozen, or one unit on two different dozens.
That's a three step parlay.
This could be streamed parallel alongside an actual line bet stream, tracking VdW on the EC's, and dozen cycles on the dozen(s).
To to make it interesting, three consecutive lines streams could be stacked, to somehow equalize the three step custom line...or not.
Then, whenever some weird voodoo condition pops up in the VdW, or in the dozens cycle, a bet could be placed in the actual lines stream, just to see what happens.
Only data and statistics could possibly reveal the possibilities (or not) of such a relationship.
Can a line be built any other way?
Let's try this:
.6666 x .5 x .5 = .166666
So we are back to 1/6 again. Or...
.5 x .6666 x .5 = .166666
So we can combine two EC's and one double dozen in any order to come up with a custom line.
Or, how about an EC, 12 straight up numbers, followed by another EC?
Any other ways to make a custom line?
Turns out yes:
.333333 x .5 = .166666
That's one dozen followed by one EC...or visa versa.
Again, it's possible to run a VdW on the EC, and run a dozen cycle on the dozen, in some weird alternating parallel universe, just to see what the quarks do in the actual line betting stream.
Or, maybe two different types of custom lines could be run side by side to see what happens in one, when some condition pops up in another.
Custom dozens.
We have seen how custom dozens can be conjured up by tracking the unique numbers that come up into three columns. Although it's hard to say how this could be used, it can be done.
What else can be done?
What, multiplied by .5 (an EC) will = .33333 ?
.33333 / .5 = .66666
So it looks like a double dozen, followed by an EC parlay would equate to a dozen. And visa versa.
But i'm trying to get at a dozen some other way, for unknown reasons.
Turns out a line, followed by an EC = one dozen...and visa versa. Likewise, a dozen, followed by an EC = a line.
I have no clue how this might be helpful.
Maybe there's an even more lengthy way to come round to a dozen, assuming a dozen is useful for anything.
Pretty sure my last post puts Turner in a roulette cage! :o
Check out rrbb's "outside the box" and Pri's "new system recipe": custom dozens can be created using the "positions" stream but I don't know yet know how it's done nor its application. However, this advanced technique of positions is now all the rage... I hope to pick it up in a few weeks time.
Here's an interesting stat:
DCL3o2d1 DCL1o1d1 DCL2o2d2 DCL1o1d2 LCL5o4d4
0.07% chance that we will get 4 dozen cycles close before a line cycle closes - usually it's just 1 dozen cycle closing with the line cycle.
Parachuting to a line cycle isn't helped by a CL3 on the previous dozen cycle - so still not sure what parallel game Priyanka was referring to in the event of a CL3 Dead Run for dozen cycles? And I don't think she knew about rrbb's positions at that time? And how can a parallel game turn a CL3 dead run into a winning game? Sounds like an overstatement - I'm sure she meant that we can only try to turn things around with bets that are more biased in trying to get us out of that hole; no guarantee we will get out though...
So my best advice for dozen CL3 is stop playing and retrack - unless you want to get into more complex Russian doll methods. Hopefully positions will supersede them all...
Above was a mistake - CL3 DOES help if played correctly.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 10:08 AM 2017Above was a mistake - CL3 DOES help if played correctly.
Well then, Falkor, how would you play it correctly?
Quote from: 3Nine on Mar 17, 10:18 AM 2017
Well then, Falkor, how would you play it correctly?
I've decided to keep my discovery to myself for now - but I will share it after I've had time to open a bottle or two... :thumbsup: (but don't expect me to turn every dead run into a winning game -
that AIN'T gonna happen)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 10:44 AM 2017
I've decided to keep my discovery to myself for now - but I will share it after I've had time to open a bottle or two... :thumbsup: (but don't expect me to turn every dead run into a winning game - that AIN'T gonna happen)
Oh, ok.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 10:44 AM 2017
I've decided to keep my discovery to myself for now - but I will share it after I've had time to open a bottle or two... :thumbsup:
Bullshit
You've said this before
So double bullshit.
::)
Not trying to me mean
Just trying to get that wake up call across
(link:s://media1.giphy.com/media/l2JhtKtDWYNKdRpoA/giphy.gif)
Guys, I've spent a lot of time and money testing these techniques. I realise it's frustrating, but I can't reveal all my tricks - have to keep some things held back as a personal now and again; I'm entitled to keep some things to myself. If you would like to help me get back some of my money then fine... nuff said.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 12:21 PM 2017
Guys, I've spent a lot of time and money testing these techniques. I realise it's frustrating, but I can't reveal all my tricks - have to keep some things held back as a personal now and again; I'm entitled to keep some things to myself. If you would like to help me get back some of my money then fine... nuff said.
Nuff said
Pay dat man his money.
link:://i.imgur.com/uJxT1kT.mp4
I think what we have here is someone who is intentionally trolling us
Maybe we should stop taking the bait?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 12:21 PM 2017
If you would like to help me get back some of my money then fine... nuff said.
What do you mean? Are you over-all in the red at the roulette wheel? How would anyone help if that were the situation? Steve is willing to help, his way. Others could probably help...their way. But why should anyone share their way? Are you suggesting you might share your ways in exchange for the ways of others...privately?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 17, 01:13 PM 2017
I think what we have here is someone who is intentionally trolling us
Maybe we should stop taking the bait?
No - I'm simply trying to discuss ideas as I progress on this journey. And as I make discoveries - some information I'll share and some I'll keep to myself. No way am I trolling. And you need to improve your level at using cycles IMO till you become more proficient.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 09:48 AM 2017
Parachuting [...]
So my best advice for dozen CL3 is stop playing and retrack - unless you want to get into more complex Russian doll methods. Hopefully positions will supersede them all...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 10:08 AM 2017
Above was a mistake - CL3 DOES help if played correctly.
You mean CL3 can be helped if it is played inside Russian doll styled loops?
Or, it's your best advice to stop and retrack because CL3 can be helped...but not much?
Anyways, it was suggested a while ago that Priyanka was looking into some other bet at these dead-locked situations, which we also have in VdW. At one point the idea came up, in regards VdW, to bet on the straight numbers that have come up, leading to the dead-locked ar.prog. It was a big 'maybe' needing to be tested. Not sure if we ever heard what came of that idea. So maybe it worked! Likewise, has anybody looked into betting on the unique, straight up numbers leading to the dead-locked CL3?
Quote from: Still on Mar 17, 02:00 PM 2017
You mean CL3 can be helped if it is played inside Russian doll styled loops?
Or, it's your best advice to stop and retrack because CL3 can be helped...but not much?
Anyways, it was suggested a while ago that Priyanka was looking into some other bet at these dead-locked situations, which we also have in VdW. At one point the idea came up, in regards VdW, to bet on the straight numbers that have come up, leading to the dead-locked ar.prog. It was a big 'maybe' needing to be tested. Not sure if we ever heard what came of that idea. So maybe it worked! Likewise, has anybody looked into betting on the unique, straight up numbers leading to the dead-locked CL3?
Yeah, I think CL3 has several options in that situation - but it's only one part of a much grander strategy that will eventually need to be figured out if we are to make consistent profit.
Yeah, the VdW dead lock/dead heat/dead run is a similar situation that stops non-random working out of the box. I think the straight up numbers would help - but the betting opportunities there are very limited so cannot rely on that situation for gaining edge. Instead you could look at the 3rd/4th spin as the potential key-frame.
When on straights the deadlock wouldn't be on CL3 but at a much higher length - and with straights there isn't any other section or escape route to "cutting/engineering a more efficient bet" (not my words) - except the positions stream or the next cycle (inside or outside).
BTW, I'm the real Priyanka - she was just a phony who pretended to be me - I was forced to sign up with a different name so I chose Falkor! O0
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 02:16 PM 2017
[...] but it's only one part of a much grander strategy that will eventually need to be figured out if we are to make consistent profit.
[...]I think the straight up numbers would help - but the betting opportunities there are very limited so cannot rely on that situation for gaining edge. Instead you could look at the 3rd/4th spin as the potential key-frame.
BTW, I'm the real Priyanka - she was just a phony who pretended to be me - I was forced to sign up with a different name so I chose Falkor! O0
Are you, whoever you are, asking for group-sourced resources for help solving some of these puzzles/possibilities?
If so, can we expect some sort of quid pro quo?
Time to test the ignore feature.
Quote from: 3Nine on Mar 17, 02:49 PM 2017
Time to test the ignore feature.
Doesn't work at all
Not even a tiny bit
I don't mean Hillary-Clinton-Foundation style quid pro quo, just good old American quid pro quo.
For example, here is a chart of something you may have discovered regarding a way to manage CL1 and CL2 on dozens.
These results could be because of an original idea you had. Or, the idea could have been helped by all the group-sourcing going on here, one idea leading to another. Or, the idea could be right here, in this forum, hiding right out in the open...in a post in a thread that is long lost...sourced to the forum by a generous soul.
Presumably, this performance can be improved, again, by more group-sourcing.
Can we expect to know, directly from you, or from you pointing to the existing logic, the details of the betting logic that generates this kind of chart?
Or, is the logic being held to barter for other performance enhancing ideas, either publicly or privately?
If anyone shares, or has shared how to enhance this publicly, do you suppose we can at least have the lower-performing, grade B logic, that gains 200 units in almost 50k spins?
That's not my chart? Managing CL1 and CL2; what do you mean?
Still, oh I get it... so you are actually looking for that book too?? Unfortunately, that's my secret also... Everyone seems to be after that secret Book Of Edge... somebody even tried to mug me today for it - but do you think I'd be so stupid as to actually carry the book around with me? :question:
You made that chart based on my HTML table.... that curve is better than I thought actually - not too far off Priyanka, Praline and 3Nine's graphs.
I don't even believe Priyanka discovered that method - I was the first to do so and document it for posterity.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 05:33 PM 2017
Still, oh I get it... so you are actually looking for that book too?? Unfortunately, that's my secret also... Everyone seems to be after that secret Book Of Edge... somebody even tried to mug me today for it - but do you think I'd be so stupid as to actually carry the book around with me? :question:
You made that chart based on my HTML table.... that curve is better than I thought actually - not too far off Priyanka, Praline and 3Nine's graphs.
I don't even believe Priyanka discovered that method - I was the first to do so and document it for posterity.
Ok so you're saying nothing about the betting logic of that chart/method was from sourcing the group here and is a completely original idea that you don't feel obliged to disclose as part of any sort of quid pro quo?
Only the cycles part is from here... the actual strategy is original and was developed by me... only 2/5 bets were placed. If I had used all 5 bets then that chart would look even better... this discovery also taught me how to beat VdW and theorem on friends and strangers. However, one small error - or failure to allow the non-random sequences to complete - means any edge is lost; you can only win consistently when random is locked inside a cage under total equilibrium.
Here's a preview from my forthcoming secret Book Of Edge - this is how you play it...
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/a6qj759f3/cycles.jpg)
Ok so you're saying that you have had proprietary secrets for a long time and the impression you sometimes give of seeking group resources, tips, and/favors from others is either a false impression, or unnecessary, since you already have something that could help you get your money back? Did the proprietary info cost you some money? Or, is it your info, but you are behind at the roulette wheel?
He's always claimed to have secrets that he may release at a later date
When he was first banned he promised to release a Hg "by Christmas"
Couple years ago
Just calling a spade a spade
Falkor it's simple to become part of the forum. Stop digging a grave
Quote from: Still on Mar 17, 08:14 PM 2017
Ok so you're saying that you have had proprietary secrets for a long time and the impression you sometimes give of seeking group resources, tips, and/favors from others is either a false impression, or unnecessary, since you already have something that could help you get your money back? Did the proprietary info cost you some money? Or, is it your info, but you are behind at the roulette wheel?
I haven't known the secrets for a long time - never even knew what edge was before - but I study hard and diligently every day with my friend from New York. It hasn't cost any money... only the electricity used to run my computer and roulette sims. I just like to discuss it here because it's the most interesting journey I ever experienced in life - where no books happen to be available for obvious reasons - and I just wish that others here would take up the challenge of Random Thoughts and change their lives too. Trying to put all these concepts together is way better than playing your favourite RPG or strategy game by a long shot, once you get into it...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 07:43 PM 2017
Here's a preview from my forthcoming secret Book Of Edge - this is how you play it...
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/a6qj759f3/cycles.jpg)
ah yes
we understand
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 07:43 PM 2017
Here's a preview from my forthcoming secret Book Of Edge - this is how you play it...
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/a6qj759f3/cycles.jpg)
Falkor,
So your playing strategy involves "meiosis" only?
You need to involve "mitosis" also -- otherwise, your quest for an edge in roulette will remain an unfulfilled dream.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 18, 06:26 AM 2017
I haven't known the secrets for a long time - never even knew what edge was before - but I study hard and diligently every day with my friend from New York. It hasn't cost any money... only the electricity used to run my computer and roulette sims. I just like to discuss it here because it's the most interesting journey I ever experienced in life - where no books happen to be available for obvious reasons - and I just wish that others here would take up the challenge of Random Thoughts and change their lives too. Trying to put all these concepts together is way better than playing your favourite RPG or strategy game by a long shot, once you get into it...
Ok. You could take ideas sourced from this forum and test them on your own and not publish any test results here. Instead, you have taken ideas sourced from here, run some tests, and published some of the results here. In either of those two scenarios, your source of ideas to test has been from here.
Sometimes you have explicitly requested more ideas from here, for example, as recently as three days ago:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 15, 03:45 PM 2017
Hey, Priyanka, you have me on ignore too BTW besides praline so I couldn't PM you... I wanted to know whether the above was the same type of parallel game/parachute used in the CL3/Dead Heat situation described on page 7:Or can you please confirm if it's using positions instead? And in case your PM box is buggered or something my email is gilius2k15@gmail.com
This was a request for more information, to be received either publicly OR privately. Presumably, the information, if granted, would give you EVEN MORE of an edge.
Meanwhile, you are sitting on six-ways-to-Sunday, to bet on VdW and cycles, having admitted that the chart i posted represents 2/5, or two out of five other ways you have an edge, and these two aren't even the best ways.
The optics of this don't look good.
People have been studying VdW and cycles for a year, group sourcing for a year, many contributing, many borrowing...lots of man-hours, not to mention the woman-hours Priyanka has invested in getting out the word about things like VdW, cycles, parallel streams, ect.
Now you are sitting on at least five bets, all inspired by the group effort to understand Priyanka's effort, won't disclose ANY, and are asking for more info from Priyanka, to be received either publicly or privately.
This could be because you are Priyanka's best student, and you could very well be. I would not argue that. I would also not argue that you may well have come up with some application of VdW and cycles that Priyanka DID NOT ANTICIPATE, and
which does not represent the way Priyanka herself uses that information.
The idea for YOUR application of VdW/cycles/combinations may have come from praline, RMore, Turner, 3Nine, rrbb, Winkel...hell, maybe even RouletteGhost. But let's say it's a completely original application of one of your own ideas, something nobody has thought of trying, not even Drazen. I would not argue that either. Could very well be.
Here then is a situation where you have come up with a proprietary bet(s), despite Priyanka's efforts to discourage the application of VdW/cycles, in any other way she uses them, as probably, almost assuredly, break-even tools that lead to the house edge...when used apart from her, as yet unrevealed, combination of application.
If you have discovered something of an edge with your data-mining efforts, you have most likely surprised her, and everybody else.
But it's not the edge that her methods have seemed to promise from time to time, one of which get's 9+% over the house alone. It's not what gave her a 3.0+ win-rate on the local multiplayer game.
So i posted a chart showing, what, a .05% edge over the house (if it's not actually normal random deviation), that would probably give you a 1.0001 win-rate on Steve's multiplayer...and you are acting like you want to keep this to yourself, along with more, even better bets you have up your sleeve?
The optics of this are not good, even if you don't owe the group anything.
Meanwhile, Atlantis has released not only a system, but a complete tracker to bet on repeating lines. Based on some sound logic, there's a chance it could outperform the edge depicted in the chart i posted. There's also a chance that winkel's G.U.T., or nottohammers' KTF, or Priyanka's posted variations of those themes (including trackers), could outperform the chart i posted of just a couple of your worst bets, but which may have an edge.
And you're saying you're going to give it only to those whom you deem to have also been good students of Priyanka's teachings? Or, not at all to anybody? Ever?
Meanwhile, Priyanka has more to give, if it's true that YOUR application is YOUR idea, and NOT the way Priyanka applies VdW and/or cycles. Much more.
So, you want to go dark, but you also want Priyanka, and who knows who else, to shed more light on the original subject?
Yes, I worked hard to discover my method using only knowledge of basic cycles. I had no private help from Priyanka. And I couldn't have done it without my overseas friend pushing me every single day. It was complete brute force trial and error - so much so that Rmore (one of Priyanka's best students - if not her best) is now proficient at using "positions" (and he's better at parachuting than me too) - yet I don't believe he's spent anywhere near as long as I did on the basics, hence he seemed slightly confused about which kinds of streams are Random or Non-Random and whether cycles are random or non-random.
When studying this there's no shortcuts - the only way is through long-term problem solving that must be worked at diligently. And there's no guarantees what day of the week or time of day a new insight, perspective, eureka moment, or contextual element is going to be realised in your mind in terms of improving the bigger picture, such as what makes cycles or a parallel stream Random or Non-Random. As Pri said: you just need to keep re-reading and returning to it like a spiral.
Ask 3Nine... if he gives me permission to share it with you then I'll do it, but by rights you should really be at a more proficient level of using cycles before being deemed worthy?
I'm planning to do a timeline of all my discoveries, progress and stones overturned during the past 52+ weeks - that's how much time you need to put in at a bare minimum before edge could possibly come your way. For Priyanka I heard it was 6 years. Right now your main contribution/progress has been through analysing Pri's first video (and one that came prior to that). What else have you researched/gleaned from this topic so far?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 18, 05:17 PM 2017
Ask 3Nine... if he gives me permission to share it with you then I'll do it, but by rights you should really be at a more proficient level of using cycles before being deemed worthy?
The guy who thinks we live on a flat plane, where space is a hoax and not real, thinks we must be more worthy.
Falkor, keep stirring the pot. It's simply taking you further and further away from the Truth.
This is my last post. Good luck all.
Quote from: Still on Mar 18, 04:23 PM 2017So, you want to go dark
Still...I do like your posts :thumbsup:
But, unlike you, I have direct access to images from inside Falkors shed
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/03/18/temp_972175.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/3IMc)
falkor doesnt even post about roulette anymore
he talks in circles about things that have almost nothing to do with the game
its turning people off to the forum
get rid of him?
this guy is a joke and we are sick of him
come on moderators
if off the charts bat shit crazy is not enough to get banned then how about using this site as a pedestal to not talk about the game
WTF is he even saying?
mitosis and HIS STUPID charts
ITS STUPID
trim the fat steve get rid of this god damn idiot troll
ever hear the term "enough is enough"
this guy is a blabbering moron
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 17, 07:43 PM 2017
Here's a preview from my forthcoming secret Book Of Edge - this is how you play it...
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/a6qj759f3/cycles.jpg)
WTF IS THIS
HAS THIS FORUM GONE MAD?!!?!?!?!?1
DO YOU NOT KNOW A TROLL WHEN YOU SEE ONE
THIS IS THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN RELATION TO ROULETTE
(link:://tinnitusclear.com/images/most-difficult-math-problem.jpg)
look guys i have an edge
we know the guy is mental over his lack of understanding basic science
to add insult to injury he thinks cycles can lead to an edge
somehow knowing that red or black will repeat in 3 spins will help us win?!?!?
RUBBISH
good god enough already
RG, it's just a lighthearted joke in-between all the useful and serious information I am sharing with you guys... please don't take every post so seriously - just the ones that matter. And better still.. please don't exaggerate your unjustified smear campaign against me - could be considered a personal attack. Why is my contribution level all the way up here - yet yours is all the way down there...? Envious eyes?
I'd like to go back to the times where twocat sam and glc discussed roulette
The good times of the forum
The love of the game
Understanding we can't change the house edge but the fact we enjoy playing systems
Take the wins with the losses
You are misleading people and your posts are really terrible
No one gives two shits about your slides man
Get a grip. Wake up
Why don't you go learn and understand 2nd grade science level then come back.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 18, 07:47 PM 2017
please don't exaggerate your unjustified smear campaign against me
You delusional disconnected individual
Look in the mirror
You are your own smear campaign
RG, sorry you can't get the ignore feature to work - but you are free to ignore this topic - you've never contributed here anyway. If there's nothing beneficial for you to see here, including the odd joke to try to lighten up an otherwise toxic environment then please move on to the next topic where you won't be reminded of my posts and personality - so different to your own.
Thanks for all the feedback BTW - I will take it on-board (with a pinch of salt of course). And I would ask that you try be more tolerant in the future.
Sorry
I'll try to be tolerant to idiots
Goodnight
8)
Goodnight
Whoa!
The cease fire is still holding up?!?!
C'est incroyable!
Maybe the various warring factions in Syria can take inspiration from this!
A time comes when enough is enough
Whats that? Is that a cell division cycle?
Good evening, reading all these messages, priyanka talks about a double game.
It reminded me of this:(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/17/temp_296452.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/ASKa)
Left column : dz 1 1 = 0 dz 1 -2 = 1 dz 3- 2 = -1
I play only on one dz
Only when the dominant dz match
Hi plolp,
Welcome! I recognise your name from somewhere...
Could you please tell us what the left column represents (0, 1, -1) and what is the significance of the cells highlighted in blue?
You betting defining dozen? But it can come in 3 possible spins - cannot say when.
Thanks.
Oh I see... it's C and CC.
In blue cycle completed
Only for 0 1 -1
I forgot to color the last three
I doubt if it would gain edge by itself or anything... but it's a really good idea nevertheless! Helps shed some light on some VdW games I was analyzing with 3 streets - but here you are using repeats and dozen cycles. I created a new forum to encourage more thinking along these lines... I think this would fall under my "Simplifying the mechanical system" forum I created yesterday - only visible to members who register. Good brain, my friend! :clap:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 17, 06:33 PM 2017
I doubt if it would gain edge by itself or anything...
I also agree
No matter how you bet on the game or what circumstances lead to how you place the bets, the house edge remains
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/17/temp_458646.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AxEF)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 17, 06:52 PM 2017
I also agree
No matter how you bet on the game or what circumstances lead to how you place the bets, the house edge remains
of course But it was to give the idea of a double game.
I believe a strategy of play can be good and win more than lose
But I will never live in a false reality naively believing betting a certain way can decrease the house edge.
With the same double game you can change the procedure:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/17/temp_361698.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AMNi)
I can't believe this thread has went on for nearly 2 years, and 94 pages. Come on Pri, are you ever going to tell us how you play? Much respect to guys like Winkel and many others that put there theorys and system out there for everyone to form there own opinion. So much time wasted here reading all these clues with no grand finale. Although, I've seen alot of this on these forums. Who knows, usually when someone reveals a unique method of play others usually throw in there ideas and make it even better. Pri, hope you consider this....you're gonna drive Falkner crazy you know lol
Exactly scarface. That's why I never subscribed
One again
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/17/temp_778296.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AQHA)
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 17, 08:05 PM 2017
I can't believe this thread has went on for nearly 2 years, and 94 pages. Come on Pri, are you ever going to tell us how you play? Much respect to guys like Winkel and many others that put there theorys and system out there for everyone to form there own opinion. So much time wasted here reading all these clues with no grand finale. Although, I've seen alot of this on these forums. Who knows, usually when someone reveals a unique method of play others usually throw in there ideas and make it even better. Pri, hope you consider this....you're gonna drive Falkner crazy you know lol
It should go on for longer... considering the sky is the limit! But why wasn't there already a similar thread like it before 2015 during the time when reddwarf returned from his HG journey? It seems like it took Priyanka's exceptional writing skills to put this on the map.
On a single "quad"
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/18/temp_209880.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AAiQ)
8) O0 :thumbsup:
On a single "sixains"
You say "lines"?
I am french. It's a bit longer ....
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/18/temp_654789.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AVsy)
Has anyone tried?
I still have an example on a "quad"
Does that tell you?
::)
plolp if you could give some example with numbers and some explanation what is what and when and why do you bet we can give some tests..i decided to post since every one is just looking at it..thx
Quote from: maestro on Apr 18, 10:46 AM 2017
plolp if you could give some example with numbers and some explanation what is what and when and why do you bet we can give some tests..i decided to post since every one is just looking at it..thx
I'm surprised you of all people, maestro, can't see how plolp is playing... :o
Quote from: plolp on Apr 18, 10:42 AM 2017
Has anyone tried?
I still have an example on a "quad"
Does that tell you?
::)
When I finish VdW on ECs I'll give it a try - thanks! :thumbsup:
Nobody understood except falkor?
I am French and it is difficult to explain in another language.
Did anyone understand the example on the dozens?
Quotemaestro, can't see how plolp is playing
i am very very stupid you should have known it by now.. :'(
I would try to explain a little later.
Quote from: maestro on Apr 18, 11:35 AM 2017
i am very very stupid you should have known it by now.. :'(
What!? You mean you were bluffing all that time?? :twisted: I always believed you were 2nd in command to Priyanka or something...
BTW, why has Priyanka never acknowledged Reddwarf?
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/18/temp_784076.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/AarS)
Left column : 0 1 -1
exemple: dz 2 hit then dz 3 = 1
dz 2 hit then dz 1 = -1
dz 1 hit then dz 1 = 0
I color in blue the cycles of this counter
I play only one dz.
Only that which is dominant AND the dominant left counter.
Obviously this is not always possible.
When I make my first bet, The dz3 has just come out .
The dominant left counter is +1 AND dz dominant is dz 1
I play the dz1 because dz3 +1 = dz1
is that clear ?
Do not respond at the same time please !
QuoteI always believed you were 2nd in command to Priyanka or something...
long ago i told you to get medical check...and pills on regular basis...
P.S thx plolp for effort..you could have write it in french...no problem..thanks again
salut plolp
peux tu expliquer en français pas a pas
a quoi corresponde les différentes colonnes en partant de la gauche
comment le chiffre de la colonne de gauche déterminé la dz dominante
a quoi corresponde les cycle en bleue
dz3 +1 = dz1???
franchement c est pas clair
sinon tout le monde aurait compris
tu joue quoi c est quoi le concept
merci plolp
Salut roulettefan
1) A part la colonne de gauche as-tu compris les deux autres ?
2) pour les cycles ça fait quand même 95 pages qu'on en parle !!!
dont get it, thats why we're leaving, Brexit :thumbsup:
Imagine cette sortie de douzaines :
1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3
counter : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
une autre sortie :
3-2-1-3-2-1-3-2-1
counter : -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1
est-ce plus clair?
Quotedont get it, thats why we're leaving, Brexit
hahaha notto you are not there yet...boss is running way no balls to do it
Quote from: maestro on Apr 18, 02:16 PM 2017long ago i told you to get medical check...and pills on regular basis...
You lot are the ones who can't see that the Earth is flat even though it's in plain site - not me!
(link:s://s30.postimg.org/e5l0ne1kh/crazy.jpg)
There you go with the flat earth bullshit again
Several instances of only being able to see partial skylines from across water like Toronto
Everything you post is disinformation
Just stop
Talk about it at your new forum
(link:s://media.tenor.co/images/6e0c970a6dbbf5c0c643e0e96ce35230/tenor.gif)
The title of this thread certainly fits - Random Thoughts. It's all over the place with nothing to show. We need more clues and charts ;D
This is clearly a matter between maestro and myself, so don't get involved, RG! :P Maestro should know better than RG - at least he wouldn't agree with RG that roulette cannot be beaten using Non-Random methods. I'm sure you would all agree that 9/11 was an inside job, and that ain't no minor conspiracy; it's only a small step to get from there to the flat-earth. Likewise, it's only a small step to explore your first edge. If I had had a better idea of what I was looking for then it wouldn't have taken me so long to find it. Since then my hints have been even better than Priyanka's so you should all be on the next level by now... call it BS or whatever, but all these conspiracies are staring you right in the face; you simply have to face your ego. Maestro should be able to advise because he's got the biggest ego in the world - I daren't imagine how painful it was for him when he first discovered the edge.
(link:s://s14.postimg.org/7tyy2rg29/edge.jpg)
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 18, 05:54 PM 2017
The title of this thread certainly fits - Random Thoughts. It's all over the place with nothing to show. We need more clues and charts ;D
Miss out the first AP and you've got 10% negative edge!
| 11326 | 50% | W |
| 4661 | 20% | LW |
| 2144 | 9% | L |
| 2144 | 9% | LL |
| 1241 | 5% | LLW |
| 530 | 2% | LLL |
| 351 | 2% | LLLW |
| 351 | 2% | LLLL |
| 22748 |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD5+11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | CD16+15 ( 8 ) | AP15 ( 9 ) Low | LLL |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | 4 ( 5 ) Low | | | | | LW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | 3 ( 4 ) High | | | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) High | | LL |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | 5 ( 6 ) High | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | 5 ( 6 ) High | | | | LLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | 10 ( 6 ) High | CD6+12 ( 7 ) | AP6 ( 8 ) Low | | LLL |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | 3 ( 4 ) High | | 5 ( 6 ) Low | | | | LLW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | LW |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | LW |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) High | | CD5+10 ( 6 ) | AP5 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
(link:s://s22.postimg.org/bldxntxtd/ice.jpg)
| 5610 | 49% | W |
| 1838 | 16% | LW |
| 2164 | 19% | L |
| 706 | 6% | LL |
| 597 | 5% | LLW |
| 170 | 1% | LLL |
| 161 | 1% | LLLW |
| 189 | 2% | LLLL |
| 11435 |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD5+11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | CD16+15 ( 8 ) | AP15 ( 9 ) Low | LLL |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | 4 ( 5 ) Low | | | | | LW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) High | | CD5+10 ( 6 ) | AP5 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
So where's the best place for me to seek medical help and the right pills...? I can handle the truth, but I can't handle edge... can you?
(link:s://s13.postimg.org/92ja5rvk7/2.cover.gif)
the flat earth theory antarctic ice wall is stupid
know what else is stupid? flat earthers believing satellites are fake
basic common sense you can prove that wrong
they say "satellite radio and satellite TV come from ground antennas"
funny. when I drive under a highway overpass and I am on satellite radio I lose signal, when I have GPS on, I lose signal, but under that same overpass FM radio works fine. why? FM radio is based on ground while satellite radio is based in space
the flat earth idiot brigade cant grasp common sense
(link:://dl0.creation.com/articles/p116/c11646/toronto.gif)
Fine, RG... you win! You are the current champion for now. Congratulations. I will concentrate all my efforts on winning over the house instead - but just remember the law of perspective and how the boats also "sink" before being brought back with a telescope; so I advise getting yourself one of those or a Nikon P900 then after that you can shell out for a Non-Random toy to play with instead... less losses all round that way. ;)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 18, 06:33 PM 2017
Miss out the first AP and you've got 10% negative edge!
| 11326 | 50% | W |
| 4661 | 20% | LW |
| 2144 | 9% | L |
| 2144 | 9% | LL |
| 1241 | 5% | LLW |
| 530 | 2% | LLL |
| 351 | 2% | LLLW |
| 351 | 2% | LLLL |
| 22748 |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD5+11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | CD16+15 ( 8 ) | AP15 ( 9 ) Low | LLL |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | 4 ( 5 ) Low | | | | | LW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | 3 ( 4 ) High | | | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) High | | LL |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | 5 ( 6 ) High | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | 5 ( 6 ) High | | | | LLW |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | 10 ( 6 ) High | CD6+12 ( 7 ) | AP6 ( 8 ) Low | | LLL |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | 3 ( 4 ) High | | 5 ( 6 ) Low | | | | LLW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | LW |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) High | | 3 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | LW |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| 1 ( 2 ) Low | | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) High | | CD5+10 ( 6 ) | AP5 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
(link:s://s22.postimg.org/bldxntxtd/ice.jpg)
| 5610 | 49% | W |
| 1838 | 16% | LW |
| 2164 | 19% | L |
| 706 | 6% | LL |
| 597 | 5% | LLW |
| 170 | 1% | LLL |
| 161 | 1% | LLLW |
| 189 | 2% | LLLL |
| 11435 |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD5+11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | CD16+15 ( 8 ) | AP15 ( 9 ) Low | LLL |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | 4 ( 5 ) Low | | | | | LW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | 4+9 ( 5 ) High | | 12 ( 7 ) High | | | LLW |
| | 8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | | | | | W |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) High | | CD5+10 ( 6 ) | AP5 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | 10 ( 6 ) Low | CD13+12 ( 7 ) | AP13 ( 8 ) Low | | LL |
| | 3+8 ( 4 ) Low | | | | | | W |
| 2 ( 3 ) High | | | CD11+10 ( 6 ) | AP10 ( 7 ) Low | | | L |
this is a trolling level that has not been seen on any forum ever
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 18, 03:54 PM 2017
You lot are the ones who can't see that the Earth is flat even though it's in plain site - not me!
(link:s://s30.postimg.org/e5l0ne1kh/crazy.jpg)
The desire to be special is what drives an insane world. To an insane world, special status is more important than truth.
gift for falkor.... :twisted:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=hbnPkK76Ask (ftp://ftp://:.youtube.com/watch?v=hbnPkK76Ask)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 18, 06:33 PM 2017
Miss out the first AP and you've got 10% negative edge!
| 11326 | 50% | W |
| 4661 | 20% | LW |
| 2144 | 9% | L |
| 2144 | 9% | LL |
| 1241 | 5% | LLW |
| 530 | 2% | LLL |
| 351 | 2% | LLLW |
| 351 | 2% | LLLL |
| 22748 |
Falkor, from your explanation below you said that the single "L" means the clash comes without any prior potential APs forming up to that point.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18732.msg174978#msg174978
Because the first spin a clash (deadlock) can occur is spin 7, how does it give us an advantage to skip the first AP that is forming ?
Quote from: stringbeanpc on Apr 19, 05:02 AM 2017
Falkor, from your explanation below you said that the single "L" means the clash comes without any prior potential APs forming up to that point.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18732.msg174978#msg174978
Because the first spin a clash (deadlock) can occur is spin 7, how does it give us an advantage to skip the first AP that is forming ?
Because the "L" group now has a 10% increase in bias. The entire L combination consists of one AP that loses followed by a clash.
Quote from: maestro on Apr 18, 03:41 PM 2017
hahaha notto you are not there yet...boss is running way no balls to do it
Now i'm not Tory boy or loony labour boy, but good old Mrs May, better her than doo da dally Corbyn
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 18, 07:27 PM 2017
this is a trolling level that has not been seen on any forum ever
Troll level expert. I'm just trying to figure out who's trolling who between Pri and Falknor.
Falkor is smart
But he has cruel intentions on this forum.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 19, 10:25 AM 2017
Falkor is smart
But he has cruel intentions on this forum.
I am only trying to help my fellow citizens discover the truth about their enslavement, but all I get is a slap in the face. So how does my help equate to being cruel? Any examples? And what conclusions do you draw from 9/11 being an inside job? Please list them in bullet form. And when will you start to realise that you've been deceived about gambler's fallacy as well?
Hey falky any clue soon?
Quote from: MumboJumbo on Apr 19, 01:10 PM 2017
Hey falky any clue soon?
The free masons and jesuits created roulette. Duh
Falknor, where is an edge implied anywhere in this post?
VDW- no edge here. VDW is just a fact that an arithmetic progression will occur
Cycle percentages - all the cycle percentages posted by Pri are in line with what they're supposed to be. No edge here
Non Random - no edge here either. It's like saying in 3 spins either a red or black has to repeat....or one of the dozen have to repeat within 4 spins. This is just a fact that means nothing
Events - betting events such as RR or RB bring no advantage over just betting red or black. Same goes for cycle lengths of dozens, lines, etc
I fail to see anything of value here. Am I missing something besides what I just mentioned
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 19, 05:30 PM 2017
Falknor, where is an edge implied anywhere in this post?
VDW- no edge here. VDW is just a fact that an arithmetic progression will occur
Cycle percentages - all the cycle percentages posted by Pri are in line with what they're supposed to be. No edge here
Non Random - no edge here either. It's like saying in 3 spins either a red or black has to repeat....or one of the dozen have to repeat within 4 spins. This is just a fact that means nothing
Events - betting events such as RR or RB bring no advantage over just betting red or black. Same goes for cycle lengths of dozens, lines, etc
I fail to see anything of value here. Am I missing something besides what I just mentioned
Yeah, I think we are all missing something really quite dramatic: reddwarf should have come out of the woodwork by now and told us his story - or priyanka should have at least spoken about reddwarf. I still feel kinda sad about that. :'(
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 19, 05:30 PM 2017
Falknor, where is an edge implied anywhere in this post?
VDW- no edge here. VDW is just a fact that an arithmetic progression will occur
Cycle percentages - all the cycle percentages posted by Pri are in line with what they're supposed to be. No edge here
Non Random - no edge here either. It's like saying in 3 spins either a red or black has to repeat....or one of the dozen have to repeat within 4 spins. This is just a fact that means nothing
Events - betting events such as RR or RB bring no advantage over just betting red or black. Same goes for cycle lengths of dozens, lines, etc
I fail to see anything of value here. Am I missing something besides what I just mentioned
its mainly stating stuff we know will happen but in no way increases our edge at the game
I'll be posting the practical VdW edge results for the L group later this afternoon, guys - so stay tuned! :thumbsup:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 21, 05:17 AM 2017
I'll be posting the practical VdW edge results for the L group later this afternoon, guys - so stay tuned! :thumbsup:
Can't wait.
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 19, 05:30 PM 2017
Falknor, where is an edge implied anywhere in this post?
VDW- no edge here. VDW is just a fact that an arithmetic progression will occur
Cycle percentages - all the cycle percentages posted by Pri are in line with what they're supposed to be. No edge here
Non Random - no edge here either. It's like saying in 3 spins either a red or black has to repeat....or one of the dozen have to repeat within 4 spins. This is just a fact that means nothing
Events - betting events such as RR or RB bring no advantage over just betting red or black. Same goes for cycle lengths of dozens, lines, etc
I fail to see anything of value here. Am I missing something besides what I just mentioned
Scarface,
Good summary.
In addition, Priyanka and Gilius-Falkor both ignore the 0 (and the 00) in their discussions, so when you actually play in a B&M casino or an online casino, the 0 (and the 00) will make their appearances in due course -- and you will find yourself as far away from the promised "edge" as ever.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 21, 12:49 PM 2017
Scarface,
Good summary.
In addition, Priyanka and Gilius-Falkor both ignore the 0 (and the 00) in their discussions, so when you actually play in a B&M casino or an online casino, the 0 (and the 00) will make their appearances in due course -- and you will find yourself as far away from the promised "edge" as ever.
The idea that betting a certain way effecting the edge in anyway is in and of itself idiocy.
Results posted at the FlatEarthSociety board in the relevant forum... need something to kick-start my site! :wink:
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 21, 12:49 PM 2017
Scarface,
Good summary.
In addition, Priyanka and Gilius-Falkor both ignore the 0 (and the 00) in their discussions, so when you actually play in a B&M casino or an online casino, the 0 (and the 00) will make their appearances in due course -- and you will find yourself as far away from the promised "edge" as ever.
Yeah, you're right, I ignored zeroes in my test. Is this because I am trying to mislead people re: edge instead of variance? :twisted:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 21, 02:19 PM 2017
Results posted at the FlatEarthSociety board in the relevant forum... need something to kick-start my site! :wink:
Won't be long before you charge a subscription and con people
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 19, 05:30 PM 2017Falknor, where is an edge implied anywhere in this post?
VDW- no edge here. VDW is just a fact that an arithmetic progression will occur
Cycle percentages - all the cycle percentages posted by Pri are in line with what they're supposed to be. No edge here
Non Random - no edge here either. It's like saying in 3 spins either a red or black has to repeat....or one of the dozen have to repeat within 4 spins. This is just a fact that means nothing
Events - betting events such as RR or RB bring no advantage over just betting red or black. Same goes for cycle lengths of dozens, lines, etc
I fail to see anything of value here. Am I missing something besides what I just mentioned
Scarface, after spending days (with lot of efforts) to read all 97 pages of this thread and read lot of posts multiple times, I found your this very post on page 97. Now I am confused, am I loving you or am I hating you, I think both at the same time. I cannot express my feelings at the moment.
Hopefully I will get more this type of Superb reviews in future from you. Thanks a lot, God Bless You.
Best Regards,
SugTips
It is always the same.
People don´t think about the good in an idea, they just find the Zero-argument.
There is a way to handle the Zero.
Besides that: How often will the Zero hit, when there is a bet-opportunity?
How often will a Zero hit in 9 spins?
Some here argue: Just place a bet and the Zero will hit.
Some will never learn to find the essence of an idea
What makes the zero pocket special?
Damn, you guys (sugtips, Scarface, 3Nine et al.) are so protective over the HG! >:D 99% of peeps do not even realise the Earth is flat... what chance have they possibly got of ever believing in Non-Random?? I must have mentioned Non-Random to more than 20 people in passing... not a single person even considered it could be true. They said they would only take me seriously if I was donned in gold! :lol: And Non-Random isn't for lazy people either, even if they believe in it, so there's really no danger whatsoever. Human indoctrination is way too advanced now. Roulette is here to stay alongside Non-Random - no matter how openly it's discussed.
Falkor, please don't start on the flat earth crap again. I wasted many hours giving it serious investigation and there was not a single valid argument. Just uneducated rants and bad logic. I'm mortified that sime people are so stupid. Its not an insult. At some point a spade must be called a spade.
As for non random, nothing is random. But prediction is a different matter. I havent seen a single thing to indicate anything you have can predict random.
QuoteHow often will the Zero hit
that much...1/37 if you are lucky
Well, Steve, I've already had confirmation at my forum that I did a "good job" and that my test "works rather well" using wiesbaden data - so that's confirmation that I have something that can predict random based on Priyanka's opening post to this topic. Of course, it's too late now to progress to the next stage because the problem should have been solved 1.5 years ago - and the waters have now been muddied beyond repair. This topic has served it's time here I think, and now it's time to move on afresh without all the pollution - partly my fault from all the useless stats I posted in the early days.
Quote from: winkel on Apr 22, 08:26 AM 2017
It is always the same.
People don´t think about the good in an idea, they just find the Zero-argument.
There is a way to handle the Zero.
Besides that: How often will the Zero hit, when there is a bet-opportunity?
How often will a Zero hit in 9 spins?
Some here argue: Just place a bet and the Zero will hit.
Some will never learn to find the essence of an idea
If you are betting on individual numbers, then the 0 and the 00 are just two other numbers.
But when you are betting on even chances (be it B/R, O/E, or H/L), then the 0 and the 00 do matter.
And Priyanka and Gilius-Falkor have, in trying to exploit the Pigeon Hole Principle and the VDW Theorem, proposed methods that focus on betting on the even chances.
So, for their proposed methods, the zeroes do matter once you actually start betting with real money.
Falkor, what reputable test data do you have? The only data I've ever seen is meaningless. Please post your best supporting evidence here.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 22, 09:50 AM 2017
Falkor, what reputable test data do you have? The only data I've ever seen is meaningless. Please post your best supporting evidence here.
I need to purchase an insurance policy first in case RG gets upset in the process.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 22, 09:36 AM 2017
If you are betting on individual numbers, then the 0 and the 00 are just two other numbers.
But when you are betting on even chances (be it B/R, O/E, or H/L), then the 0 and the 00 do matter.
And Priyanka and Gilius-Falkor have, in trying to exploit the Pigeon Hole Principle and the VDW Theorem, proposed methods that focus on betting on the even chances.
So, for their proposed methods, the zeroes do matter once you actually start betting with real money.
OK, let me bring in the zero now, and let's see how much that effects my test results... will report back in 1 hour. O0
For all to learn:
on a Table with la partage the Zero will give back 50% of your bet!
on a Table with no Zero, the Zero will not bother you.
On a table with Zero or 0-00 you can staart crying or you can react like a man:
If I bet a pattern and it tells me to bet Red and a Zero comes up, I put it on Black.
Because, if I bet an EC I always bet 18 vs 19 and so I put the Zero where it belongs.
If I follow the VdW on EC I recommend not to note R/B; H/L or O/E but to not W an L
Now you can see the upcoming AP and see you will win, or you will lose. If you are shown to lose, then just play the opposite.
It is that easy, just think and don´t hate.
Quotedon´t hate
i dont...as you say you put on zero and evens so that is 19/37
if you know when zero hits bet on zero for that spin....problem is no matter what we do we are always between two numbers <0> and <1>...0 for something does not happen and 1 happens...<probability> is called
Quote from: maestro on Apr 22, 10:20 AM 2017
i dont...as you say you put on zero and evens so that is 19/37
if you know when zero hits bet on zero for that spin....problem is no matter what we do we are always between two numbers <0> and <1>...0 for something does not happen and 1 happens...<probability> is called
If you are such afraid and annoyed of the Zero: don´t play Roulette!
:xd: :xd: :xd:
ok thanks
@falkor....falkor does betting for AP to hit on 3,4,6 spin gets better than rest of them plus 0
Quote from: maestro on Apr 22, 12:06 PM 2017
@falkor....falkor does betting for AP to hit on 3,4,6 spin gets better than rest of them plus 0
I don't know, but I brought the zero in on my last test and the edge DOUBLED(!!) - but I had to reverse all bets from what I was doing before. Instead +300 it's now at +600! So need to study more inside-out techniques to increase edge in other contexts... still not sure why bringing in zero changed the stats so much for ECs. Dr was right.
With all the edge talk how many millionaires do we have now? Falkor?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 22, 12:46 PM 2017
With all the edge talk how many millionaires do we have now? Falkor?
Edge can't make us millionaires without applying it to a good all-round master strategy.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 22, 12:46 PM 2017
With all the edge talk how many millionaires do we have now? Falkor?
I'll put my hand up for one. ;D
Quote from: sugtips on Apr 22, 03:18 AM 2017
Scarface, after spending days (with lot of efforts) to read all 97 pages of this thread and read lot of posts multiple times, I found your this very post on page 97. Now I am confused, am I loving you or am I hating you, I think both at the same time. I cannot express my feelings at the moment.
Hopefully I will get more this type of Superb reviews in future from you. Thanks a lot, God Bless You.
Best Regards,
SugTips
Don't feel bad, I've spent a great deal of time on this too! VDW, or arithmetic progression, is just a fact that doesn't increase accuracy of bets....even Pri has said so. It's no different in saying red will come up 50% over the long run.
One thing I did spend alot of time working on is whether or not events have lower variance than even chances. I've tried this in a variety of ways, with different types of events. In a nutshell, events can have the same long bad luck streaks as anything else.
I don't really see anything on this post that would provide an edge in flat betting. Also, nothing here that will lower the variance of the game enough to allow a progression that doesn't spiral out of control.
I will continue to search for a good system. I think the key for a good system comes down to a good progression, and money management. I'll keep working at it....and if I do discover something promising I'll post it (without all the cryptic clues :))
Now you MIT and OX_BRIDGE boys have got to the bottom, can you give an example to the low levellers or just for me on how events and cycles work
.
Quote from: nottophammer on Apr 23, 04:00 PM 2017
Now you MIT and OX_BRIDGE boys have got to the bottom, can you give an example to the low levellers or just for me on how events and cycles work
You have to concentrate on the unique numbers between the repeats. Each number/pigeon is part of a "strong" or "weak" structure that takes on certain characteristics - but individually the numbers mean nothing. The idea is to win each cycle or break even - in 36 spins you should definitely be in profit - need to plan beforehand how to bet the 36 spins based on events so that you collect enough wins at the end by exploiting the structures.
Quote from: Scarface on Apr 23, 02:37 PM 2017
Don't feel bad, I've spent a great deal of time on this too! VDW, or arithmetic progression, is just a fact that doesn't increase accuracy of bets....even Pri has said so. It's no different in saying red will come up 50% over the long run.
One thing I did spend alot of time working on is whether or not events have lower variance than even chances. I've tried this in a variety of ways, with different types of events. In a nutshell, events can have the same long bad luck streaks as anything else.
I don't really see anything on this post that would provide an edge in flat betting. Also, nothing here that will lower the variance of the game enough to allow a progression that doesn't spiral out of control.
I will continue to search for a good system. I think the key for a good system comes down to a good progression, and money management. I'll keep working at it....and if I do discover something promising I'll post it (without all the cryptic clues :))
Thank you Scarface,
Yes Please, I will wait for your system.
I also realized that two most important thing to win more sessions than losing sessions are:
1) Good Bet Selection
2) Good Negative Progression
For finding Good Bet Selection I am testing all the Ignatus systems, I think some bet selections are very good, for example his recent WOFT2
For finding Good Negative Progression, I am still in search but getting interested in some very old posts, like 29 step prog etc.
best regards,
SugTips
The answers to some of the questions here are actually really, really old news. Do some simple research. Gambling is at least many thousands of years old and the same principles have been tested countless times.
Why waste time trying to reinvent?
Quote from: sugtips on Apr 24, 02:07 AM 2017
2) Good Negative Progression
best regards,
SugTips
Good negative progression ??
Now there's an oxymoron, if ever there was one. :twisted: :twisted:
Quote from: Priyanka on Jan 21, 03:53 PM 2016
However, this one game in itself gives an edge over the game slightly higher than 9% which should defeat the house edge of american roulette.
Can somebody say that it is true?
I was looking over Priyanka's 2nd video (still up on Youtube):
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RWS1Ar_YM
I've got a new analysis of it below. She was using Line cycles as the non-random framework.
There's a few things that just don't add up:
*Why have virtual spins between bets? Is it mainly to complete the previous sequence or virtual spins for the next sequence?
*It seems the virtual spins might be so that Priyanka can commence betting when the Line cycle is defined "different" to previous line cycle, but I cannot find any advantage from D-S as either outer cycles or deficit recovery since the stats never change based on previous games.
*It seems Priyanka on 2 occasions was betting on the defining element of the cycle before last; however, I found that there's really no connection between 2 cycles unless part of an outer cycle. The only significant thing about any cycle, including outer, is the first unique or starting partition - but this doesn't seem to help gain any advantage over 1 or 2 cycles, etc. Priyanka's videos and her green spreadsheet are really starting to look more random...
Key: Number, High/Low, Dozen, Line - S/D = same/different line repeater as previous.
11 L12
7 L12 - Low (lose)
24 H24 - Dozen 1 (lose)
16 L23 - Line 2 (win)
9 L12S
(9 L12)
29 H35
26 H35D - High (win)
19 H24 - High (lose)
11 L12 - Dozen 3 (lose)
14 L23 - Line 5 (lose)
5 L11 - Line 5 (win)
28 H35S
(28 H35)
19 H24
35 H36
19 H24D - High (win)
21 H24S
(21 H24) - discounted?
35 H36
22 H24s
26 H35
35 H36 - High (lose)
18 L23 - Dozen 3 (lose)
12 L12 - Line 6 (lose)
13 L23D - Line 6 (lose)
19 H24 - Line 6 + Dozen 2 + High (win)
15 L23S - Low (win)
9 L12 - Low x 2 (win)
13 L23S - Low (win)
7 L12 - Low (lose)
20 H24 - Dozen 2 (win)
18 L23S
(18 L23)
8 L12
6 L11
19 H24
14 L23S
33 H36
26 H35
17 L23S - Low (win)
17 L23S
(17 L23)
3 L11
4 L11D - Low (win)
6 L11S
(6 L11)
33 H36
26 H35
7 L12
18 L23
27 H35D - High (win)
23 H24 - High (lose)
17 L23 - Low+Dozen 3 (even)
15 L23D - Low (win)
3 L11 - Low x2 (win)
13 L23S
(13 L23)
20 H24
19 H24D - High (lose)
17 L23 - Dozen 2 (lose)
36 H36 - Line 4 (lose)
30 H35 - Line 4 (win)
24 H24S
(24 H24)
24 H24S
18 L23
14 L23D - Low (win)
5 L11 - Low (lose)
27 H35 - Dozen 2 (lose)
5 L11S - Line 3+Low (win)
16 L23
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 10, 04:52 PM 2018green spreadsheet
Wonder what's missing from the green spreadsheet.
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 23, 06:59 AM 2018
Wonder what's missing from the green spreadsheet.
Win-Loss tally...?
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 25, 09:53 AM 2018
Would that help you win?
Well, Priyanka was playing Six Dozen Options mechanically based on the first available repeat, i.e.:
Option 1... bet option 1
Option 12... bet option 1+2
Option 123... bet option 1+2+3
Option 1231... win!
That's very similar to VdW, i.e. betting for the first available AP regardless of any stats, and was the basis for her "Journey" series of videos.
As with VdW focus on the green spreadsheet/six dozen options seems to be based on the Win-Loss registry:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/ml55hp5x7/874.png)
Priyanka seems to mostly change her bet following a series of losses.
I can certainly make a tally and see if there's any patterns, but I doubt it.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 25, 05:33 PM 2018Well, Priyanka was playing Six Dozen Options mechanically based on the first available repeat, i.e.:
Option 1... bet option 1
Option 12... bet option 1+2
Option 123... bet option 1+2+3
Option 1231... win!
Amazing!
How did you understood that?
Quote from: praline on Jun 25, 05:51 PM 2018
Amazing!
How did you understood that?
It was in part thanks to you - but is no different to the VDW method, and doesn't result in edge, so nothing particularly amazing... an amazing bedtime story, perhaps?
Here's the win-loss registry for Six Dozen Options as per mechanical rules:
L L L L W
L L L L W
L L L L W
L W
L W
L W L L W W
W W
L L L W
L L W
L L L W L W
L L L L L L L
L W
L W
W
L L L L W L L W L L W L
L W L L W
W
L W
W
W
L L L W
W
L L L L W
L L W
L L W
L W
W
L L L L L
L W L L W
L W
L W L L L
L L W
L W
W
W
W
L L W L W
L L W
L W L W L L W
L L W
L W
L L L L L L L
L L W
W
L W
L L W
W
L L L
L L W L L L W
L W
W
L L L L W
L W
L W
W
L L L L L W
L W L L L L W W
L L L W
L L L W
L W
L W
L L L L W W
L W L L W W
L W
L L W
L L L L W W
L W
L L L L L L
L W
L W W
L W L L L L W L L L L L L
W L L L L L L W
W
L W
L W
W
L W
L L L L W
L W
W
L L L L L W
L W
L L L W
L L W
L W
L W
L L L L L W
L L L L W
L W W
L W L W W
L W
L L W
L L L L
W
L L L L W
W
L L L L L
W
L L W
W
L L W
W
W
L L L W
W
L L W
W
W
L L W
L W
W
L L L L L W
L L L L W L L W L L W
L W
L L L W
L W
W
L L L L W
L L L W
W
L W
L L L L W
L L W
W
L L L L L W
L W L L W W
L L L L L L
W
L W
L L L W
L L L W W
L W L L L W
L W
L L W
L W
L L W
L L W
L L L W
L L W
L W
L W
L L W
W
L W
L L W
W
L L L L L L L
L L W W
L W
L W
W
L L L W
W
W
L W
L W
W
L L L L L W
W
L W
L L L L L L L
L L W
W
L L L W L W
W
L L L L W
L L W
L L L W
W
L W
L L W
W
L L W
L L L L L
L L L W
L L L L L L L
L L L
W
L W
L W
L L W
L W
L L L L L L
W
W
W
L L W
L L L L W W
L W W
W
L W
L W
L L L L W L L W W
L L W L W
L L L W
L L L L W
L W
L W
L L L W
W
Any pattern?
There could be a slight bias...? :ooh:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/h610urlu3/bias1.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/4emuo9jrv/bias2.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/ua6l7h117/bias3.png)(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/hisf0yjjf/bias4.png)
Hello, I am new to join this forum. I am a Mathematics/Computer Science student that has been studying Combinatorial Theory, and especially Ramsey Theory. One day, I got the interesting idea to play casino games with some important theorems in Ramsey Theory, especially Van der Waerden's Theorem and Shur's Theorem. I started coding up a roulette simulator last night to test my algorithms.
This thread is cool. The first posts took a step in the right direction, but I think that there is lots and lots of room for further development, as well as the potential to lay other casino games in this type of strategy.
I think about the game of roulette as being a set S of 38 elements. We can partition this set into different partitions in different ways. Namely:
%% =Partitions=
%% __________________________________________
%% | elements | partitions | number of ways |
%% |----------|------------|----------------|
%% | 12 | 3 | 2 |
%% | 18 | 2 | 3 |
%% | 1 | 36 | 1 |
%% | 4 | 9 | 1 |
%% | 2 | 18 | 1 |
%% | 3 | 12 | 1 |
%% | 6 | 6 | 1 |
%% |----------------------------------------|
%%
Not to mention the fact that {0,00} will always be in their own disjoint partition of the set. We can actually identify multiple arithmetic progression at the same time, based on a single element being a member of multiple partitions at the same time. Thus, we can tremendously increase the odds of winning. Theoretically, I conjecture that it is possible to get almost 100% win rate.
Set partitions are an interesting area of math. The second kind of sterling number is the number of ways to partition a set of n elements in partitions of size k: S(n,k). The Catalan Number is the number of non-intersecting partitions. You can calculate it by subtracting all set partitions that intersect from the second Sterling Number. The Catalan number is also the number of full binary trees on n+1 leaves, and is also the number of paths that can be taken to get from point A to point B without crossing the diagonal straight line between the points.
There are many other applications of combinatorial number theory in Baccarat, for example, which can be thought of as a system of polynomials modulo 10.
Yes, first 5 pages of this thread... then it went to s#!t.
And yes, the beginnings are there.
Quote from: baldguy99 on Jul 31, 10:47 AM 2018
Hello, I am new to join this forum. I am a Mathematics/Computer Science student that has been studying Combinatorial Theory, and especially Ramsey Theory. One day, I got the interesting idea to play casino games with some important theorems in Ramsey Theory, especially Van der Waerden's Theorem and Shur's Theorem. I started coding up a roulette simulator last night to test my algorithms.
This thread is cool. The first posts took a step in the right direction, but I think that there is lots and lots of room for further development, as well as the potential to lay other casino games in this type of strategy.
I think about the game of roulette as being a set S of 38 elements. We can partition this set into different partitions in different ways. Namely:
%% =Partitions=
%% __________________________________________
%% | elements | partitions | number of ways |
%% |----------|------------|----------------|
%% | 12 | 3 | 2 |
%% | 18 | 2 | 3 |
%% | 1 | 36 | 1 |
%% | 4 | 9 | 1 |
%% | 2 | 18 | 1 |
%% | 3 | 12 | 1 |
%% | 6 | 6 | 1 |
%% |----------------------------------------|
%%
Not to mention the fact that {0,00} will always be in their own disjoint partition of the set. We can actually identify multiple arithmetic progression at the same time, based on a single element being a member of multiple partitions at the same time. Thus, we can tremendously increase the odds of winning. Theoretically, I conjecture that it is possible to get almost 100% win rate.
Set partitions are an interesting area of math. The second kind of sterling number is the number of ways to partition a set of n elements in partitions of size k: S(n,k). The Catalan Number is the number of non-intersecting partitions. You can calculate it by subtracting all set partitions that intersect from the second Sterling Number. The Catalan number is also the number of full binary trees on n+1 leaves, and is also the number of paths that can be taken to get from point A to point B without crossing the diagonal straight line between the points.
There are many other applications of combinatorial number theory in Baccarat, for example, which can be thought of as a system of polynomials modulo 10.
Why would 0/00 be different than any of the other numbers?
You said they’d be their own partition.
Curious why
And welcome, interesting contribution there.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 11:20 AM 2018Why would 0/00 be different than any of the other numbers?
They don't fall under any dozen or EC ie any subset on the table except their own.
Quote from: Badger on Aug 01, 05:20 AM 2018
They don't fall under any dozen or EC ie any subset on the table except their own.
Because {0,00} cannot be in the partitions for red/black, even/odd, 1st 12, 2nd 12, etc. {0,00} is always disjoint from every other partition
That's what I meant. Except you said it more elegantly. :thumbsup:
Also, just to let it be known: I am really only interested in the mathematics. I want to use this to go playing once or twice, but I am most interested in the math. I am hoping that the OP and other interested people will post here so we can talk about it more. The thing is, Red/Black is not the only way to partition the set! there are many ways to do it at the same time. The trick is to keep track of multiple A.P.'s at the same time.
Sorry Baldguy.
I am mathematically challenged, so I guess that excludes me.
Perhaps this attachment might help you.
Quote from: baldguy99 on Aug 01, 11:09 AM 2018
Also, just to let it be known: I am really only interested in the mathematics. I want to use this to go playing once or twice, but I am most interested in the math. I am hoping that the OP and other interested people will post here so we can talk about it more. The thing is, Red/Black is not the only way to partition the set! there are many ways to do it at the same time. The trick is to keep track of multiple A.P.'s at the same time.
Cool, also to let it be known if you're looking for a "mathematical proof" that could be a while. Just setting expectations here.
Things are about to get really interesting around here. Stay tuned.
????? Hmmmm...
Let's discover epiphany together:
"Ramsey theory, named after the British mathematician and philosopher Frank P. Ramsey, is a branch of mathematics that studies the conditions under which order must appear. Problems in Ramsey theory typically ask a question of the form: "how many elements of some structure must there be to guarantee that a particular property will hold?" More specifically, Ron Graham describes Ramsey theory as a "branch of combinatorics"."
"Van der Waerden's theorem is a theorem in the branch of mathematics called Ramsey theory. Van der Waerden's theorem states that for any given positive integers r and k, there is some number N such that if the integers {1, 2, ..., N} are colored, each with one of r different colors, then there are at least k integers in arithmetic progression all of the same color. The least such N is the Van der Waerden number W(r, k). It is named after the Dutch mathematician B. L. van der Waerden."
"In Ramsey theory, Schur's theorem states that for any partition of the positive integers into a finite number of parts, one of the parts contains three integers x, y, z..."
Let me save you a billion brain cells. You will find that for every predictor that you submit to, with your mathematical bet selection process, no matter how good it is in figures, you will discover in long run testing that three primary results will permeate your data that you assemble. It will flow thru states of being very favorable to the player, moderate to flat for the player, and last but not least, it will flow thru states of very bad for the player. So "WHEN" must come to mind as a factor in any final permutation of an original idea in your final math theory. I hope that you find that to bet true as well.
Thanks Giz.
You know where but you don't know when sounds really familiar ;)
Quote from: Blueprint on Aug 18, 09:49 PM 2018
Things are about to get really interesting around here. Stay tuned.
Changed my mind after further advice. Thanks, Badger.
Smelled that carrot on a stick from over here
It’s usually a strong scent
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 19, 01:36 PM 2018
Smelled that carrot on a stick from over here
It’s usually a strong scent
Same here.
OK, I think I've finally found the secret to Non-Random cycles! And it's taken 4 years EXACTLY to this day...
We can create dependency between cycles - no not by carrying over the defining element per se - but by playing for the 2nd+ repeat!
Cycles aren't usually considered when tracking multiple repeats (ala TurboGenius) because it's usually done like this:
First to 1: 121; First to 2: 21; First to 3: 1
Cycles is a bit different:
1231
11
122
2321
1 defined the cycle 3 times compared to 2 (once) and 3 (zero); however, the actual running count is more equal compared to tracking multiple repeats proper:
4 4 2
It seems that cycles can track multiple repeats without the law of large numbers getting in the way - and deadlocks are almost non-existent for some reason!? :ooh:
Happy anniversary!!! O0 >:D :xd: :girl_to:
Oops - I made a little blunder with the last cycle (2321) - but you get the idea anyway... :-\
So go make your millions(!!) because you only have 4 years before our monetary society comes to an end on the 27th June 2023 - to gradually be replaced by 5 factions ala Brave New World (for example: see the 2014 movie Divergent).
You've all seen that movie Crawl, right? Was released August 23rd last month:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/6p9dj1Ms/vlcsnap-2019-08-19-00h44m58s999.png)
falkor, please give another example, but using quads. Thanks
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 15, 03:53 PM 2019
OK, I think I've finally found the secret to Non-Random cycles! And it's taken 4 years EXACTLY to this day...
We can create dependency between cycles - no not by carrying over the defining element per se - but by playing for the 2nd+ repeat!
Prediction will not work
See attached for example...
This is quite interesting if we wish to modify our "process" - but not our predictability:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/6Q3Xw4x6/a.png)(link:s://i.postimg.cc/bvBjvYqx/b.png)
- Both began with CL3
- First game won on the 2nd repeat after only 1 deadlock
- Second game won on the 3rd repeat after 2 deadlocks
- First game was twice as expensive compared to the second game even though the finite series was much shorter