This is what I’ve gleaned so far from studying the Random Thoughts topics â€" additions/corrections/feedback welcome for version 2. Does everything below make sense?
Here’s a
random stream of straight up numbers between the range of 0 and 36 as generated from a Roulette wheel:
17, 20, 11, 35, 34, 12, 23, 15, 31, 30, 24, 21, 3, 1, 7, 11, 14, 25, 13
The above translates to the dozen positions below (1-12, 13-24, 25-36) on the Roulette carpet:
2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2
Both sets of numbers are
sequences of
spins. The numbers we work with during a set or game, like the ones above â€" selected from a larger stream of random numbers â€" are known as our
personal permanence.
The first spin has 3 possible outcomes in terms of dozens: 1, 2 or 3 (ignoring zero and the
house edge).
The first 2 spins have 9 different
combinations; the first 3 spins have 27 different combinations.
Any outcome of a sequence, based on a specific combination that we measure, is an
event. We can also have a sequence of events.
The probability of winning a spin or sequence remains
constant in terms of
odds providing your bet selections are already predetermined before betting commences; however, upon modifying the bet selection after, say, the first or second spin then the probability/odds has to be recalculated for a reduced sequence. The probability for winning, say, spin 1 and spin 3 would need to be calculated based on a specific combination that could occur during that sequence.
Each event is not equally likely, but has differing probabilities/odds associated with them, creating an
imbalance.
Playing larger sequences would involve ever more combinations, outcomes and complex calculations. We can limit the combinations by breaking down our games into
cycles based on when a number or dozen (or other section depending on what’s being played) repeats. This is an application of
Pigeon Hole Principle, which says a repeat must happen after such a time. It’s also considered to be
Non-Random or
Non-Probabilistic (or a limit of Random) because it must happen as fact.
22
2133
3122
233
322
211
11
11
1232
The number of spins for each type of combination that ends in a repeat is known as the
cycle length. The first cycle has a cycle length of 2 unless we use the alternative convention for counting only the
uniques per cycle, in which case it has a cycle length of 1 â€" a bit like US vs. UK footwear â€" the convention you choose is down to personal preference, but the next principle would make the case for the latter to be more universally accepted: the repeating dozen that ended the cycle â€" whose outcome is subsequently used as the first result of the proceeding cycle â€" is known as the
defining dozen and perhaps should not count towards the cycle length. This defining dozen is the link between each cycle creating a
biased game â€" together with ending on a repeat â€" results in
constant ratios from one cycle to the next. This framework is
finite (or natural): the defining element of the cycle â€" be it in dozens, lines, numbers or any position played in a cycle â€" has a near-fixed probability of being defined the
same or
different (depending on the position played) cycle to cycle. The cycle lengths between cycles also take on their own near-fixed percentages based on whether the cycle had the same defining element (or was different) to the previous one.
| Cycles | Cycle Length | Defined by |
| 22 | 1 | 2 |
| 2133 | 3 | 3 |
| 3122 | 3 | 2 |
| 233 | 2 | 3 |
| 322 | 2 | 2 |
| 211 | 2 | 1 |
| 11 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | 1 | 1 |
| 1232 | 3 | 2 |
These constant ratios between cycles means they are less affected by variances and deviations â€" with a more predictable and stable pattern of sets in the long run, and being
short and finite, such cycles escape being caught by the
Law of the Large Numbers. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the ratios with the most bias are the most profitable of the events, if any. We need to find a way to ride on the limited variances or imbalances.
The idea here in terms of a winning strategy is to try to close off each cycle with a repeat, based on the most likely cycle length (and defining elements?), and playing for each cycle length event involves
stitching bets of different dozens â€" often with some overlap to attributes of the previous bet in the sequence â€" hence “stitchedâ€. An event in one cycle, such as a specific cycle length â€" could act as a
trigger in creating bias for a different event in another cycle.
If a win isn’t forthcoming we can
increase the span of the biased game by ending some cycles after 2 or more repeats, but without exceeding what is optimum to avoid falling into the black hole that is the Law of Large Numbers: this is where a game takes a negative turn for the worst and becomes increasingly difficult to recover from, in what inevitably ends up as a losing set.
Each cycle (including possibly each individual spin) â€" as defined “same†or â€different†to the previous cycle â€" should be played mostly in a non-probabilistic way through automatically filtering the random personal permanence stream for suitable non-random bet selections using
VdW/Arithmetic Progression(AP). This doesn’t work first time out of the box, but must be used as an core component for finding harmony between its non-random selections and the creation of a biased game with stitched bets: when to enter a cycle and when/what to bet on inside a cycle. Often or not the bet should not be placed randomly â€" but only if supported by VdW â€" which itself may need tweaking by perhaps first incorporating virtual losses before attempting to form an AP or through some opposite play against forming the AP.
Dead-heats will also need to be overcome through playing
parallel games to create
dependencies (no solution found at the time of writing) or perhaps placing a stitched bet in parallel should the tweaking of VdW alone fail to neutralise the situation. All these principles used together can result in gaining an edge, which can then be taken advantage of by using
progressions, riding on the imbalances. However, cycles alone may be the only non-random element needed to gain edge, and the application of VdW has yet to be discovered.
Next time I'll make it longer... as I've had to cut things a bit short, but this should at least get you started with the main topic
Random Thoughts - A concise reference
Quote from: Lucky7Red on Jun 23, 07:52 AM 2016
Is this system based on luck or something else?
It's based on non-random events, i.e. events that have to happen: cycles have to end in a repeat.
We need to figure out how to gain edge based on:
1) Riding on imbalances: when certain profitable events are due
2) Parallel Games and dependencies: how to bet effectively with 2+ streams
3) VdW and looking for support for a bet
4) Virtual wins/losses: possibly something to do with aligning with the stats that govern cycles and their limited combinations
I don't have the answers yet, but now that the principles are nailed and theoretical research complete, I can try to work on some practical application; no guarantees though, as the above principles were described somewhat in-explicitly.
falkor when you tested arithmetic progression do have stats say out of 10000 sample how many times went to 9 spin where you have to bet either red or black..thanks
can you test this one ...bet for only 1 win with progression and retrack,if zero hit ignore it but adjust the progression and get next spin to compleate pattern...thanks
if you get BBRR
you bet RRBB
if you get RRBB
you bet BBRR
if you get BBRB
you bet RBBR
if you get RRBR
you bet BRRB
if you get BRBB
you bet BRBB
if you get RBRR
you bet RBRR
if you get BRBR
you bet BRBR
if you get RBRB
you bet RBRB
if you get BRRB
you bet RBBR
if you get RBBR
you bet BRRB
maestro, I coded that method for you before, but it failed if you remember...
Nevertheless, I've figured out a method that might work - particularly when there's more Ds over Ss (or vice versa). Here I've compared 3 different ways of playing VdW:
1) Look for APs as one large stream (ended +1)
2) Re-track after a win (broke even +0)
3) Multiple games within games (+3!)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/jw9uwz86t/image.png)
It's possible that Priyanka uses this on individual spins - hence she pauses for a while after a loss. Have I killed the golden goose? :twisted: :girl_to:
Good work Mr Falkor, golden goose last legs. Casino shut shop up soon.
Cheers dimsum! This new method opens up a whole new side to our Non-Random AP game: suddenly there's a whole host of new opportunities to further develop this.
When I measured the stats for APs with different distances it was not consistent from one data set to the other - we only knew that combined everything always came to 50/50. Now I am hoping there will be solid stats across all data sets regarding what happens when those APs of differing distances are removed from the sequence and how that affects sub-games. If only we can create some bias in our AP game then we will know which imbalances might warrant a parallel clockwise/counter-clockwise game.
I am going to try playing APs in cycles: when an AP forms then start a new cycle and bring the defining element (same or different) that formed the AP as our bias for the next cycle. I can then see if that results in the same constant ratios as per dozen and quad cycles, etc. We could then decide when to play opposite or even when to bring in these new sub-games - could create further bias - a cyclic framework will only compliment it. I envisage we may also have more constants at our disposal like the number of repeats in each AP cycle.