In every 9 outcomes of High/Low, including other ECs (or any 2 events) there has to be 3 Highs or 3 Lows forming an arithmetic sequence with equal distance! There be just one AP in 9 spins or there could be many. This has been covered before in Priyanka's Random Thoughts topics. Here I've taken it a step further and analysed all APs within a 9 x 9 Matrix; is there some playability here I wonder?
(link:s://s9.postimg.org/qi99jbuun/vdwmatrix.png)
Do outcomes attached to multiple APs have more chance of occurring?
How constant might the above stats be and could we use the law of the third to guide us?
Are the diagonal outcomes more significant than the rest, and should we pay more attention to those bets? How about the middle square?
Would it make any difference if we spaced out and pieced our directions (columns, rows) as we went along to try to make a kind of jigsaw?
By using virtual bets or re-arranging our row/columns as we go along (or any kind of VdW exploitation) can we trap random using overlapping Non-Random APs and force a win - or at least increase our chances - at certain times over others?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 10, 06:37 PM 2016
In every 9 outcomes of High/Low, including other ECs (or any 2 events) there has to be 3 Highs or 3 Lows forming an arithmetic sequence with equal distance!
In what way does this fact help
It seems that if an AP is supported in multiple directions (including odd angles) then there's more chance of occurring? I got +3 so far - but could have got +6:
(link:s://s10.postimg.org/4u83cals9/vdwmatrixb.png)
So that might be the only trick.
Looking back there's another +2 from covering odd angles. I now seriously think that this might be the secret of how to gain edge with VdW: when potential APs are supported in multiple directions or overlapped by parallel APs then there's more chance of forming the AP. For example, Priyanka mentioned VdW is versatile: we could apply S/D, CW/CCW, H/L (3 different types of AP streams) against 1 stream of random data. Here we are doing something similar: we have put VdW in a square matrix with many different overlapping AP streams to guide us. And we know that most APs that do get to form are formed in multiple directions - so we should bet them more when supported in multiple directions. So I think I have made a strong case for this. O0
This would be quite fun to play at the casino! :love:
I counted all possible APs in all directions - including odd angles, FOR and AGAINST the winning AP - and the results were as follows (if played for real):
Wins = 35
Losses = 23
Virtual/Skipped = 22
Total = +12
(link:s://s10.postimg.org/kpa6sbju1/matrixb.png)
Note:
3 APs FOR vs. 0 Against (3/0) = count 6
0 AP AGAINST vs. 3 FOR (0/3) = count 1
That stat is quite revealing IMO... I don't think this can be due to luck.
Are you going to explain to us like we are students what EXACTLY you are doing?
So we can at least formulate opinions.
The VdW matrix I look for APs in all possible directions (west, northwest, north and northeast). If supported by majority of APs then I bet.
It's difficult to play but we don't have to track cycles or anything else on the board other than APs for a simple EC like High and Low. So I just check those 4 directions
west: AP possible? +1 for H
northwest: AP possible? +1 for L
north AP possible? +1 for L
northeast AP possible: not enough squares, say.
2/1 for L so we bet L!
Somebody give me 81 numbers and choose the EC for me to play... I will then go through it step-by-step...
You want them all together or a few at a time?
One more stat:
-If we had flat-bet only L we would have won: 11
-If we had flat-bet only H we would have lost: -11
-If we played the VdW Matrix on both L/H then we would have won +12
QuoteYou want them all together or a few at a time?
Altogether + choose EC.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 10:40 AM 2016Altogether + choose EC.
ok. that is no fun if you know the numbers in advance.. Why not do it a few at a time and explain?
Quote from: Azim on Aug 11, 10:55 AM 2016
ok. that is no fun if you know the numbers in advance.. Why not do it a few at a time and explain?
OK give me 9 at a time until we get to 81?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 11:00 AM 2016
OK give me 9 at a time until we get to 81?
17B
31B
36R
35B
26B
27R
20B
23B
31B
(I'm always willing to help someone who wants to explain something.
I'm usually the one that needs the explaining)
one mistake - reposting
OK let's go... we start with the first row, so we can only bet based on forming APs to the west to begin with (same for the next couple of rows):
B
West: No potential AP possible
B B
B B
West: 1,2,3 possible on B
B B R
Total profit: -1
B B R
West: No potential AP possible
B B R B
West: No potential AP possible
B B R B B
West: 4,5,6 possible on B
B B R B B R
Total profit: -2
B B R B B R
West: 1,4,7 possible on B
B B R B B R B
Total profit: -1
B B R B B R B
West: 2,5,8 pssible on B
B B R B B R B B
Total profit: 0
B B R B B R B B
West: Possible 3,6,9 on Red
West: Possible 7,8,9 on Black
=Clash! (don't bet)
B B R B B R B B B
Ok - next 9 numbers please!
Popcorn and go...!
Thanks Falkor
Falkor,
Interesting twist on the original method, for sure.
But playing this way is not practical under real life conditions -- live dealer or air ball (near-impossible given time between spins).
Too many opportunities for mistakes. But still thanks for sharing this method.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Aug 11, 03:59 PM 2016
Falkor,
Interesting twist on the original method, for sure.
But playing this way is not practical under real life conditions -- live dealer or air ball (near-impossible given time between spins).
Too many opportunities for mistakes. But still thanks for sharing this method.
I just came back from the casino tonight. Very easy and relaxing to play this whilst watching everyone else lose their money! I swear I saw Dimsun there. I went in with only 12 units and won 5 units profit. I would have stayed longer to complete the matrix, but friend wasn't betting and finished his drink so I cashed out.
HHHLLLHLH
LLLLLHLHH
LLLL
In the first half of the matrix, most potential APs are based on only 3-5 squares so quick to make decisions.
Somebody posed the question recently whether playing in squares or matrices can be advantageous. I never had the complete answer - but what I can add now is that playing in a 9 x 9 square like this is what I call "visual dependency"! We can create dependency without actually having to memorise anything - it's purely triggered by visual geometry.
You'll never make money betting the outside.
Ken
I dunno about that
I saw a guy bet his life savings on a color
Won
To him he won on the outside
Its allllll relative. Not everyone plays for a living
Priyanka won using VdW on Red and Black. Here's her graph:
(link:s://s9.postimg.org/o819b8o9b/Capture.png)
I've now implemented the grid in my simulator:
(link:s://s9.postimg.org/a1aawc6qn/matrix.png)
Next step is to implement multi-directional VdW.
Vdw is an extremely simply concept.
If a graph could look like that on w color then wed all be rich
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 11, 09:17 PM 2016
Vdw is an extremely simply concept.
If a graph could look like that on w color then wed all be rich
Then its settled....RF will be shutting down soon. The HG (again) has been reborn.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 11, 07:41 PM 2016
You'll never make money betting the outside.
Ken
Thanks for the tip!
Now, if only i could find a thread that shows how to make money on the inside!
science is only fact until proven publicly.
Until then its just theory
Turner, that 3/0 stat was enough to convince me to begin coding this and seeing if dependency is really being forged here or not, inside a non-Random matrix. It's a worthwhile experiment IMO. I never delude myself without testing first. Also, I still plan to test out winkel's GUT sometime based on the rules in the ebook. I am getting faster at coding - and my code is becoming cleaner and more efficient. Good for the environment.
If you doing this to improve your skill in coding, then go for it but this simply wont work.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 10, 06:37 PM 2016In every 9 outcomes of High/Low, including other ECs (or any 2 events) there has to be 3 Highs or 3 Lows forming an arithmetic sequence with equal distance!
In the VdW theory yes, but it wont work in roulette due to the unfair payout. If you had 36 numbers and the payout would be 36:1 it might have worked but you know well that's not the reality.
There's nothing wrong with improving your programming skills but if you aiming for this to work, you are wasting your time.
Best of luck.
Priyanka's theory behind it is that VdW can work because it's Non-Random - nothing to do with unfair payouts - but order out of chaos.
Just find a mechanical system that works most of the time and when you do lose you are still ahead
They exist
About unfair payout odds: that's only one side of the coin. The other side is probability. So for EC:
1) You get paid 1:1
2) You have 50% chance (notwithstanding house edge)
You can't change (1), but you can change (2).
Using Non-Random you can induce dependency between events, which can then lead to bias. So it's possible to push that 50% up to 51%, 52%, or even 60%, when the opportunity arises, based on the established dependency. But with Non-Random I stumbled across something even more remarkable...
A quote by celescliff: " It's starts off as a slow game with small wins and small losses and then boom, out of nowhere, she makes 1-5 high wins before she quits for the day."
Did you know that in some Non-Random situations we have not 60% chance, or even 99% chance - but 100% certainty that something will happen next event? For example, let's say we usually expect a dozen to appear 33% of the time as an independent event. Well, with Non-Random we have ways of frequently arriving at a situation where, say, 2 dozens have to show next 100% of the time and the 3rd dozen has a 0% chance of showing; you get into a situation where one event gets locked out. That's when you bet your house.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 12, 07:27 AM 2016
Just find a mechanical system that works most of the time and when you do lose you are still ahead
They exist
"Most of the time". I agree with you on that RG.
Some people, if it doesn't win everyday, they have no interest in it, damn odd.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 12, 02:52 PM 2016
"Most of the time". I agree with you on that RG.
Some people, if it doesn't win everyday, they have no interest in it, damn odd.
Ken
theres a LOT of methods that win most of the time
and with discipline stopping on a loss, will yield you ahead at the end of the week
those methods are attacked by those that "know better"
grassroots was and still is a decent method....not blind betting, but betting against the roulette wheel spitting out the same fixed pattern every 3 spins.
most days are winners....
just because the math of the method does not beat the house edge (none do unless it is AP) does not mean it is a stupid way to play. thats just the opinion of people
again are we playing to make a living or to make a little profit here and there? or for fun?
i have a 5 DS (30 number) method that I have been testing...wouldnt dare post it...i dont need criticism, i need to do me
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 12, 07:40 AM 20162) You have 50% chance (notwithstanding house edge)
You can't change (1), but you can change (2).
secretly, when no one is looking, put some chewing gum in the zero